I don’t usually write about politics or society, but this issue rises above many other political controversies in its importance to protecting innocent life as well as basic human rights. 1. Gun control will not work. There are hundreds of … Continue reading
America has a unique constitution that was founded on the principle that people have rights; not rights granted to them by a benevolent government but by a Creator God. Our constitution recognizes our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which takes form in the freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms as well as the right to a fair trial and exemption from cruel and unusual punishment, among others.
Of course, since the founding of our great nation, many power-hungry men and women have been attempting to undermine our liberties and our ability to practice our constitutional rights. The last thing tyrants want is for Americans to simply live in peace, providing for, defending, and raising up their own families as they see fit.
The ever-expanding federal government is slowly eroding the unique liberties granted to us by the Constitution of the United States. Whether it’s gun rights, parental rights, religious liberty, or disaster preparedness, we are up against some serious threats to our freedom and our ability to be self-reliant and independent of the government.
Let’s take a look at some of the ways state and federal government are seriously threatening the liberty of American citizens.
Unconstitutional Gun Grabs
In the wake of the Parkland shooting, the gun control zealots are coming out in full force. Relying on highly emotionally-charged rhetoric and false facts and data about the nature of school shootings, gun violence in the US, and various firearm classifications, politicians are bending over backwards to please the hysterical gun control lobby.
One such frightening case of a very serious threat to Second Amendment liberties is a bill that just passed the state senate in Illinois, that, if passed, would make criminals out of 18-20-year old firearm owners.
Breitbart News reported that the bill HB 1465 would “[require] 18-20 year olds to hand over or transfer ownership of heretofore legally possessed “assault weapons”
“After being introduced in the upper house by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), the bill has added seven co-sponsors in the last week,” continued Breitbart News. “Notable among them was Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove), the NRA “A” rated 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.”
“The NRA-ILA described the weapons covered by HB 1465 as ‘commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.’ The bill also requires 18-20-year-olds to forfeit ownership of any magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.
“The guns and magazines remain legal for persons 21 and up, but persons under 21 would have 90 days to give up ownership, should HB 1465 become law.”
The prospect of thousands of gun-owning Americans being forced to turn in their firearms simply for being in a certain age bracket is highly enraging.
The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and to bear arms, and confiscating weapons from law-abiding, gun-owning Americans is a clear violation of this sacred right.
Tiny House Bans
The tiny house phenomon has swept across America over recent years, and for good reason! Tiny houses are sustainable, cheap to build, and a perfect option for those who want to live off-grid or build their own home without the massive overhead of steep home loans.
However, like all good things, the government wants to regulate them.
“Many residents and local officials fear they will drive down property values. Some state and local governments, perplexed about whether to classify tiny houses as RVs, mobile homes or backyard cottages, still refuse to allow them,” writes PBS News.
“Those built on foundations must meet local building and zoning regulations. But many tiny houses are built off-site, sometimes without knowing where they will ultimately rest. That makes it difficult to know which building codes to meet, especially if owners plan to move them from place to place,” they add.
Gone are the days when you could simply scout out a plot of land and build a house with the materials you could find.
Civil Asset Forfeiture
For the most part, the Trump administration has done more to give us back liberty than take it, but it definitely hasn’t been a perfect first year.
Jeff Sessions, Trump’s Attorney General, has made some good policy moves in office, for example he’s been attempting to hold Sanctuary Cities accountable for their gross neglect to detain illegal aliens, but he also brought back an unconstitutional property seizure policy that is blatantly unconstitutional.
In July, 2017 The Washington Post reported:
“The Justice Department announced a new federal policy Wednesday to help state and local police take cash and property from people suspected of a crime, even without a criminal charge, reversing an Obama administration rule prompted by past abuse by police.”
“Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein said the Justice Department will include more safeguards to prevent the kind of problems that have been documented in the past. Police departments will be required to provide details to the Justice Department about probable cause for seizures, and federal officials will have to more quickly inform property owners about their rights and the status of the seizures.”
“The goal here is to empower our police and prosecutors with this important tool that can be used to combat crime, particularly drug abuse,” Rosenstein said at a news briefing. “This is going to enable us to work with local police and our prosecutors to make sure that when assets are lawfully seized that they’re not returned to criminals when there’s a valid basis for them to be forfeited.”
The policy that this move reversed was set in place to prevent police from unlawfully seizing property from people who did not commit a crime, because there has been a history of police abuse of policies that do not require charges to be filed in order for property to be confiscated.
Allowing the police to freely rob you of your property, when you have not even been charged with a crime, is literally legalizing theft.
Think of the implications this has for someone who is simply trying to prepare themselves for disaster–if the local police operate under the mainstream thought crime mentality and charge you with a hate crime for simply saying you disagree with Islam on social media, which is the direction this world is headed, the police could come with a SWAT team and rob you of your preps, weapons, ammo, and not even face consequences.
City Ordinances on Community Gardens
Community gardens are a great way to get entire neighborhoods involved in an age-old practice of self-reliance and sustainability: gardening.
However, many cities across the country have been cracking down on the harmless act of growing and sharing food, as the Homestead Guru reports:
“Community gardens are also labeled a threat of the food industry because of the freedom it provides for low income and impoverished people. One example of a garden being shut down is the South Central Farm that was a community garden located at East 41st and South Alameda Streets and the garden was the largest community garden in the United States.
“The city allowed the farm the be created but sold the property to Ralph Horowitz in a secret deal out from under the citizens, and the new owner attempted to evict the farmers even though the farmers were able to raise the money to buy the land themselves.The selling of the land was corrupted, as it involved many backroom deals but it still ultimately lead to the demise of the peaceful garden.
“There were many protests and acts of civil disobedience for several years before the farm was finally bulldozed in 2006. There have also been many cases from around the country where the city or HOA’s shut down peaceful community gardens and even regular front yard gardens.”
It is completely insane to think of banning someone from simply growing a plant in the ground, but the overall trend of statism seeks to put all power in the hands of the state and remove it from the hands of the people, and this starts with food production.
Delaware’s Insane Restrictions on Parental Rights
The mark of a shift in power from the people and to the state is when the government assumes a position of authority in a child’s life above that of their parents and gives the children the authority to spy on and report their parents.
A law being considered in Delaware would do just this to Delaware public school children by granting them some insane rights at school and allowing school administrators to keep important information about their children private.
In November 2017, The Blaze reported:
“A proposed anti-discrimination policy for Delaware schools has both parents and state legislators up in arms.
“The First State’s proposed gender policy would effectively allow students to change their gender identity in learning institutions at the discretion of educational administrators.
“The policy explicitly provides that educators should consider not consulting or notifying parents of children who wish to change their gender identity, if those parents are not supportive enough of the gender identity change.”
This is nothing short of absolute tyranny. To undercut the authority of parents to such a degree, to perpetuate the lie that a person can change gender at will no less, is chillingly reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, where government agents torture a man until he agrees that 2+2=5.
The gender confusion agenda is one that is being weaponized against parents, not to mention Christians, all across the country. The state has no right to hide something as drastic as a child choosing to identify with the opposite sex from parents or the fact that biological males are being allowed in the girl’s locker room or bathroom.
Parents have rights over their children and a constitutional freedom of association and the state simply cannot undermine that.
Ohio “Fairness” Act
The Ohio Fairness Act is ironically anything but fair, and poses a serious threat to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. Designed to protect the now-privileged class of homosexual and LGBT people, the act instead punishes Christians and anyone those who disagree with the homosexual and LGBT lifestyle.
In Ohio, long considered to be an important swing state in presidential elections, a bill has been introduced into the state’s General Assembly that is nothing more than a bill to give LGBT individuals and organizations privileged rights over everyone else.
HB 160, known as the Ohio Fairness Act is anything but fair. The bill amends many existing pieces of legislation and supposedly establishes fairness in government, business and political campaigns. Hidden within all of legal jargon used to write a piece of legislation, is the following:
“(1) Publish, distribute, or otherwise communicate information that does any of the following:”
“(c) Promotes illegal discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, age, ancestry, national origin, or handicap, age, or ancestry; or sexual orientation or gender identity or expression as those terms are defined in section 4112.01 of the Revised Code;”
That is literally banning free speech and the observance of religion. Our country was founded on the principal that you have a right to say anything you want and openly practice your religion without interference from the government.
The legal precedent that you can be punished for simply communicating your personal feelings on race, religion, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity is a direct violation of the first amendment, and if you think this is only possible in Ohio, think twice. Other states have been considering laws just like or similar to this one, so be vigilant–expressing your personal beliefs may soon be banned in your community as well.
Banning Collection of Natural Resources
Every single prepper needs to be aware of the legal precedent that has been set in this country that bans the collection of vital supplies as basic as rain water.
You’ve probably heard of the outrageous laws in Colorado that ban the collection of rain water, well, what you’ve seen on social media is no exaggeration, as The Washington Post reported in 2015:
Do you live in Colorado? Does it rain on your house? Do the drops patter off the roof, compose romantic puddles on your porch?
Guess what: That water isn’t yours. You can’t have it. And you most certainly cannot set out a tank to catch what falls from the sky, you thief.
Water laws are so strict in Colorado that rainwater collection is virtually prohibited. The doctrine is written into the state’s Constitution. All the rain is already spoken for. It belongs to someone, and that someone probably isn’t you. So don’t you touch it.
Sadly, this isn’t isolated to Colorado, several other states have laws restricting the collection of rainwater, and not just that, but it can often be illegal to generate your own electricity as well.
This is a huge violation of personal liberty as well as a serious concern for anyone focused on prepping or basic self-reliance.
Every single landowner has the right to collect and utilize the rain that falls on their land, and to restrict this is as insane as restricting and regulating the air we breathe.
If the government can ban us from something as simple as allowing rainwater to fill up in a bucket, what other liberties can they take from us? How much oversight can they have in our lives? The open-ended answers to this question are frankly chilling.
Our country was founded on the principle that we all have the right to live our lives as we choose, quietly and unmolested by unnecessary government regulations. Our federal government was supposed to remain small, and yet it has ballooned in size in recent decades, adding thousands of jobs, and with them, people whose positions are justified only by the unnecessary regulation they create.
As long as enforcing the law in this country can be incentivised somehow to a government that is increasingly indebted to private bankers, and as long as there are nefarious forces in our deep state and around the globe who are determined to take this country down from the inside, the attack on our liberty will continue to escalate.
And unfortunately, if that happens, it’s hard to imagine anything good will come of it.
At the end of the day, this is why we prep. The American Dream is an incredible one, but the American experiment may not last forever. We will die either fighting for our liberty, or watching it get stripped away from us.
Whichever side you choose, one thing is vital: prepare yourself and your family now, before prepping is banned completely and our liberties have completely vanished.
New York State’s Democratic Governor is depriving gun owners of their First Amendment rights by canceling insurance policies an NRA lawsuit alleged. The suit claims Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered state regulators to prosecute companies that issued insurance to New York gun owners.
“Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal – to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment,” a complaint filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) on May 11, alleges.
The suit was filed after three companies; Chubb, Lockton Companies and Lloyd’s of London, canceled NRA Carry Guard policies – which cover legal costs for gun owners involved in self-defense shootings. The policies were canceled after the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) investigated and sued the companies.
New York State tried to Force Companies to Stop Doing Business with NRA
“The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign is a series of threats to financial institutions that DFS will exercise its extensive regulatory power against entities that fail to sever ties with the NRA,” the lawsuit complaint charges. “To effect their sweeping agenda; Defendants issued public demands that put DFS-regulated institutions on notice to “discontinue their arrangements with the NRA” and other “gun promotion organisations” if they planned to do business in New York.”
The defendants in the suit include; Cuomo, the DFS, and DFS head Maria T. Vullo. The DFS claimed that the insurers had broken state law by offering the Cover Guard policies.
Bloomberg used State Agency to attack NRA, Lawsuit alleges
Another NRA lawsuit alleged that the DFS investigated the Lockton Companies at the behest of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety, Blomberg reported.
Lockton; which was fined $7 million by the DFS, agreed to cancel 680 Carry Guard policies in a settlement. Lockton violated a contract to offer the policies through 2024, the NRA lawsuit claims. The NRA’s complaint in that suit alleges that the DSF is engaged in “a politically-motivated effort to deprive NRA members of insurance coverage.”
Two other companies that issued Carry-Guard insurance in New York State were targeted and fined by the DFS, news reports indicate. Both of those companies; Lloyd’s of London and Chubb, canceled the policies.
The famous British brokerage Lloyd’s of London ordered syndicates that underwrite policies through its insurance market to stop covering insurance programs associated with the NRA on May 9, Business Insurancereported. Lloyds paid $1.3 million to settle charges brought against it by the DFS.
Illinois Union, a subsidiary of Chubb, paid a $1.3 million fine and cancelled Carry Guard policies issued to New York State residents, Insurance Journalreported. News reports did say whether the NRA plans to sue Chubb or Lloyd’s.
Gun Controllers accuse NRA of selling Murder Insurance
Cuomo and the DFS’s actions might have been motivated by a website called “Stop Murder Insurance.” The website, created by two groups called Color of Change and Guns Down, charges that Carry Guard protects murderers; and specifically mentions Chubb and Lockton, but not Lloyd’s.
Cuomo’s real motivation might have nothing to do with gun control. The governor is facing reelection this fall and needs to mobilize anti-gun Democratic voters. Cuomo and Stop Murder Insurance are trying to mobilize African-American voters by blaming the 2012 Trayvon Martin shootingon the NRA.
The governor needs all the votes he can get, because of a strong Democratic primary challenge from Sex in the Cityactress Cynthia Nixon. Politics it seems is the real threat to gun owners’ First and Second Amendment Rights.
Gun owners had better register and vote this fall, because Democrats are targeting them. Gun owners in other states had better watch out because Democrats are likely to try similar tactics all over the nation.
The post New York Governor Depriving Gun Owners of First Amendment Rights appeared first on Off The Grid News.
Manipulation: If you can’t beat them!
Allen Getz ” Behind The Headlines ” Audio player below!
For the fifth broadcast of Behind the Lines, we will see how society is becoming primed and ready to accept its own destruction. We will begin the episode with a review that centers upon the use of manipulation for the benefit of business and politicians. After this review, we will launch into an investigation into the political origins of those using these tools to establish and impose a new political and social order.
In typical fashion, Montana pretty much skipped spring and dove straight into summer. Summer means time to do some outdoorsy things like shoot, fish, shoot, hike, shoot, hunt, and maybe shoot some more.
Unfortunately, I am busier than I care to be. I’ve three jobs/business concerns going on and an educational obligation that takes time. But I really, really want to just spend an entire day being lazy at the range and shooting rifles.
Midterm elections are coming up and I was discussing them with someone. We both agreed that the notion that the midterm elections will be a weathervane on national mood. I wonder if political polsters and pundits will have learned their lesson from the last election. I am of the opinion that the people in the last election who went to the polls quietly and avoided/lied to pollsters will be out in even larger numbers. My track record for political predictions is pretty awful, but I think the left whines about their ‘resistance’ but isn’t as motivated to actually get out there and vote as the right. We shall see.
I watched Trump’s speech the other day on pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. While watching that, I also watched a monitor showing live market and metals prices. A few twitches here and there but no real big changes. Either no one was surprised by his actions, or no one really thinks it was a bad idea.
This has been an utterly fascinating presidency so far. There are things I don’t like about Trump but it’s hard to disagree that he really does make stuff happen. He’s not my ideal president, but he’s a lot closer to it than that entitled harpie he ran against.
Talking about politics is a guaranteed way for me to get frustrated. Swithcing gears…
You see Hawaii is having a little episode at the moment? Here’s a question that I never knew the answer to until recently. Lets say you own a piece of beachfront property in Hawaii. A flow of lava rolls across your property to the sea. As it rolls into the sea it cools and, bsically, becomes new land. Who owns that land? First person to go file a claim or stick a flag in it? Nope. As it turns out, it belongs to the state. I suppose I should have expected that given Hawaii’s fabulously left-leaning policies.
Volcanoes are fascinating players in disaster planning…while you know where the volcano is sitting, you usually don’t know when it’s going to go off. Oh, sure, there are signs but sometimes they go off like a nuke and no one was really expecting it. The Yellowstone supervolcano is always a topic of conversation and speculation when you talk about this sort of thing. I suppose if there’s a volcano anywhere in the continental US that’s likely to go, it’ll be there.
Other than a full tank of gas and a map showing three alternate routes, I’m not sure how you’d best prepare for a volcano. Staying put is probably out of the question. I suppose splitting up your supplies and being ready to completely abandon your location on a few hours notice is all you can do.
Truth or Spin!
Allen Getz ” Behind The Headlines” Audio player below!
For the fourth broadcast of Behind the Lines, the use of public relations (a. k. a. propaganda) for the purpose of manipulating the masses for business gain receives attention. After a short review of the subject matter of the previous episodes, we will submerge ourselves in how companies perfected the mechanisms of involuntary coercion now used so deftly in the political arena.
An Amish farmer jailed for selling herbs has recently lost his appeal in a case in which he challenged the government’s ability to prosecute him on charges of not cooperating with government officials while he was being investigated for the crime of selling herbal remedies without government permission. My grandfather would have never believed a headline like Amish Farmer Jailed, but times as Bob Dylan said … are a changing.
Girod sold what he described as herbal remedies. He also made the remedies without the governments permission.
He promoted one product named Chickweed Healing Salve saying it may be utilized in treating sore throats, skin ailments, psoriasis, skin cancer, rashes and even poison ivy, according to a court document.
The authorities charged that one of the products Girod sold was a dangerous bloodroot infusion. However, a peer-reviewed study in 2009 suggested bloodroot extracts and infusions have great potential as therapeutic immunomodulators.
A federal court in Missouri barred Girod from operations until he met certain conditions. This included the manufacture and distributing the goods, which allowing the Food and Drug Administration to scrutinize his production facility, according to a court document.
When FDA inspectors did show up in November 2013, Girod and some Amish muscle blocked their entrance.
Girod acted as his own lawyer in the case, fighting with over a dozen charges and asserting since they were “remedies” defined by federal law, that his products weren’t subject to FDA oversight. In addition, he contended that requiring FDA approval infringed on his rights.
Reactions from outside the Federal District Courthouse were angry. Most questioned the actual sentencing of an Amish farmer who simply made and sold some of his herbal products. In a world of catch and release illegal immigrants (many of whom are guilty of murder and rape) the sentencing of a chickweed peddler like Sam Girod seems outrageous.
Jurors rejected his arguments, convicting him on charges that included conspiring to impede the FDA, failing to register his facility with the bureau; threatening a witness to attempt and keep business documents from the grand jury as well as distributing misbranded drugs. (now the remedies are drugs)
The jury ruled that the Girod didn’t have instructions available for use. One of these charges was that he misbranded the goods with the intent to defraud or mislead people.
Girod managed his own appeal, never hearing the saw that he who represents himself in court has a fool for an attorney.
The claims of all Girod were turned off by A three-judge panel of the appeals court.
The panel stated Reeves was right to rule that the products of Girod were drugs under federal law since the decision depends on whether the goods were intended for use.
Girod said the labels weren’t specific because the herbs could be used as a treatments for an assortment of conditions.
The jury found no evidence that Amish farmer was targeted by the government because of his faith to his faith, and the jury instructions were proper, the appeals panel said.
Girod became something of a cause for men and women that became aware of his situation. Over 25,000 have signed a petition asking to have him released from custody.
Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has now admitted that some of the allegations against President Trump could be false.
Comey told Trump that stories about a tape of Trump and prostitutes “could have been made up,” The New York Times reported. That revelation comes from a group of memos made concerning his discussions with the President that were released to the public on April 19.
Trump was willing to meet with Comey to discuss allegations that the Russians had made a blackmail tape of the future president, before the inauguration in 2017. The two discussed the so-called “dossier;” in which British spy turned private investigator, Christopher Steele, made allegations against Trump.
Less than a month later, Comey seems to have changed his mind. A February 2017 memo stated that Comey thought other intelligence agencies had corroborated portions of the dossier. Comey did not say what agencies had confirmed the allegations, or how they had been substantiated.
The Democrats agree that the Dossier is Fake
Strangely enough, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) also thinks the Steele Dossier might be fake or unreliable.
The DNC lawsuit alleging Russian interference in the election does not mention the Steele dossier at all, The Washington Times pointed out. No reference is made to the file in the entire 66-page lawsuit.
Most likely this is because the DNC’s lawyers know it wouldn’t hold up in court.
Leaked Memos Designed To Promote Comey Book?
The leaked memos corroborate and support many of the points Comey made in his recently released book; A Higher Loyalty, the Atlantic magazine pointed out.
Comey’s “leaking” just happened to appear while he was on his new book tour.
The memos conveniently first went public when Comey appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show.
Disturbingly, Maddow herself already had handwritten notes from FBI General Counsel and former Acting Deputy Attorney General, Dana Boente before she interviewed Comey on April 20. Boente’s notes seem to be about some of the meetings between the president and then FBI Director Comey.
Come Made No Effort To Write Memos when Talking To Obama
Comey seemed to have made no effort to create any memos about President Obama public at that time. The memos also indicate that Comey wrote no memos about his conversations and meetings with former President Barrack Obama (D-Illinois) who appointed him FBI Director, ZeroHedge’s Tyler Durden pointed out.
Additionally, Comey made no memos about Obama administration members, such as former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, even though he said that he had serious concerns about her policies, Darden charged. The memos also fail to support a case of obstruction of justice against President Trump or anybody else, Darden claimed. That raises the possibility that the memos were merely a publicity stunt designed to pump up Comey’s book sales.
As good a marketer as Comey has been thus far; my advice would be to abandon any plans to enter the upcoming Rodeo Clown School in Tin Cup, Colorado.
Instead, consider the position of full-time clown on The View.
It seems like we can hardly make it a month without a march for something these days. Are we looking the early stages of a serious unraveling of civil unrest that is in our future? It would seem that people are unhappy about everything. Many people wonder if we could see a return of the …
The post Why the March for Our Lives Might Be a March for the Ages appeared first on SHTF Prepping & Homesteading Central.
Apocalypse News Network
Micheal Kline “Reality Check” Audio player below!
On this show we will be discuss alternate news sources, what they offer, and how to find them. When we hear a story on the nightly news how do we know how much of it is true and how much is a political agenda? We have all heard the term ‘fake news’ and most everyone should know by now that all news agencies across the globe are used for propaganda.
Within weeks, anyone buying a knife online in UK will be banned from having it sent to a residential address, under a government crackdown following a surge in street stabbings.
Of course blaming knives is easier than blaming the woolly mammoth in the room: police budget cuts, closing of police stations and less officers on the streets… which by the way aren’t even armed.
So, bad news for our friends over in UK, no more buying knives online and having them delivered to your home. As we all know, buying online is the best way to not only get good prices, but good products as well. Being stuck to whatever happens to be available in the closest brick and mortar store sounds downright depressing. You rarely find anything better than overpriced cheaply made in China junk. And when you find something made by a good manufacturer, the prices are easily double or triple what you would pay online.
They are also updating the definition of a flick knife to “reflect changing weapon designs”. Who knows what they mean by this. Ban one-hand-open folders, assisted opening folders?
Also, there’s a complete ban on “Zombie” knives, making possessing them illegal everywhere, even if you just bought it and plan to keep it in your home.
Now this has to be, by far, the most ridiculous piece of legislation I’ve ever come across. And that’s coming from someone that spent most of his life in Argentina, so yes, it’s that terrible.
In over 30 years of collecting, using and studying knives, reading books about knives, writing a fair bit about them and honestly enjoying the hobby I’ve never come across a “Zombie” knife. You know why? Because such a blade design simply does not exist. There’s bowie knives (lets not open that can of worms as of what IS a Bowie knife) there’s machetes, there’s folding knives of all sorts, karambits, but zombie knife is a completely fabricated term.
But what do they mean by “zombie knife?
Well, here’s the closest thing to a description I could come across:
“Also called “zombie killer” knives, they are ornate blades sometimes printed with skulls or toxic-warning symbols inspired by horror films. The ban specifies a zombie knife has a cutting edge, a serrated edge and “images or words that suggest it is to be used for the purpose of violence”.
So it’s a knife with a cutting edge (that’s all knives, ever) …. A serrated age (that’s also, like every knife in every kitchen of this planet) and/or some silly drawing (and that’s just stupid).
And here’s a pic of some “zombie knives”
Confused? Of course! There’s no such thing as “zombie knives”.
There’s a $3 axe, some cheap throwing knives, some larger knife and a cheap generic folder. All rather cheap looking I must say. They all just happen to have “toxic green” colour somewhere. So they are keeping people safe by banning knives that have bright green fluorescent colours then. Got it. I wonder how much they paid the “knife expert” they consulted with to come to such a bright decision.
Here’s the official press release.
Well done boys! That will stop criminals from buying better made large 12″ chef knives,used in slasher horror movies and sold in literally every supermarket across UK… right? No?
Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”
KING OF THE WORLD!!
James Walton “I Am Liberty” Audio player below!
Did you ever wonder what it would be like to control the game board of life? What would you do if you ad the power to make or remake the rules. We see the aggressive, regressive and radical left wing pushing towards these types of goals. They literally want to flip the game board over or maybe even set the whole thing on fire!
You may not even be aware of this but your kids could be participating in a nationwide protest. All over the nation on March the 14th kids will be marched out of their schools at various times to protest gun violence. Most parents have not been alerted and worst of all, many schools are giving …
After the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, liberal talking heads immediately launched into yet another attack on our Second Amendment rights. As has also become commonplace after mass shootings, mental health was also infused into the discussion with a flurry of possible bills proposed in the wake of the massacre.
We gun owners are used to the illogical knee-jerk reactions of the anti-gun crowd after mass shootings. We have also grown frustratingly accustomed to the eagerness of liberals to put the blame on the guns, and not squarely where is belongs – on the person who held the weapon and squeezed the trigger.
Blaming the gun used in any mass shooting will not stop future mass shootings. I can stare at our gun safe 24/7, waiting for the moment one of our firearms jumps off its rack and launches into a bloody killing spree. It’s just not going to happen…ever.
Doing something, anything, to stop gun violence can prompt some pretty scary laws – ones that have consequences those who rush to support them, do not take even a few seconds to ponder. If making a law would ensure the prevention, or even logical curtailing or a specific crime, there would no longer be murder, rape, drug dealing, or drunk driving arrests in the United States of America.
If most DUIs occurred by people driving a Dodge Charger, banning the vehicle from ever again being manufactured in America would still not stop drunk driving accidents. No politician would ever propose such a ludicrous idea in the first place.
It has been incredibly easy for liberal politicians and the media to blame the gun and not the actual evil person behind mass shootings. It reinforces their anti-gun agenda, makes it appear like they are taking action to protect the children and the public at large, and pretends to offer a quick fix to an extremely complicated problem.
Taking a long hard look at the American family and admitting that the lack of a father in the home, parents who act like besties and not real parents, disengaged parents of overly scheduled and highly pampered children, would be far too in-depth, complicated, and uncomfortable of a subject to delve into. Banning guns and calling for weapons to be removed from mentally ill or disabled people, is a much easier concept to sell to those folks who think a “gun free zone” sign will protect them.
Discussing the crumbling of our society and culture is cultivating mass shooters would lead to monstrously politically incorrect language and could of course cost liberal politicians some votes. There are more people killed in a month of weekends in Chicago than any single mass shooting that has happened in America. But, they don’t want to talk about that, not really.
The few that are pushed to answer questions about the lack of attention being paid to inner city gun violence in Chicago (and similar cities) blame it on lax gun laws in surrounding areas where they think the street punks in the Illinois city are going to get their guns. The blood in the streets doesn’t at all mean stringent gun laws don’t work, it only means such laws must be mirrored everywhere to have an impact.
Since there are so few real journalists left in the mainstream media, the logical follow up question is never asked. If the lax gun laws in other parts of Cook County are to blame, why aren’t double digit weekend shootings occurring there, as well?
Liberal’s false narrative on urban criminals…
Liberals are also fond of claiming it is not the fault of the youthful urban largely minority criminals that they got caught up in violent gangs – it is the lack of good schools and jobs that provoked them. Once again, they are pushing a false narrative. If living in an impoverished area where jobs are scarce and the schools are poorly funded, why aren’t the sidewalks in most rural areas also dripping with blood each weekend?
Kids growing up in rural areas probably have more access to legally purchased guns than Chicago youth do illegal guns, yet folks around here rarely ever bother to lock their doors at night and have no fear of getting hit by a stray drive by bullet.
If tough gun laws are the answer, why weren’t the mass shootings were have experienced in recent history also occurring during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when far, far fewer gun laws existed?
The fact even the mainstream media is finally considering the mental health of mass shooters as the motivation behind gun mass shootings and not simply a particular weapon is a good thing, but only to a certain degree. Unless Second Amendment rights supporters keep a close eye on ALL proposed mental health gun laws, we all could one day soon hear a knock at the door by government agents coming to take our firearms.
No sane person would want a mentally ill person to have a firearm – or any other type of weapon. But, do we really want liberals, or the government in general to be in charge of determining mental fitness?
After the Parkland, Florida shooting, the mainstream media, CNN in particular, staunchly lambasted Republican lawmakers who supported overturning Barack Obama’s rule that yanked away Second Amendment rights from the disabled. Low-information voters thought the conservatives were gun-clinging monsters because Americans with disabilities who, according to the then liberal White House, no longer possessed the mental capacity to own a firearm.
There was a strict and lengthy process to determine what Americans with disabilities lost their gun rights, a formal hearing would be held and an avenue for appeal if guns were ordered to be removed. Nope, nothing of the kind was slated to occur under the supposed “common sense” mental health gun law.
Any law-abiding American gun owner who received a disability check and had a representative payee, was subject to it – without legal recourse. The government’s theory was a person surely had to be not only possibly physically, but mentally incapacitated if another adult was designed as the person who cashed their checks and take care of their banking.
If a rural grandma decided to give such authority to an adult child or grandchild so she didn’t have to drive 30 miles to the bank, she would have been forced to give up the shotgun she kept in the house to protect herself.
If a man with vision problems opted to go the same route because he no longer drove, he too would no longer have the right to protect himself from a home invader.
An urban elderly person who uses a walker and lives in a dangerous neighborhood would have had to choose between keeping a handgun they had a permit to carry and allowing a loved on to be their representative payee.
The mystery of the “mentally ill”…
Exactly what type of medication a person was taking or condition they were suffering from that would disqualify them under the mental health gun law, still remains largely shrouded in mystery.
That was then, this is now..and the mental health gun control laws coming down the pike could be even more arbitrary and contain only foggy details about firearms disqualifying conditions.
The mental health gun control laws being bantered about could impact your minor children, as well. One day soon all of the 8,389,034 kids forced to take psychiatric drugs by their doctors and/or parents, will become adults. Any of those children who want to purchase a gun, may likely not be able to due to their past history of treatment for a mental health or behavior issue – or supposed issue.
The number of children, particularly boys, being fed drugs to combat ADD or ADHD now numbers into the millions and has grown every year for the past decade.
• There are approximately 1,080,168 age five and below who are now taking psychiatric drugs.
• About 274,804 age one and younger, are prescribed psychiatric drugs in the United States.
• Around 4,130,340 children are taking the same mental health medications on a daily basis in America.
• Approximately 3,617,593 teenagers between 13 and 17 years old, the average age range of school mass shooters are consuming psychiatric drugs.
• Around 4,404,360 of the American children are taking strong prescription medications because a doctor thinks they have ADHD. Have you ever seen the test for an ADD or ADHD diagnosis? Is is a completely subjective set of questions a doctor, parents, and a teacher answers to determine if their behavior falls within currently accepted norms – that’s it. Around 1,500 of the children on ADHD drugs are still wearing diapers when the medicine is prescribed.
• Approximately 2,165,279 children who are less than one year old to 17, are taking antidepressant medications.
• Another 830,836 or so American toddlers, children, and teenagers are prescribed anti-psychotic medications.
• About 2,132,625 minors are prescribed medications for anxiety issues.
When television and government supposed experts talk about the drug problem and gun violence problems in America, they should first be talking about the impact of long-term psychiatric prescription drug on children who grow up popping a pill every day in this country.
The reasons behind the monumental increase in which psychotropic pharmaceuticals are being prescribed to children, the same type of drugs many mass shooters and terrorists were on when they created mass carnage, remains largely unaddressed – even though it desperately needs to be.
Liberals want to make the NRA and by extension, all Second Amendment supporters the big bad guys.
They go on, and on, and on each night on the news talking about the deep pockets of the NRA and all the power their political contributions bring them.
One of the many actual facts the liberal commentators fail to mention, is how the NRA political contributions pale in comparison to the deep pockets of Big Pharma. Over the course of the last decade, the NRA lobbying budget was $20 million. That is truly a lot of money, but Big Pharma, the makers of all the drugs being forced upon innocent children, had a lobbying budget or $2.5 BILLION.
No, they don’t want to talk about that. Why children are being prescribed some of the most serious drugs on the market even before they are old enough to write their own names – and the impact those drugs and have on their still-forming brains, does not fit their gun-grabbing narrative at all.
Liberals want us to believe the same type of governmental agencies that failed to revoke Nikolas Cruz’s gun rights after being alerted to his dangerous, threatening, and sometimes illegal behavior BEFORE he opened fire inside a school, is diligent and dedicated enough to determine who among us is mentally ill and isn’t fit to own a gun?! I think not.
None, exactly 0% of the suggested gun violence bills currently being debated and passed, would have stopped Cruz from legally getting a gun – not even some of the mental health guidelines that are finite and reasonable, if the law enforcement agents tasked do not share and act upon the information.
I fully respect our local heroes, they risk their lives protecting our communities for very little pay each and every day. But, in the case of the Parkland, Florida school shooting, members of law enforcement agencies where complaints about the shooter were lodged, including the school, did not do their jobs…and children died because of it.
Veterans who have sought treatment for stress, anxiety, PTSD, or similar issues have lost their Second Amendment rights because they went to a doctor for help and in most cases, been prescribed the same type of medications being given to our children.
A VA staffer sitting in an office somewhere can take one quick look at a veteran’s file and deem the man or woman too “mentally defective” to own a gun. Thousands of veterans are still fighting to retain the right to protect themselves at home after protecting us abroad.
We have already seen how badly such a blanket policy controlled by government hands has played out with the “No Fly List.” Liberals love to talk about this list too, when touting their latest “comprehensive” gun control legislation.
The “No Fly List” Analogy
The left loves to say a person can be placed on the No Fly List because they pose a national security threat, but can still buy a gun. While this makes it seem like a new gun law or enhanced background check is necessary, the liberals uttering such dogma have gotten very creative with their carefully selected set of “facts.”
The parameters for the No Fly List were so broad and subjective, some powerful public officials and agency administrators even found their names on the dreaded list. Ted Kennedy was stopped an interrogated to prove he was not the “T. Kennedy” on the No Fly List, Cat Stevens was temporarily refused entry back to the United States after his new last name, “Islam” landed him on the list, two CNN reporters and even a toddler, just to name a few, have found themselves onto the terror watch list.
Getting off the list can often involve a lengthy and expensive legal process. Only about 1,000 or so people on the 80,000 plus person fly list, are even Americans already in our country.
There is a massively huge difference between mental health patients with serious problems and a person taking some type of medication for a small or temporary issue – like anti-stress medication after the loss of a loved one.
I am very afraid all of the recently proposed laws will not only difference, but in the rush to “do something” will deter people from seeking out the help they need.
Liberals are now demanding that doctors be permitted to ask patients if they own a gun or one is present in their home. Such privacy intruding questions are not permitted everywhere.
If a doctor feels a patient if depressed, anxious, or is experiencing other similar emotions, the physician would be entitled (perhaps compelled) to report the gun-owning patient to the local authorities.
I am the first to admit I do not understand the inner-workings of a liberal mind, but what do they even hope to accomplish if every doctor becomes required to ask if a patient owns a gun?
Lying to a police officer can get your arrested, but there is at least currently no law against lying to your doctor. People lie to their doctor all the time: “How often do you consume alcohol, how often do you exercise, how much do you smoke…” probably spark the most frequent lies to doctors.
The fight to safeguard our Second Amendment rights is not one of leaps and bounds, but one of inches. We have to remain vigilant and read every single word in bills proposed both in our own respective states and federally.
Do not let innocuous sounding bills fool you into thinking the new rules they contain will not chip away at our right to keep and bare arms. Let us never allow our the United States of America to become like the former Soviet Union and use “mental illness” designations to garner control over the right to free speech, political dissent, or our Second Amendment rights.
by Derrick Krane
I have seen 10 US presidencies in my lifetime, and have never seen an American president subjected to such hatred and vitriol as the current holder of the office. People have made threats, wished death upon President Trump, have wished rape upon his wife, Melania, portrayed him decapitated, and blamed him for all that is wrong, without recognizing any of his accomplishments.
This is mostly due to the liberal media distortions and the gullible, naïve, Kool-Aid guzzling, extreme left lemmings. This is so frightening how so many people have stopped thinking critically, believe whatever they are told by left leaning news outlets and liberal celebrities and educators, and are so easily led.
During the 2016 Presidential campaign, I kept an eye on both the Republican and Democratic candidates. I heard the numerous media reports stating that Donald Trump was crazy, he was a clown, he wasn’t serious, he was running as a publicity stunt, and he would never get close to the oval office.
But as he ascended and left other Republican candidates behind, I did something that not enough Americans did during this last election. I listened to what he had to say, instead of what the media reported he was saying, out of context and through the distorted lens of liberalism. I watched some of his rallies. He did not sound like he was crazy, or a clown.
We have numerous pressing domestic and foreign issues that are challenging and threatening our nation. Do the American people need substance or form? We need a strong leader to deal with these issues effectively. He was saying thing that made sense and that resonated with me.
Yes, during his campaign, he said a few things that were a little out there, he was boisterous, crude, and rough around the edges, but so what? He is a real man; an Alpha-male.
He was not bowing to political correctness, which has permeated and infected western civilization like the disease that it is, or acting like a weakling beta-boy. He spoke decisively, and had sound ideas to dig America out of the pit that ex-president Barrack Hussein Obama had put us in during his presidency, which is what he has been doing his first year in office.
Here I want to focus on what President Trump has accomplished in major foreign and domestic issues in 2017.
Immigration and crime
We have a problem in this country with illegal aliens collecting public assistance from programs with limited resources, which are intended for down and out Americans.
Criminal illegal aliens come here and commit heinous crimes. They are deported and return over and over. We no longer need immigrants, rather immigrants need us. The last thing we need are freeloaders and criminals who contribute nothing to society and only take. Under the Trump administration, things are changing. Fewer illegals are trying to enter the US, showing that enabling law enforcement to do their jobs is working.
The number of people caught trying to illegally enter from Mexico is at the lowest level since 1972. U.S. Border Patrol and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) made 310,531 arrests, down 24 percent from 2016, and the lowest since 1971.
An executive order signed within days of President Trump taking office “waived, deferred, or delayed” the punitive fine (Fox News, 2017) that was imposed for those who were unable to afford the ridiculously high monthly payments from the Health Care Exchange, but made too much money to qualify for Medicaid state insurance.
Some people even received a refund for the fines imposed in previous tax years. The effort to get rid of the disastrous Obamacare program is still ongoing, and will hopefully be resolved in 2018.
As an educator, I see the end results of inadequate public education in college students who are woefully unprepared for college, and lacking in essential, fundamental academic skills. There are wasteful programs in place at the federal level which do nothing to prepare students.
Trump wants to cut the Department of Education’s budget by $9.2 billion, from $68.3 billion to $59.1 billion. 63% of this reduction is from eliminating programs that are redundant or ineffective.
The US economy is thriving and growing stronger under President Trump. The stock market has been soaring, and unemployment is down, with more jobs being moved to, or kept in the US. Consumer confidence hit a 17-year high, labor costs are decreased, and productivity and retail sales are increased.
The national deficit is also being addressed by curtailing wasteful and redundant government spending. The Trump administration withdrew or delayed 1,500 proposed regulations, resulting in a savings of $8.1 billion in 2018, and will save another $9.8 billion in 2018 (Binion, 2018).
- ISIS’s has been defeated and driven from Iraq; Trump has clearly stated the US is committed to Afghanistan long term to help develop and maintain stability, and prevent the formation of other radical Islamic extremist groups such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or ISIS.
- Trump responded decisively against the use of chemical warfare in Syria by the government of Bashar al-Assad. On April 4, 2017, the Syrian regime used the nerve toxin Sarin against civilians in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, which killed over 80 people. Trump called the attack an “affront to humanity” that “crossed a lot of lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies … that crosses many, many lines — beyond a red line”. Two days after the Sarin attack, US warships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield. This sent a clear message that the use of barbaric chemical weapons would not be tolerated.
- North Korea is being contained. While many have been critical of President Trump’s provocative words toward Kim Jong-Un, (Vital and Allen, 2017), another clear message is being sent: we do not fear North Korea, and any attack on the US or its possessions would be a suicidal move by Jong-Un.
- President Trump has a warm relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and had renewed out commitment to our most important middle eastern ally, with whom we also share many cultural links. In December 2017, Trump announced that the US officially recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. There was abundant international criticism, and the UN condemned the measure. Nikki Haley, our ambassador to the UN noted which countries voted for their condemnation, and in keeping with the America First policy of the Trump administration, foreign aid to these nations is being considered for cutting or elimination.
It is human nature for the strong to dominate the weak. Go to any correctional facility or middle school to see this theory in action. Better still, look at the history of the world. Whether an individual or a nation, those who are weak are at the mercy of their enemies.
Only the threat of retaliation and a position of resolute strength, and the ability to enforce it stays the hand of our enemies. To this end, President Donald Trump has assigned The Fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which authorized $700 billion for the Defense Department (Bushatz, 2018). The Trump administration is also supporting the ongoing development of a ballistic missile interceptor system (The White House, 2018).
The Second Amendment.
This has become an area of contention recently. Initially President Trump showed strong support of the Second Amendment and gun owners. It appears he has bent to pressure from the gun control crowd following the latest school shooting by a deranged individual.
However, if the media distortions are sifted through, this is about better enforcement existing laws for background checks and the purchase of firearms, and a ban on bump stocks, which in effect make a semi-automatic rifle fire in fully automatic mode. Even the NRA supports regulation of bump stocks.
More controversial are Presidents Trump’s asking an increase in the age to purchase firearms from 18 to 21, and Trump’s statements regarding what he referred to as excessive “checks and balances” that limit what can be done to keep guns out of the hands of those that are psychologically unfit to handle them responsibly. T
ake the firearms first, and then go to court,” Trump said “You could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.” (Gearan, DeBonis, and Min Kim, 2018). Circumventing due process for any reason is alarming.
Donald Trump’s presence in the White house is making America stronger than it has been in the past eight years. Our economy is growing, our military is stronger, damaged relationships with our allies are being repaired, our enemies are receiving unequivocal messages that they need to choose their actions with care, illegal immigration is being dealt with, economic burdens are being eased, and conservatives are becoming bolder at being able to speak out against the toxic insanity of political correctness.
He is a flawed human being, as are all of us. I do not blindly follow, or agree with his every word and policy. The very right to engage in informed criticism of our leaders is an essential part of the system of checks and balances, which make a free society. Only in the worst of totalitarian dictatorships does the populace march in lockstep, not daring to question or challenge their leaders. But the hate coming from the supposedly tolerant left is difficult for me to understand.
I realize most of my readers will be conservatives. I hope that some from other parts of the political spectrum have also exposed themselves to some alternatives to the liberal echo chamber, and will think critically, rather than accepting what they are fed without question.
In the wake of the Parkland, FL shooting, the gun control debate is once again raging in our country. People who know next-to-nothing about guns or gun laws are demanding vague “gun control” measures be taken to prevent another shooting while ignoring the many laws that were in place that should have stopped the Parkland shooting.
Whenever gun control discussions rear their ugly head in our national conversation, gun-grabbing zealots on the left bring up Australia as an example.
In 2015, following the shooting at a community college in Oregon, Obama remarked publicly that he looked to countries like the UK and Australia for their laws that supposedly eliminated mass shootings:
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” he said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
Over the last week, the mainstream media, who has been pushing the gun control narrative since before the bodies were even cleared from Marjory Stoneman High School in Parkland, Florida, has been praising Australia for another mass round-up of civilian-owned firearms and not-so-subtly suggesting that the United States should consider the same measure.
Although liberals have been looking to Australia’s restrictive gun laws as a beacon of hope in the war against gun violence, gun-rights activists in the US and even the UK and Australia say that not only would mirroring Australia’s gun laws be a poor choice for the US, they haven’t even worked to reduce murder in Australia to begin with.
Now more than ever, it is important to debunk the notion that Australia’s gun laws have been anything but ineffective towards deterring crime and were the US to imitate their policy, it would be disastrous.
To start with, it is important to consider what President Obama was implying by the suggestion that the US might model Australia’s gun laws. In Australia, the government didn’t simply tighten restriction on purchasing and owning firearms, they actually rounded up and confiscated weapons.
While it is most commonly understood that, in 1998, Australia implemented several new gun control measures including a highly successful gun buyback program, what most mainstream media outlets won’t tell you is that this included widespread gun confiscation.
“The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation,” says Varad Mehta of the Federalist, noting the lack of mention to this simple fact in mainstream media outlets calling for similar gun control measures in the United States.
Mehta notes that while many politicians call for Australian-style gun control, what it would take to actually implement this kind of confiscation in the United States would be incredibly dramatic: “New York and Connecticut authorities so far have shown no inclination to enforce their laws by going door to door to round up unregistered guns and arrest their owners.
But that’s what would be necessary to enforce the law. A federal law, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.”
To think that gun confiscation would work in the United States is both highly ignorant and also borderline psychotic. Is the American government really going to pry hundreds of millions of firearms out of hundreds of millions of cold, dead hands?
In a country like ours where the right to bear arms is not only deeply embedded in our national zeitgeist, it is a cornerstone in the foundation of our unique American liberties. We also happen to have hundreds of million gun owners.
Gun-control fanatics like to suggest, as you’re hearing constantly from the media right now as the character and morality of every gun owner in this nation is being questioned by a sickeningly biased media, is that we all know deep down we can stop gun violence but Americans simply love their guns too much. They also love to attribute the moral high ground in this regard to countries like Australia and the UK.
The problem is, as National Review contributor Charles Cooke pointed out following Obama’s 2015 comments, assuming that national gun confiscation would look anything like it did in Australia in 1998 would be an idiotic and fatal mistake:
“Contrary to the president’s implications, Britain and Australia are not “countries like ours” when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms; they are completely, utterly, extraordinarily different,” Cooke wrote. “When the British government banned handguns in 1997, there were fewer than half a million in circulation. Because there was almost no opposition, they were quickly collected up without fuss. Likewise, after the Australian government pushed through its ban in 1998, federal officials easily confiscated around 650,000 guns — between one third and one quarter of the total.”
Cooke continues: “At present, there are around 350 million guns in circulation in the United States — more than one for every person living here — and the American people enjoy constitutional protection of their right to keep and bear them. If the American government did what Australia did in 1998, they would bring in about 100 million guns but leave between 200 to 250 million on the streets (about as many as there were in total in 1994). This, obviously would be rather pointless. More important, perhaps, such a move would lead to massive unrest, widespread civil disobedience, and possibly even a war.”
This is truer still today, as the nation’s hundreds of millions of gun owners have no interest in turning in their guns and large swathes of Middle America are tight knit communities that are armed to the teeth, while the people who want to take all the guns typically have none (other than the government, of course.)
Gun-control zealots who know nothing about firearms have absolutely no idea how much more gun violence there would be were you try to take weapons from millions of people who know darn well they have a God-given, natural right to bear them.
In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, Australian writer A. Odysseus Patrick explained that what made such extreme gun measures possible in Australia is they simply don’t have the deeply embedded cultural regard for the importance of bearing firearms. “We Australians have a profoundly different relationship with weapons,” he says. “Americans love guns. We’re scared of them.”
He continues to explain that Australians have no concept of firearms as an important part of their national identity, and I will note that they also clearly have no concept of firearms as an important part of national liberty, either.
Mehta shares Patrick’s views, noting “The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.”
This explains why so many Australians adapt an attitude of scorn towards America’s love-affair with guns; they simply never had to fight for their own independence they way America did. Americans fought, bleed, and died, using firearms, for our liberty from the crown; Aussies still have Her Majesty on their money. We understand how important it is to maintain freedom from tyranny to have an armed populace; Australians are perfectly comfortable giving their security over to the government.
This just stands to further underscore how important the Second Amendment is to securing our liberty. Without a national identity of self-reliance and self-defense, Australians gladly gave up their rights to self-defense without much of a fight. If you were to try to take this right from Americans, it would get bloody.
Regardless of this grim prospect, even if Americans were happily willing to part with their Second Amendment rights and lawfully turned in their weapons the way Australians did, there is the glaring problem with Australian gun control that it didn’t actually work.
As the Daily Wire points out, multiple studies have indicated the gun control measures taken in Australia made an insignificant impact on crime:
A 2007 British Journal of Criminology study and a 2008 University of Melbourne study concluded that Australia’s temporary gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings.
“Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback,” wrote Lott. “It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback.”
“Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts,” Lott continued. “In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn’t follow the change in gun ownership – there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased.”
The 2007 study found the same trend, as National Review’s Mark Antonio Wright notes:
The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre. And while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”
This pattern is also mirrored in suicide rates, which is significant because in the United States currently, suicide accounts for the most gun deaths annually. “While [studies] show a steady decline in gun-related suicides, the reduction occurred at the same time as an overall reduction in the Australian suicide rate. What’s more, firearm-related suicides had been declining in Australia for nearly ten years before the 1996 restrictions on gun ownership,” Wright points out.
“Moreover, a look at other developed countries with very strict gun-control laws (such as Japan and South Korea) shows that the lack of guns does not lead to a reduced suicide rate. Unfortunately, people who want to kill themselves often find a way to do so — guns or no guns,” he adds.
Not only is the suggestion that the United States emulate the 1998 gun grabbing measures of Australia insanely stupid, it’s just plain insane. Not only would such measures be bloody and violent, they fundamentally undermine everything it means to be an American.
Liberals love the unique liberties and the founding philosophy of our country, but they have lost sight of the spirit that secured it for them in 1776. Our country was founded on the principle that no one but God need recognize the natural rights we have to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If we fail to acknowledge that the right to life includes the right to defend our lives would strike at the very core of our American liberty.
We shouldn’t try to be like Australia in any way because we are not Australia. We are the United States, the greatest and most unique country in existence. The right to bear arms is one of the most important pillars this vision of liberty stands on.
Let Australia worry about their own guns–in America, we will defend our right to bear our guns if it kills us.
Does America really want to go down that path?
South African president Cyril Ramaphosa
You don’t see this all over the news but you should. It is happening and it’s very dangerous that in this day and age something like this is not only widespread practice in an entire country, spearheaded by South Africa’s president, but also not strongly condemned by every other nation in the world.
‘The time for reconciliation is over’: South Africa votes to confiscate white-owned land without compensation
The motion was brought by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Marxist opposition party the Economic Freedom Fighters, and passed overwhelmingly by 241 votes to 83 against. The only parties who did not support the motion were the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, Cope and the African Christian Democratic Party.
Malema said “The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice,”, “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.” http://www.news.com.au/
South Africa votes to seize land from white farmers without compensation
‘We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land’
South Africa‘s parliament has passed a motion to seize land from white farmers without paying them compensation.
Passed by an overwhelming majority of 241 votes to 83 votes against, the proposal to amend Section 25 of the constitution would allow expropriation of land without any financial recompense.
It was put forward by the radical left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, whose leader Julius Malema told the country’s parliament: “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”
As for the news source, this is The Independent, if anything a rather liberal, left wing yet reputable news outlet.
We have been posting here about the various problems South Africa has been going through over the years. This seems like a breaking point of not only racial segregation but an openly apartheid State against non-black people.
It seems that every day we see world event some of us believed ended in the middle ages.
There are interesting times to say the least.
Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”
On first glance, it may seem easy to believe that the transgender movement is about freedom. We live in America, right? And in America, people should be free to live and express themselves as they please. If someone wants to live their lives as the opposite sex, so be it.
But anything longer than a first glance to any American, will show the agenda goes far, far beyond this. Even proponents of the transgender agenda hardly stop at freedom and generally whiz right on by to acceptance, tolerance, respect. They don’t really want freedom from transgender individuals. They want the rest of the world to believe exactly as they do.
The trouble is, exactly what the avid proponents of transgenderism believe is that humans can traverse gender as they choose or feel. This is, of course, when it gets down to it, patently false.
With the exception of a very miniscule portion of the population who experience a physical deformity called hermaphroditism, pretty much every human on earth has a gender which is determined by their genes from very early infancy in the womb (and yes, babies in the womb are also human, but that’s another topic for another day).
Gender is not fluid, and when a person has plastic surgery, takes hormone-blocking drugs, and wears the typical attire of the opposite sex, they do not, at any point in time, become the opposite sex, unless we are all in agreement that we are pretending.
The scary thing about the transgender agenda lately is that they don’t seem to be pretending. They seem to genuinely believe that gender is malleable, and, even worse, that anyone who disagrees is a hateful bigot. Us hateful bigots are quickly being pushed to the outskirts of society as the delusion takes hold of our whole country.
The National Delusion
Take the very recent example of an elementary school principal in Massachusetts who decided that he wanted to live as a woman. He wrote a letter to the parents of his young students, explaining that his gender confusion had haunted him his whole life, and that he was now publicly announcing his transgenderism and would slowly, in front of the young children over whom he was responsible, be transitioning to live as a woman.
That’s pretty crazy, for sure, but we’re getting used to this by now.
What’s really insane, is how the press wrote about this man.
The Principal’s name is Tom Daniels, who will now be using the name “Shannon.”
This person who would like to be called Shannon Daniels, like, last week, when he claimed he was a she. He’s a man. He looks like a man, talks like a man, walks like a man, and clearly is a man.
But because he woke up one day and decided to announce to his K-6th grade students that he was a she, despite the fact that every sensible bone in your body will tell you he is most definitely a he, we’re calling him “she” now.
And by “we”, I mean the mainstream media. This is a quote from a USA Today article on the Principal’s decision to come out as transgender, which is titled Massachusetts elementary school principal announces she is transgender:
A Massachusetts elementary school principal has announced that she is transgender, telling her school community in a letter she has “never felt completely happy or at peace.”
Shannon Daniels, previously known as Tom, is the principal at the Stanley Elementary School in Swampscott, a prosperous town northeast of Boston.
“I got to the point that I thought I would never be able to reveal my true self,” she said in the letter. “Frankly, the prospect of doing so was terrifying. … That has changed.”
In the letter, 52-year-old Daniels, who transitioned from her gender assigned at birth (male), said she identifies as both male and female. She now plans to present herself as female and use her middle name, Shannon, as her first name.
“Transitioned from her gender assigned at birth (male)”?! Gender isn’t assigned at birth, it’s clearly apparent in the physical features of the baby. This observation would be easily backed up by a quick glance at the chromosome of any one of the baby’s cells. He wasn’t “assigned” the gender of male, he is a male.
There is a book that is often used as a benchmark for what tyranny looks like. It is 1984 by George Orwell, and ever since it was first published in 1948, it has constantly been referenced to indicate when society is dangerously flirting with the type of totalitarian mind control exhibited in the oppressive fictional government of Orwell’s imaginings.
One of the most notable themes of the book is the patriotic language that Big Brother’s government of Oceania uses to describe their war efforts abroad. At one point, their military alliance with Eastasia dissolves and they go to war with them instead.
However, the announcement comes as if it has always been fact, and they subsequently rewrite history accordingly, announcing to their citizens through the ubiquitous telescreens and propaganda that “Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
Principal Daniels is a woman. She has always been a woman.
This is not an isolated incident. Slowly, over the past decade, the transgender agenda, supported enthusiastically by the leftist media and even the enthusiastic defenders of political correctness in Washington, have changed our national conversation about transgenderism so that any language that falls outside of their carefully constructed delusion is considered “thought crime”, which was a heinous offence in Oceana.
It’s not enough that we treat transgender people with respect and try to work together as a nation to address their trials and challenges with compassion. No, that’s not what they want. They want us all to pretend their delusion is reality.
This is, at its core, tyranny, and it sets a terrifying precedence for those who choose to speak truth that transgenderism is a mental illness and ought to, for the sake of the people afflicted with it most of all, be treated as such.
Writer Stella Morabito of The Federalist agrees, and wrote back in 2014 that: “The transgender movement has strong totalitarian overtones that Americans (especially certain senators) don’t fully understand. How else to describe a crusade with such far-reaching consequences for First Amendment rights?”
“The legal destruction of gender distinctions will inevitably dissolve family autonomy, thereby uprooting freedom of association. Free expression becomes “hate speech” if one doesn’t fall into line with the directives of the transgender lobby or its pronoun protocol. Freedom of religion takes a direct hit any way you look at it.”
The transgender agenda strikes at the core of the invaluable liberty we enjoy in this great nation, and it is vitally important that we recognize it as such before it is too late.
Thinkpol – The Thought Police of America
One of the most chilling features of the novel 1984 is the concept of “thoughtcrime” which is enforced by “thinkpol”, or, literally, the thought police. In our own little version of Oceania here in the US, laws are being formed to literally ban acknowledging the reality of one’s gender.
In California, a bill was passed in October which dictated that caretakers of elderly people who did not use their “preferred pronoun” would face fines and even jail time.
Fox News reported:
Among the unlawful actions are “willfully and repeatedly” failing to use a transgender person’s “preferred name or pronouns” after he or she is “clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.”
The law states that if provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both.
Morabito describes a bill, Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that passed in 2014 that on the surface appears to be a simple non-discrimination bill for employers, but in reality, sets a noteworthy precedence about gender:
The [ENDA] is based on the assumption that one’s perceived “gender identity” does not always “match” your sex “assigned” or “designated” at birth. So, the thinking goes, the law should allow a more ambiguous array of gender identities: male, female, both, neither, or something else entirely. It’s not an overstatement to say that tENDA is a huge step, mostly under the radar, to codify a new definition of humanity.
A 2016 law passed in New York would also make incorrect pronoun usage punishable by fines up to $250,000.
The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. [Footnote: Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.]
Look at this language–it’s insane! These are made-up words used by people who are simply in denial about the biological reality of their body.
It is one thing to strongly feel you would be more fulfilled in life if you lived as the opposite sex, and to expect the government to write laws to protect you from discrimination or violent crime. But to demand everyone use made-up pronouns to refer to you in casual speech when you make an exerted effort to make your gender difficult to determine because you want to pretend you don’t “conform” to “gender norms”?
These are blatant violations of free speech that essentially set legal traps for anyone who dares go against the forced cultural norm that gender is fluid and we have to go along with whatever anyone says that they are.
Think of the reality these laws create: if we can pretend a person who is clearly a man, like Principal Daniels, is, in fact, a woman, and we can’t question anyone’s preferred gender pronoun, what does this mean for a big, burly man who walks into a woman’s room and cannot be asked to leave because he simply says he is a woman?
This is a scenario opponents of transgender bathroom initiatives have been proposing for a few years now, and it only becomes more and more realistic as time goes on, and other dangerous laws are passed.
Another noteworthy concept in the oppressive Oceana government contained in the pages of 1984 is that of “blackwhite”, the idea that one can eventually fully convince themselves that black is white, or, in an example that is most useful for our discussion, that a man can be a woman or that a person can have no gender at all.
This is a tried-and-true method for the transgender agenda, and, as you can see from the news coverage of Principal Daniels, it’s working. It doesn’t matter how obvious one’s biological gender is, the left is determined to completely deny reality.
Take for example a recent case in the UK. A woman, Christie Elan-Cane, who identifies as “gender non-conforming” or something to that effect, has been working her way through UK’s court system on a quest to obtain gender-neutral passports.
The Guardian reports:
“Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are often treated as though we have no rights,” Elan-Cane said. “The UK’s passport application process requires applicants to declare whether they are male or female. It is inappropriate and wrong that someone who defines as neither should be forced to make that declaration.’’
Elan-Cane, who was born a woman but began transitioning after surgery, believes individuals should be given more than the binary choice of being a man or a woman.
Notice the blatant denial of reality. First, in Elan-Cane’s language, as she clearly believes she is without gender, when her biology would dictate otherwise. Second, notice the journalist’s choice of words “was born a woman but began transitioning,” fully believing this woman can traverse her biological gender. Furthermore, he goes on to repeat Elan-Cane’s belief that “individuals should be given more than the binary choice” of being male or female.
That’s just it–biology dictates whether you are male or female, not the government. But when the government starts dictating whether one is male or female…that is when we have entered into the realm of blackwhite.
The Family and the Thought Police
In 1984, Orwell describes the family structure in the oppressive regime of Oceana:
“[The children] were systematically turned against their parents and taught to spy on them and report their deviations. The family has become in effect and extension of the Thought Police.” (Orwell, 1984, p. 133)
The children in our new transgender regime are in fact being targeted, and the result of their new brainwashing at school is being used to prosecute their parents.
The schools are rife with the transgender agenda, teaching children as young as Kindergarten that gender is fluid. One horror story from last year involved a Kindergarten “transition ceremony” about which the parents of other students were not informed.
The 5-year-olds went home crying and worried they would turn into the other sex, but the school stood by the teacher’s decision to read books about transgender TV child star, Jazz Jennings, and then change a little boy’s clothes in the bathroom to present him anew to the little ones as a girl. One pediatric expert called this bizarre display “traumatic” for the poor children involved.
In Ohio, a confused and clearly psychologically ill teenager who believes she is a boy is currently facing emancipation from her parents because they refuse to let her transition.
Despite the fact that the drugs and surgery she wants would alter her life forever and she is only seventeen years old, a judge will soon decide if the parent’s authority still stands simply because they would prefer their daughter seek counseling rather than the extreme surgery the nearby cutting-edge Children’s Hospital Transgender Clinic wants to perform on her.
In Canada last year, it’s even worse. The province of Ontario recently passed a law that would remove children from the home of parents who do not support their desire to “transition”.
So as our schools brainwash our kids into thinking it’s perfectly possible to change gender at will, the government tells these kids if their parents don’t approve of life-altering surgery or hormone-blocking drugs, they can just go live with another family if they choose.
Robbing Us of Our Humanity
In Morabito’s sobering article on the transgender agenda, she poses the question, why should we care?
“Because erasing gender distinctions, especially as they apply to childbearing and rearing, would serve to legally un-define what it means to be human,” she answers. “A new legal definition of human—as neither male nor female—would apply to you whether you like it or not. Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere ‘social constructs.’”
At the end of the day, this is truly what is frightening about the pressure the transgender agenda has applied to American citizens. They have successfully redefined humanity itself, and if they can do that, they can do anything.
Once it becomes illegal to speak the truth about gender, which it already has, it means that a lie is being enforced at the end of a gun. In America, our Constitution recognizes that our rights are not given to us by the government, but by God. And God created humans male and female. By attempting to erase this important distinction of individual humans, the heart of liberty itself has been struck.
We must fight back before it is gone completely.
A very interesting article about how people are running their own cities and territories as the central government of Mexico fails to deal with the drug cartels and widespread corruption.
Losing Faith in the State, Some Mexican Towns Quietly Break Away
The article is well worth your time but what I take from it is how complex these situations can be. At the end of the day when the government leaves a void regarding safety people have to defend themselves any way they can. Even then, it is not the safe utopia many survivalists often envision in their fantasies:
Monterrey: ‘They Destroyed the Whole Thing’
If Tancítaro seceded with a gun, then the city of Monterrey, home to many top Mexican corporations, did it with a Rolodex and a handshake.
Rather than ejecting institutions, Monterrey’s business elite quietly took them over — all with the blessing of their friends and golf partners in public office.
But their once-remarkable progress is now collapsing. Crime is returning.
“I’m telling you, I have a long career in these matters, and the project I am more proud of than anything is this one in Monterrey,” said Jorge Tello, a security consultant and former head of the national intelligence agency.
“It’s very easy to lose it,” he warned, adding that it may already be too late.
Monterrey’s experiment began over a lunch. Mr. Tello was dining with the governor, who received a call from José Antonio Fernández, the head of Femsa, one of Mexico’s largest companies.
Femsa’s private security guards, while ferrying employees’ children to school, had been attacked by cartel gunmen, he said. Two had died repelling what was most likely a kidnapping attempt.
In many cases the already existing socio-political structures can be used at a local level, but self-governing rather than taking orders from an incompetent and corrupt central government.
It also helps if the region is economically self-sustainable.
Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”
Probably the biggest legislative win for the American people in a long time was the tax reform bill recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.
This completes another one of Trump’s campaign promises, as well as the promise of many Republican lawmakers. Yet not everyone is happy with the tax reform bill.
Actually, the people who are unhappy with it fall into one of two categories: those who have been lied to and those who are doing the lying.
Let’s start with those who have been lied to. Sadly, there are a lot of low-information voters in the country.
While those of us who are conservative tend to say that they are on the liberal side of the political spectrum, the truth is that most Americans would fit that description, regardless of where their personal political views fall on the spectrum. The truth is that few Americans are interested in politics anymore, mostly because they feel their interest is futile and their vote doesn’t count.
That’s a pretty sad indictment on our nation’s political system, in and of itself. What started out as a government by the people and for the people has truly become a government by the ruling class and for the ruling class.
Considering that the intent of the Founding Fathers was that there would be no permanent ruling class in our nation, this just shows how far we’ve fallen from our roots.
So, what’s the lie that’s being propagated in this case? It’s actually nothing new. In fact, it’s the same lie that the Democrat Party has used for years, whenever they wanted to attack Republicans about taxes. That is, the tax reform benefits the rich, by penalizing the poor.
This is an outright lie. To make it work, they have to do some pretty tricky manipulations of the numbers, but as everyone knows, you don’t get anywhere in Washington without learning how to do that.
So what’s the manipulation? That the tax reform passed by Congress reduces taxes for the wealthy, without reducing it for the lower and middle class.
Technically, that statement is true. It is true because wealthy people will be paying less taxes, while the poor won’t. But in order to be true, it has to ignore a much deeper truth.
That is, the people whose federal income taxes aren’t being reduced aren’t paying any federal income taxes at all. What that means is that they’re complaining that the tax reform doesn’t give these people money.
Democrat talking points are following this manipulation and telling people that the tax reform is going to raise their tax rates, to benefit the rich. Since that’s the narrative being followed by the mainstream media, that’s what most people think.
In fact, only 15% of the population currently believe that their taxes are going to go down. That’s a pretty effective propaganda campaign, no matter how you look at it.
Of course, this is a lie and like any lie, it can only last so long. Pretty soon people are going to start seeing the truth, either through a bigger paycheck or through their tax returns. When people have more money in their pockets, it’s hard to keep telling them that the tax reform has hurt them.
The Unhappy Elite
Democrat lawmakers are unhappy with the tax reform because it benefits corporate America and the owners of those corporations. These politicians have been pushing the narrative of the “evil corporation” and the “evil one percent” for so long, that they believe it themselves. Since those people are evil, anything done which benefits them must be wrong.
We’ve got to remember that the Democrat Party’s major thrust, ever since Donald Trump won the presidential election, has been to RESIST. That has become their byword and they intend to follow it, even if it means that they have to hurt the very people they’ve sworn to represent. Those people will just have to understand that their political masters understand what’s best for them.
This is pure hypocrisy, especially considering that Democrats look to those same wealthy people to foot the bill for their political campaigns and lavish lifestyles. But apparently that’s not a contradiction in a liberal’s mind. I’m not sure how they work that out, but somehow or other they do.
But there’s a much more serious problem for Democrats, one which they don’t know how to deal with. That’s the long-term fallout from the tax reform.
A former Clinton advisor has come forth, stating that he’s unsure how the tax reform will shake out with millennials, a very important voting block for the Democrat Party. They could turn Republican en masse, in response to finding that they have more money in their pockets.
If this were to happen, it would be devastating to the Democrats in the mid-term elections. Not one Democrat in the House or Senate voted in favor of the tax cut, which means that they didn’t vote in favor of lowering our taxes.
That’s not going to play out well for most of their constituents.
Leaving politics aside for a moment, the true reaction to the tax reform bill isn’t what’s happening in Washington, but what’s happening in the rest of the country. The stock market is reacting very favorably, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and other key indicators reaching record highs. Corporate America is responding favorably to the tax reforms, which lower corporate taxes considerably.
One hope is that the exodus of American corporations which we’ve seen throughout the Obama years will come to an end. Even better would be to see some of those corporations who have left turn around and come back home. That’s really what the corporate tax cut is aimed at, a calculated gamble that could pay off big.
But even without that, we’re already seeing a positive reaction out of America’s corporations, with over 100 publically announcing across-the-board raises or bonuses due to the lower taxes. After years of wages remaining stagnant, these raises and bonuses will be seen as a real cause for rejoicing on the parts of many working Americans, especially those in lower-wage jobs.
Understanding the Economics of Tax Reductions
Tax rates and tax reform is all about government revenue. Basically any government sits on top of society, skimming off the economy. They don’t do anything that produces wealth, but they have to have that wealth in order to function. So they tax those who do produce in order to have money.
Conservatives understand that if you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you don’t get any more eggs. So in an ideal conservative world, the idea is to provide a healthy atmosphere for the geese. That way, you get more eggs. Reducing taxes and reducing regulations are the two key ways that governments are able to provide a healthy atmosphere for the corporate geese.
That’s why Republicans push for lower corporate taxes and lower taxes on the rich. Those corporations and people don’t put the money they save on taxes in their mattresses, they invest it in making more money. In the process, they hire more people and pay more taxes. So, even though the tax percentage is less, the actual tax revenue is higher.
This may very well be counter-intuitive, which is why liberals have so much trouble understanding it. But past economic history proves it out. When taxes are low, investment increases, creating more profits. That works out to a bigger tax base.
So, skimming a smaller percentage of a bigger tax base works out to be more profitable for the government. At the same time, it produces a more positive atmosphere, which helps encourage investing in the economy.
Liberals, on the other hand, don’t understand economics in anywhere near the same way. To start with, they ignore who the wealth producers are. In their minds, it is the government, not private industry, which produces both jobs and wealth. All that private industry does is provide them with money to operate on.
Because of that, in their worldview, companies that keep their profits are evil, because the elite in government service could obviously make better use of that money, helping their constituents. So, the only evil thing about those corporations is that they want to keep their profit and decide how that profit is spent. If it is spent on helping people through social projects, they want to get credit for it, not allow some politician to take credit for it.
But isn’t this Economically Dangerous?
With the huge debt our country currently has, it would seem that reducing taxes is a risky move to make. Without that tax revenue, how is the country going to continue paying its bills, let alone not racking up more debt?
That’s a very good question, and one that has been raised in many quarters. The fact is, there is some risk in this move. Historically however, reducing taxes, especially corporate taxes, boosts the economy. This results in more overall revenue for the government, even with the lower tax rate.
President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are counting on this. But that’s not all that Trump is counting on. Ever since taking office, he’s been aggressively seeking to cut the federal budget and the federal workforce. While Congress hasn’t fully cooperated with him on this, there is still time.
One of the ways that Trump is reducing federal spending is by an effective hiring freeze. This doesn’t hurt anyone, as there are no actual layoffs happening. Rather, the federal workforce is being reduced by attrition, as people quit or retire.
So the increase in employment that we are seeing under Trump’s presidency is happening in spite of the number of federal employees diminishing. This is in direct contrast to Obama’s presidency, where the federal workforce increased dramatically.
If Trump can succeed in lowering federal expenditures significantly, while increasing revenues, he will have accomplished something big enough to qualify him as one of the greatest presidents in our nation’s history.
The Hypocrisy Goes On
The biggest hypocrisy in this whole debate (a debate that’s still going on, even though the issue is settled and the law has been passed) is that Democrat controlled California and New York are scrambling to protect the wealthy in their states.
The one group who suffers the most under this new tax package are people who have to pay over $10,000 per year in state income taxes. Under the new plan, they are only allowed to deduct the first $10,000 of their state income taxes from their income on their federal income taxes. This increases the amount of federal income tax these people are paying slightly.
You would think that this would make Democrats happy, as they are constantly trumpeting how the “one percent doesn’t pay their fair share,” something that in and of itself is a lie. Yet, both New York and California are seeking means to protect their one percenters from the evils of tax reform.
Video first seen on Fox Business.
The only people affected by these protections are those whose incomes are well above average. In California, you have to be making $140,000 per year, in order to have to pay $10,000 in state income taxes. New York is even higher, with residents needing to make over $170,000 to reach that threshold.
So these measures clearly aren’t to protect the poor, or even to protect the middle class, the people who the Democrats are claiming are hurt by the tax reform.
In California, plans are hatching for a political shell game. The covering idea is that the maximum state income tax that anyone will be required to pay is $10,000, to match what the new law allows in deductions. The rest of the state income tax can be paid as a “charitable contribution” to the state’s Excellence Fund. The state would then issue a tax receipt for their “charitable contribution.”
If this isn’t outright illegal, it should be. There is no way that this can be called a charitable contribution, especially since it is mandatory, not voluntary. The shell company being created for this is literally nothing more than a tax dodge.
It is no different than someone setting up an offshore banking account to hide their income and avoid taxes.
New York is seeking a different way of protecting their wealthy, by replacing state income taxes with a “payroll tax” paid by employers. This one should be interesting, as over $60 billion of the state’s revenue comes from income taxes.
So, where is that $60 billion plus going to come from? The businesses; somehow, they have to come up with that much money, rather than people paying their own income taxes. This could be seen as a boon to the individual, but apparently New York’s Governor is suggesting that businesses lower people’s salaries, on order to be able to pay the payroll taxes.
Once again, we have Democrats contradicting themselves. The same political party who is pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage, is telling employers to lower wages. The only way I can read this is that they’re expecting employers to do is lower the wages of everyone but people who are making $15 per hour or lower. While this will hurt upper management (part of the evil one percent), the people it will hurt the most are the middle class.
Congratulations Democrats, you’ve done it again!
Speaking of the Middle Class
Perhaps one of the best parts of the tax reform is something that should make just about any middle-class family happy… the individual mandate from Obamacare has finally been repealed. Of all the onerous legal mumbo-jumbo that Obamacare included, this has been the most odious to most people.
What this means is that the legal requirement to have health insurance or pay an annual fine is finally coming to an end. This should thrill countless middle-class families, who can’t afford health insurance, but are being forced into buying it anyway or pay the fine. Personally, this is the best part of the new tax plan for me.
I live close to Mexico, so my wife and I go to Mexico for all my healthcare needs. While there may be a few things that they can’t do for us, by and large, I’ve found the healthcare that we’ve received in Mexico to be excellent. It’s also a lot cheaper. That’s why I go there. But for the last few years, I’ve had to pay a fine, just to have that right. Now I will no longer have it.
While the Republicans in Congress haven’t yet fulfilled their promise to repeal Obamacare, this is a major step in the right direction.
I’m glad to see it happening and I hope to soon see more.
This article has been written by Rich Murphy for Survivopedia.
A few days ago we celebrated the ending of 2017 and the beginning of 2018.
It is a time when some people look back over the old year and try to take stock, while others look forward and try to see just what the new year might bring. Some make resolutions, while others scoff, knowing that the vast majority of those resolutions won’t last more than two weeks.
At this time last year, many of us were looking forward to a change in the presidency. The Donald had won the election, beating out Hillary Clinton for the right to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania AVE NW, in Washington, DC. Democrats were outraged about that, vowing to topple Trump from that pinnacle of power.
But those of us who are not on the extreme left breathed a huge collective sigh of relief to see the end of Obama’s reign of terror come to an end.
I think even the “never Trump” faction of the Republican Party might have breathed at least a small sigh of relief to know that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t become the new Commander in Chief. But on the other hand, there were never Trumpers scattered around amongst the Republicans who would have rather had her in the Oval Office, just to keep Trump out.
Trump didn’t fit in, everyone knew that. He himself made a point of it. Worse, from the Washington establishment point of view, was his campaign promise to “drain the swamp;” something that the swamp itself has fought hard against.
No matter how you look at it, Donald Trump’s presidency has been one of the most active and controversial presidencies this country has ever seen. Those who look at Washington politics honestly (of which there are very few) have to admit that Trump has made a huge amount of changes to his predecessor’s policies. For those who are extreme liberals, this has been horrifying; but for those who are conservatives, it has been like a breath of fresh air.
Trump’s handling of Christmas itself gives a very clear picture of the difference between his presidency and Obama’s. From his actions, it appeared that Obama despised Christmas, at least as a religious holiday, even though he claimed to be a Christian. The liberal Greeting of Happy Holidays, supposedly intended to be all-inclusive, ignored what Christmas is really all about.
For Trump, this was just one more thing to distinguish him from the previous president and those hanging on to his coat tails.
Last year he said that he was going to bring the message of “Merry Christmas” back to this country… and he did. Defying the political correctness police (who he mostly ignores), Trump declared a Merry Christmas to the nation and the world, reminding us of the real reason for the season.
Video first seen on Fox Business.
One thing that Trump has going for him, which few people recognize is his great character, and true character is standing for something. We used to define being a man as standing for something. Trump does.
Giving credit where credit is due, so did Obama. The big difference is that Obama was praised by the media lackeys for saying what they wanted to hear, while Trump is lambasted at every turn for saying what he believes in.
It takes much more moral fiber to say what you believe, when you know you’re going to be crucified in the press for it, than it takes when you know you’re going to be praised for it.
That’s much of the problem that exists within the Republican Party. They aren’t willing to take the heat for doing what is right. Therefore, they bow down to the wishes of the Democrats, even while the Democrats are in the minority. They have allowed themselves to be whipped by the collective pens of the media.
In this, they haven’t learned the lessons of the 2016 Presidential Election; a lesson that has continued throughout Trump’s first year in power. That lesson, of ignoring the media and playing to the American people is one that could change this country for the good. It would eliminate the disproportionate power that the minority holds over the majority. Quite literally, the power of name-calling.
But doesn’t the free press exist to keep the government in check? Yes. But they’ve long ago abdicated their role in the American political system, setting aside their objectivity as a government watchdog and becoming nothing more than the propaganda arm of the progressive-liberal left.
One could say that ignoring the media puts one in an echo chamber. At one time, this was true. When the media did their Constitutionally protected job it sure was. Back then, the media expressed the opinion of We the People, not just the opinion of the liberals living in the coastal enclaves. That has made them into part of one echo chamber, as they have studiously ignored any others.
Obama clearly lived within that same echo chamber, hearing the adulation of the media on a constant basis. He was a rock star president, who accepted their adoration as his due. He also used that as his justification for his actions, telling himself that if the media was with him, he must be right.
But the media is one of the two most progressive groups of people in the United States, the other being Hollywood. Interestingly enough, the two groups who spend their lives in make-believe are the ones who are defining progressive-liberalism in our country today. And those in the Democrat Party are working overtime to live up to their expectations.
Trump’s First Year in the Office
Is Trump living in an echo chamber as well? I would have to say yes and no. The no part is that he hears what his enemies say about him. This is made clear by his constant war with the mainstream media. Were he not hearing what those who oppose him say, this war quite literally wouldn’t exist. So it seems clear that unlike his predecessor, he doesn’t just turn off the news channels he doesn’t like.
On the yes side of that answer, Trump’s advisors are obviously people who believe as he does, just as any president’s are. His tweets on Twitter are focused on reaching his support base, who he also listens to. So yes, I would have to say that he is paying more attention to what those on his side of the political aisle say, than he is to what those on the other side of the aisle say.
But there are some major differences between this and Obama. First of all, regardless of what the progressive-liberals say about them being the majority, that’s only true in the coastal enclaves. Since they ignore any part of the country that doesn’t overwhelmingly support them, it’s no wonder they think they are the majority.
But those of us in what they refer to as “flyover country” make up the majority of this country. So when Trump listens to his support base, he is listening to a much larger group than Obama ever did.
Then there’s the huge variety of opinions even within the Republican Party itself. While Trump is president and therefore the leader of his party, he has to constantly contend with dissention in the ranks, something that Democrat presidents don’t have to worry so much about. Democrats are much better at marching in lockstep than Republicans are; something that is amazingly clear every time Congress takes a vote.
Trump has listened to the American people and his agenda is based upon what he has heard. Has he heard perfectly? I doubt it. But at least he has tried. That’s something so rare in Washington as to be unable for the majority of the swamp to grasp.
The American people were concerned about jobs, so Trump has been working hard to give us jobs. A number of his actions as president were directly pointed at creating American jobs.
From signing the Keystone Pipeline authorization, through his bullying of major corporations who were planning on moving jobs overseas, to the tax cut bill that just passed through Congress, Trump has worked since the election (before taking office) to create an environment conducive to gainful employment for every working-age American.
Trump’s second major area of accomplishment in this first year was to make a start on dismantling government control of our lives. If there is anything for which he has received opposition by the Republican Party, this is it.
Rather than support his work, Republicans in Congress have opposed it. This has been nowhere more clear than in their opposition to Trump’s proposed budget, where he has tried to cut out unnecessary spending, especially for government programs and agencies which have outlived their enabling legislation.
But even with these setbacks, Trump’s administration has done an amazing job of eliminating regulations, especially those which were put into place during Obama’s lame duck closing of his presidency. The rollback of these regulations has saved American citizens billions of dollars in taxes, something that has been largely overlooked.
Some have complained that Trump appointed Cabinet Secretaries who hated the organizations they were chosen to lead. If you want to increase Washington’s swollen bureaucracy, that’s the wrong action to take. But if you want to reduce the size of the swamp, eliminating unnecessary government waste, it’s a brilliant strategy. If Trump is going to succeed in draining the swamp, this is one major weapon he has in that battle.
Yes, the swamp won’t like being drained. Trump has and will continue to receive a lot of push-back from Washington bureaucrats. These people like their cushy government jobs, with high pay, lots of benefits and job security that the rest of us can only dream about. Being mostly Democrats, they also hate to see Trump in office.
That’s why there have been so many leaks of sensitive information since Trump was sworn into office. These people are endangering the country, on behalf of their ideology. Sadly, they think that they are serving some higher moral good, when in reality all they are doing is serving themselves and their political party.
The “big things” that Trump has done, like appointing Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court are the ones which have garnered all the attention. But in reality, those aren’t the ones which should have. Yes, appointing Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was important, as it keeps the highest court in the land, an organization that is supposed to be non-political, politically balanced.
What Comes Next
Other than that, Trump’s actions which will make the greatest difference over the next few decades are and will be those which fundamentally change the government, for the benefit of the American people.
The recent tax cut is one of those; one that has been long overdue. Eliminating regulations is another, one that we can expect to see continue throughout the next few years. But the biggest single gift that Donald Trump can possibly give the American people will be that of truly draining the swamp… if he can.
I highly suspect that this battle will be the big news of the next year. But it is one that we will hear very little about. It’s not flashy or exciting, so the media (both liberal and conservative) won’t pay it much attention. It is the war going on in the background; but it is an important war, nonetheless.
Will Trump win? At this point, that’s anybody’s guess. But if I were a betting man, I’d put my money on The Donald. He has already shown an amazing level of tenacity and an incredibly tough hide; both important characteristics in this war.
This will probably be a war of attrition, with each victory bringing the President one step closer to ultimate victory. So the real question is, how long with those bureaucrats in the Executive Branch, the ones referred to as the “Deep State,” continue breaking the law in an effort to get rid of Trump?
They are the ones who need to be gotten rid of, in some cases, accompanied by a lengthy stay in prison for their crimes. Probably the only reason they aren’t looking at that right now is that the FBI is too closely connected to the swamp.
Once again, another year is drawing to an end; 2018 is soon to be gone and we will be living in 2019. To many, the start of any new year is a time of hope, a chance for opportunity, a time for making New Year’s resolutions.
It’s also a time to look back on where we’ve come from, as well as looking forward to try and see what the New Year will bring.
Of course, it’s easier to look back at where we’ve come from, than it is to look forward and see what’s coming. Last I checked, I wasn’t issued a crystal ball.
That doesn’t really matter though, as I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea of how to use it. Nevertheless, as preppers, we’re always trying to look forward and figure out what could be coming down the road.
Many of the things that people prepare for never come to pass. I still remember the panic over Y2K, which turned out to be nothing. But the fact is, it could have been something major. The whole idea of preparing for it was that we didn’t know what was going to happen, so we had to be ready.
There are always those who will make fun of those of us who try to prepare for coming disasters. In their minds, every disaster that doesn’t come to pass is just one more proof that we don’t know what we’re doing.
But those of us who really watch what’s going on in the world take a close look at those missed disasters, as well as the ones which do happen, seeking to learn what lessons we can from them.
Statistically speaking, it’s almost a sure probability that we will eventually be hit by a major disaster. The chances of being hit by a regional disaster are even greater, as are those of a personal or family disaster.
So you and I aren’t wasting our time by preparing; we’re the ones who will survive, when others are struggling. That’s why we do it and that’s all the reason we need.
So, the question that faces us now is what is the new year going to bring out way? What sorts of things are we likely to see coming our way over the next twelve months?
War in Washington
Donald Trump has had a good year as president, since his inauguration on January 20th. Of any president this great nation has had, he has done the most to fulfill his campaign promises. While there is still much to be done, especially in draining the swamp, the President enters his second year in office, standing on a solid foundation of accomplishment.
Trump’s success hasn’t been without a price though. He has been besieged on every side, between Democrat members of congress and progressive-liberal bureaucrats in the swamp, through members of his own political party, to the left-leaning media. The President’s enemies are legion and he is embroiled in a war of survival with them.
I can’t say that the President has won any of his wars yet, but neither has he lost any of them. More and more it is looking like he is going to come out on top, with the progressive-liberal minority being shown for what they are; especially that of being a clear minority here in the USA.
The Democrat Party is largely demoralized, at last as badly as they were when Hillary lost the election. Their entire year has been wasted on trying to find a way of tipping over the apple cart and unseating the President. Yet they have been unsuccessful, even with using every dirty trick they can find.
I expect to see Donald Trump gain more and more political capital, as he continues to come through for the American people. This will further serve to marginalize the Democrats, who don’t have a platform right now, other than that of hating the sitting President.
There is little chance of a Democrat win in the mid-term elections, unless they manage to get their act together and come up with something to stand for, rather than just standing against things that they hate.
But Trump’s biggest enemy is the Republican Party, especially the RINOs within the party. Many of the things he wants to do require Congress passing legislation, but he can’t yet count on their support. Of all the wars he’s fighting, that’s the most important one for him to win.
Increased Social Unrest
The mutual hissy fit that the Democrat Party has been having for the last few years, and especially since Trump won the elections, has manifest itself in a variety of far-left “activist” groups.
We all know of the violence perpetrated by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, during what were supposed to be “peaceful” demonstrations. Yet in many cities, their violence is being ignored and even allowed.
There are now some small white supremacist groups that are rising up against these far-left activist groups. So far, there have only been a few clashes between the two groups, but we can expect that to rise. It seems that there are those in both groups who want that violence and are seeking ways of bringing it to pass.
The recent confrontation in Milwaukee shows a new way that government officials are reacting to this violence. Rather than stepping in and breaking it up, police were ordered to allow it to continue, only stepping in if others were in danger from the violence. This can only serve to encourage more violence of this type, something we can expect to see in the coming months.
There are still those on both sides which are pushing for a racial civil war. While I don’t think a nationwide war will break out, I would not be surprised at all to see local warfare, especially in the big cities.
This might either manifest as a few large battles, or a prolonged crime spree of the type that was going on in Northern Ireland for so many years. In either case, the people who will pay the biggest price won’t be those who are perpetuating the violence, but rather the innocent people who become their victims.
The situation with North Korea has been deteriorating rapidly throughout the last year. At the same time, the North Koreans have had a year of technological breakthroughs, bringing them to the brink of becoming a serious nuclear power.
All that power in the hands of Kim Jong-un is extremely dangerous. He, like his father and grandfather before him, has been publicly declaring his intent to attack the United States with those nuclear arms. The big difference between him and his ancestors, is that he now has the capability of following through on those threats.
Every day that North Korea delays their attack puts them in greater danger of a preemptive attack by US military forces. For that reason, I can’t see Pyongyang waiting one day longer than absolutely necessary to attack.
As best as I can read the situation, as soon as they have the wherewithal to attack the United States and be assured of accomplishing their goals, they will.
The only real question is whether they will opt for a conventional nuclear attack or a nuclear-triggered EMP attack. Of the two, the EMP would actually be the more serious attack, surpassing a conventional nuclear attack in total death and destruction, even though there would be no obvious destruction from the nuclear blast, other than the immediate loss of electrical power and every electrical device that we use suddenly coming to a stop.
I seriously doubt that we will make it through 2018 without this attack happening, unless our government decides on doing a preemptive disarming strike against North Korea. As I have written previously, that would be extremely difficult to accomplish, as North Korea’s nuclear arms are dispersed, mounted on mobile launchers.
More & Bigger Mass Killings
The scourge of mass killings seems to have no end. While former President Obama’s claims that only we here in the United States are subject to such atrocities was totally incorrect, we definitely have our share of them.
Thanks to massive news coverage giving fame and glory to the killers, we can expect to continue seeing these mentally imbalanced people make their spectacular exits from this life.
Sadly, the problem is not being addressed directly. Democrats persist in blaming guns for the killings, totally ignoring the mental problems of the killers themselves.
Republicans aren’t doing much better. While they are recognizing the killers as being the problem and not the guns, they have yet to make a proposal to deal with the underlying mental issues of these murderers.
As long as things continue like this, I think we can expect to see mass killings happening. Each killer is going to be trying to outdo the last, planning their crimes to provide the highest possible death tolls.
As the Las Vegas killing showed us, even being armed for self-defense isn’t a sure protection from these people.
A Rise in Terrorism
Iraq has announced that ISIS has been defeated. That’s both good news and bad. The good part is that they are no longer murdering innocent people over there in the Middle East. The bad news is that there are still lots of ISIS operatives around, as well as terrorists from other radicalized Islamic groups.
My concern here is that ISIS is going to put more and more effort into terrorism, in order to retain their relevancy in the world. Up till now, most of their acts have been overseas, but there is a very real concern that they will put more effort into violent acts here in the US, either by importing terrorists or motivating home-grown terrorists to act.
We’ve already seen both of these happen this year, with ISIS having taken credit for a number of violent acts that have happened within our borders. We’ve also seen efforts on their part to infiltrate “soldiers” into the United States. One group of 10 was captured in McAllen, Texas, which tells us that there are many more who have made it through safely. An ISIS spokesman has claimed that there are more than 100 within our borders right now, which means that there may very well be many more.
With international terrorism already on the upswing, thanks to the Syrian refugee situation and the various radicalized Islamic terrorist groups, any efforts by ISIS will be most unwelcome. Yet there is little we can do to stop these actions, other than to be alert and armed to defend ourselves.
More Liberal Preppers
Ever since President Trump’s inauguration, liberals fear mongers have been claiming a coming apocalypse. In a way, this is somewhat humorous, as we had the same thing happening in the other direction, while Obama was in office.
Some of the same results are coming out of the fear mongering as well, with more and more liberals turning to prepping.
This gives those of us who are conservatives an excellent opportunity to reach out the hand of friendship to these newbie preppers and give them a hand. Who knows, some friendly advice now, as they are beginning to get into prepping, might be the trigger that gets them to stop listening to what the news media and the progressive-liberal politicians say about us and they might discover for themselves that we are decent people.
That could even lead to them adopting some of our views on things.
I realize that’s a bit of a stretch, but the progressive-liberal left has to keep people ignorant, in order to get them to keep buying their agenda. Becoming a prepper belies the idea of staying ignorant.
Once their minds are open to learning how to prepare, they may actually start listening to why we prepare, rather than just accepting the standard issue liberal talking points.
One thing is certain, there’s nothing to be lost and much to be gained, by bringing our liberal cousins into the prepping movement and helping them become self-sufficient.
If nothing else, each one is one less liberal that will be trying to redistribute our stockpiles, when a disaster happens.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
I sometimes wonder if Congress is capable of doing anything good in today’s modern society. As best as I can tell, the legislative branch of the government, which the framers of the Constitution specified as being the only branch of the government to create new laws, has lost much of its original function.
Between the courts creating law from the bench and the (former) president using Executive Orders, it seems that Congress is passing less and less laws, with less and less impact, these days.
Now it seems that they are more about spending money and increasing the size of government, than they are about actually creating new laws. Much of that ends up doing little more than causing problems, especially giving the various agencies in the Executive Branch an opportunity to create new regulations to control our lives and hamper businesses.
Part of the platform that President Trump ran under was the promise to reduce government regulations. One of his earliest actions upon assuming the presidency was to issue an executive order stating that for every new regulation any government agency promulgates, they must get rid of two old ones.
Trump is a businessman above all so, much of what he is doing is being done from that viewpoint. His war on regulations is a prime example of this. All regulations cost individuals and businesses money, so by reducing regulations, he is trying to reduce the cost to businesses, thereby creating a better business environment.
Government regulation has become the bane of businesses, especially small businesses. Large corporations can afford staffs of lawyers to read all those regulations and determine what actions the corporation must take to follow them.
But the small business owner can’t afford that. They have to depend on their own ability to understand the miles of red tape the government produces, a task at which they are usually woefully inadequate.
Yet the largest part of our economic growth, especially the creation of new jobs, comes from those small businesses. So by creating mountains of regulations, government agencies are stifling the very businesses which we need the most; those that are growing the economy.
Yes, there are places where we need the government to create laws and regulations, but the idea of the government putting their sticky fingers in every aspect of life and business is counterproductive. At a minimum, they hurt the economy, and at the worst, they destroy people’s lives.
Trying to protect one thing, like the environment, with more regulations, usually hurts some other part of society. Often an area that the creators of the regulations never even thought about (usually because that area is not part of their purview).
Herein lies one of the biggest problems of big government. In an attempt to protect society, government agencies actually stifle the very society they are supposedly trying to protect. They do it by not taking everything into consideration, when they create the new regulations.
I have to say, while a lot of the blame belongs to government agencies creating regulations, a fair amount of it belongs to Congress as well. Bills are getting longer and longer, becoming more and more complicated all the time.
Remember Nancy Pelosi’s comment that the House of Representatives would have to pass the Obamacare bill, so that they could see what was in it? The bill was literally too long and complicated for the members of Congress to read and understand. And look where that’s gotten us.
Like much of what comes out of Washington these days, Obamacare is a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. There have been countless problems with the rollout of Obamacare and countless people hurt by it. Have people been helped? Yes, especially those who had pre-existing medical conditions and those who were newly eligible for Medicaid. But it probably hurt as many people as it helped, if not more.
Did the creators of Obamacare know that it was going to hurt millions of people? We’ll never truly know. The cynical side of me says that they knew and didn’t care, purposely lying so that they could take that step towards socialized medicine. But my cynicism isn’t proof of anything and shouldn’t be taken as if it is.
Each and every law; each and every regulation, has unintended consequences. That alone seems to be adequate reason to avoid passing new laws and regulations, especially the massive ones that Washington is becoming infamous for. Maybe short, simple laws can be passed without a lot of that happening, but the monstrosities that we’re seeing today clearly can’t.
Enter Net Neutrality Bill
Of course, every major law being presented in Congress is becoming a media circus today, rather than a serious action on behalf of our government. Bills are being given deceptive names and descriptions, in order to gain public favor and push our elected representatives into passing laws that don’t do what their public image promises they will do.
The media, too lazy to really read the proposed bills and regulations, grabs hold of those printed sound bites and runs with them, creating a false narrative that is more propaganda than anything else.
Net Neutrality was one of those. Two years ago, during Obama’s second term in office, Net Neutrality was pushed through, not as a bill in Congress, but as a regulation promulgated by the FCC. To do so, the FCC had to take the stand that internet access was a public utility, giving them the right to regulate it.
But why was this even considered? Was the internet broken? Was there something seriously wrong, which Net Neutrality sought to correct? Or was this just one more example of the government meddling in things they didn’t need to meddle in?
The core of Net Neutrality was the idea that all information crossing the internet should be given the same priority and be sent along at the same speed.
Video first seen on TheBlaze.
Big companies shouldn’t be given any preference over small companies. At least, that’s the way it was sold to the American people. The whole propaganda campaign associated with Net Neutrality was to protect the little guys on the internet from the big guys.
But here’s the kicker; many of the biggest internet companies actually supported Net Neutrality. How does that fit in with reigning them in? You can be sure that those big companies didn’t support the idea out of altruism. There must have been some benefit to them, or they would have been speaking out against it.
There was an advantage. Net Neutrality only dealt with ISPs, Internet Service Providers. The big internet Corporations are their own ISPs, so they can readily avoid anything having to do with Net Neutrality.
But the little guys are controlled by it. So, the advantage actually goes to the very same companies which are supposed to be reined in by Net Neutrality.
This past week the FCC undid Net Neutrality, taking it back off the books and making things like they were before. I’d have to say, in today’s political climate, that was an incredible act of moral courage.
All too many times, bad laws and bad regulations stay in place, just because everyone is afraid to eliminate them and catch the political backlash for doing so.
What This Really Needed?
Of course, those on the political left have been going bananas over this, with each one trying to outdo the other in their declarations about the internet apocalypse that is about to occur. Internet apocalypse? It seems to me that the internet was working just fine before Net Neutrality existed.
But it’s easy to sell a narrative like that, when the people who are consuming the propaganda are ignorant to the issue. And if there is anywhere where the average person has plenty of chance to be ignorant, it’s the internet. The colossus we refer to as the internet is too complicated for most people to understand. It takes years of study and training to even get to the beginning of truly understanding it.
My son is a high-level network engineer, working for an ISP. Even though I used to be an engineering manager, when he talks about his work, the bandwidth is so high, that I’m barely catching the bottom edge of it. The things he needs to know, in order to do his job, are so technical that there’s no way for me to follow.
Yet we have lawmakers and pundits trying to act as if they are experts on this highly technical field. They’re not. In many cases, all they are doing is spouting off their party’s talking points, while mixing in a little fear mongering for flavor.
Let me give you just one simple example of how Net Neutrality hurts everyone; the telephone. Today, most long-distance phone calls travel over the internet. Unlike movies, which are able to stream faster than they are viewed, spooling on the user’s computer to avoid interruption, phone calls can’t do that. They aren’t pre-recorded, they’re live. So they can’t spool. They have to go out in real time. What that means is that if telephone calls aren’t given priority on internet lines, there will be pauses in the call, caused by other traffic butting in.
Here’s another one for you. One of the major corporations who have supported Net Neutrality is Netflix. It just so happens that they are one of the biggest consumers of internet bandwidth, as high-definition video takes an enormous amount of bandwidth to transmit. What this means is that your search for anything on the internet is slowed down, at least to some extent, by Netflix streaming video to your friends, neighbors and others you don’t know.
Should Netflix have the same priority as someone who is trying to make a few bucks with their blog? Should they have a higher priority? Well, since they are such a big customer, they don’t have to work through an ISP. That means that Net Neutrality gave them an advantage over the small guy, trying to run his blog. Is that fair?
Eliminating Net Neutrality is going to have unintended consequences; I guarantee it. I’m sure that we’ll be hearing stories of it, compliments of the mainstream media. They were against the elimination of Net Neutrality from the outset, just because that’s the liberal point of view. So you can be sure that they’re already chomping at the bit to tell us all what a disaster its elimination has been, even if they have to stretch the truth to do so.
Even so, eliminating Net Neutrality is going to have positive effects as well, specifically for the consumer. Any time regulations are eliminated, it frees up businesses to be more competitive. So, chances are we’re going to see new products coming out of ISPs in the next few months.
I can’t tell you what they’ll be, because I don’t know. But they should save consumers money, by giving them what they want and need, rather than what someone else tells them they want and need. And that’s a good thing.
What do you think?
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
2017 has been quite a year for the Kim dynasty in North Korea. Ever since the Soviets gave control to Kim Il-sung in 1948, the North Koreans have been bent on military dominance. While this may seem like nothing more than a dictator running amok to the rest of the world, there really is some solid reasoning behind their madness.
One of the key goals for the Kim dynasty has been the reunification of the Korean peninsula under their rule. Their bid to reunify the Korean peninsula in 1950, starting the Korean War, was a failure, thanks to the intervention of the United States.
But that war never really ended. All we did was sign an armistice.
The only real outcome of the Korean War was to make North Korea and the United States bitter enemies. As with Japan in World War II, the North Koreans have come to realize that they will not be able to accomplish their goals, unless they can first stop the superpower that is getting in their way.
That means finding some way of neutralizing the United States’ massive amount of military power.
Hence the North Korean fascination with developing nuclear weapons and the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them. The reasoning in Pyongyang, is that the only thing which can neutralize US military might is nuclear weapons.
The other thing that the North Koreans have done is to build the world’s largest submarine fleet. Traditionally, submarines are the biggest threat to aircraft carriers, the US government’s number one tool of choice, when it is necessary to project power into some part of the world. If the Korean War ever turns hot again, you can be sure that some of the first military forces we will have supporting the theater of conflict will fly off the decks of aircraft carriers.
But until recent times, we’ve been able to ignore all this. President after president has kicked the can of the North Korean threat down the road, attempting to placate the North Koreans and keeping their aggression under control at the same time.
All that has changed in the last year. Left-leaning politicians and the news media have hammered President Trump mercilessly over his ongoing word battle with Kim Jong-un. They have seen it as an unnecessary escalation of tensions between the United States government and the government of Pyongyang.
There’s just one problem with that though, it assumes that everything is the same as it was before… and it’s not.
Things are distinctly different today, than they were at the beginning of the year. 2017 opened with North Korean being the normal nuisance we’ve all come to expect. They made what were thought to be idle threats, while mistreating their own population, starving them so that they could spend their money on military research.
That research has paid off handsomely for the North Korean ruler, as North Korea has made breakthrough after breakthrough, taking us from relative safety to imminent danger. In the last few months, they have tested their first multi-stage nuclear device, what they claim is a hydrogen bomb, giving them nuclear weapons that are ten times stronger than what they had before, as well as being roughly on par with our own.
At the same time, 2017 has seen an increased number of missile launches out of North Korea, with each missile being more technologically advanced than its predecessor. At the beginning of the year, these launches were mostly laughable, with missiles exploding on launch, never reaching their target altitude, and demonstrating a large number of other problems.
Yet there has been a clear improvement in the performance of North Korea’s missiles. The last couple of them have been multi-stage devices, which are true ICBMs. With the launch of the Hwasong-15 missile in November, North Korea claims to now have the capability of launching ICBMs which have the capability of reaching the entire continental United States, carrying nuclear weapons to destroy the city of their choosing.
Video first seen on Fox News.
While some of this may be exaggeration and bravado, the technical realities are clear. A host of people track North Korea’s missile tests, including scientists working for the South Korean government and our own. Based upon their reports, not just North Korea’s, the Hwasong-15 is a formidable weapon, which directly threatens the USA.
All through this process, there has been an amazing amount of unbelief being expressed by pundits and experts alike. Each advance has been explained away with talk about the huge hurdles that North Korea still has to overcome, in order to field effective nuclear-tipped ICBMs.
But that seems more and more like wishful thinking, than any true analysis. The North Koreans have either sidestepped these hurdles or have shown their ability to overcome them.
One of the big hurdles that didn’t appear was the necessity to “miniaturize” their nuclear weapons. We heard about that ad-nauseam, as the news hammered the story that things weren’t as bad as they seemed. But then a report from the Obama years surfaced, showing that North Korea had been designing their nukes to be miniaturized from the beginning. So much for that “huge technical hurdle.” It simply vanished like the morning fog.
It’s quite possible that the same can be said for some of the other technical hurdles that have been mentioned. North Korean scientists have the advantage of being able to learn from the mistakes of the US missile program, as well as that of other countries.
While there is a huge amount of material that is highly classified, there is plenty that is openly available. Science is science, and it knows no security classification.
As with the “problem” of miniaturizing nukes, I’m sure that the North Koreans have been working on issues with reentry heat and aiming of their missiles. It’s even possible that they solved those problems long ago, as they were working on other issues. We really have no way of knowing.
Where Does This Leave Us?
The truth is that there is nothing stopping the North Koreans from launching a nuclear strike against the United States, Japan or South Korea, except the North Koreans themselves. Even though we have some missile defenses in place, we may not have enough to stop a concerted attack.
Besides, chances are that the North Koreans know what we have, where we have it and what those defenses’ capabilities are. While that information may very well be classified, those defenses have been around for enough time and tested sufficiently, so that there isn’t much about them that is truly secret anymore.
Any military plan has to take into account the capabilities of the enemy. So you can be sure that there are people in North Korea’s military who have looked at our anti-missile capabilities and are working on plans to overcome them.
This could mean shooting the missiles at us from a direction where we are not protected, overwhelming our defenses by sending too many missiles, or developing some technology that spoofs our missile defense.
The point is, there is little likelihood that the North Koreans are going to attack, before they are at least reasonably sure that their attack will be successful. So however they do it, you can be sure that it will be well planned, well coordinated and intended to succeed.
Chances are fairly good that at least part of their attack will be a high-altitude EMP. That would give them the most bang for their buck, limiting our ability to retaliate. Sending an EMP, along with some missiles fused for more conventional nuclear attack would be the best of both worlds for the North Koreans, essentially copying American nuclear war plans from the Cold War.
The problem for you and I is that our country is totally unprepared for such an attack. In many ways, we were better prepared in the 1960s, when people at least knew to “duck and cover.” While we have technology today, which we didn’t have back then, the general population is totally untrained in surviving either an EMP or a conventional nuclear exchange.
Worse than that, the government just de-established the EMP Commission, the country’s only group of true experts on EMP. So we don’t even have anyone in government service who is working on creating an EMP survival plan.
Of course, the government hasn’t paid much attention to the work that the EMP Commission did anyway. Congress never saw EMP survival as a priority, partially because there were no immediate, visible benefits, which would help them get reelected. So that can kept getting kicked on down the road as well.
What this means is that if we are going to survive an EMP or a conventional nuclear attack from North Korea, it’s going to be up to you and I to prepare for it on our own.
We can’t count on FEMA showing up with their mountains of red tape, or any other government agency raising a finger to ensure our survival. If we don’t ensure it ourselves, we’ll simply become part of the 90% of the population that the EMP Commission projects will die off in the first year after an EMP.
The Worst Possible Scenario
Of all the potential survival situations we face, surviving an EMP is probably the worst. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most likely. So it’s not the type of thing we can just ignore, hoping that it will never happen. That’s what all the sheeple out there are doing, making it so that they are the ones who will suffer, if North Korea ever does attack us.
An EMP attack would actually be more devastating than a conventional nuclear attack.
While a conventional attack would gut a number of our major cities, killing millions of people, the area affected by each nuclear explosion would actually be rather limited. An EMP, on the other hand, has the potential of shutting down the entire country, leaving us without any sort of electrical power or infrastructure we could count on.
It is the loss of the infrastructure which will ultimately cause something like 300 million deaths, not the EMP itself. Without electrical power and the infrastructure that depends on it so much, movement of critical supplies, like food, from production to market would come to a stop. Without food and supplies, people will be dependent on only what is available where they live. When that gets used up, they’ll be in trouble.
There will be a race between starvation and those who are working to reestablish the electrical grid. But I fear that starvation will win. The necessary materials to rebuild the grid just don’t exist, so they will have to be made.
That takes too long, as the normal lead time for the transformers used in electrical sub-stations is a year. There just isn’t the production capability to make tens of thousands of them on a rush basis. Nor will there be the raw material available or the ability to create that raw material. Other than a few select areas, people will have to learn how to survive without electricity.
The problems caused by the loss of the grid will clearly be more severe in the cities, than it will be in rural areas. The sheer mass of people competing for limited resources will cause a huge increase in crime, as people seek food, creating gang-style warfare. Surviving the months following an EMP will require a combination of self-sufficiency and the ability to defend yourself and your resources.
Some smaller communities might band together, sharing resources and helping each other out. But this is much more likely in communities where there will be an abundance of resources, such as rural farming communities. People living in such communities are used to working together and helping each other out anyway, making it much easier for them to work together in a post-EMP world.
For the rest of us, survival of the fittest will become the rule.
No food stockpile will be big enough to sustain a family until things return to normal. Rather, the people who will do the best will be those who can quickly adapt to sustaining themselves, converting their home and property into a homestead.
Are you ready?
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
The economy of Venezuela has been in decline, ever since Hugo Chaves came into power. Now, with the changes in their government giving his successor Nicolás Maduro dictatorial power, the world can expect to see even greater shortages and increased poverty in the South American country.
Yet it should not be so. Venezuela sits upon the world’s largest oil reserves, even larger than Saudi Arabia. With petroleum being one of the greatest measures of wealth today, it would be natural to expect the country to be wealthy.
But poor management, corruption and limited production is keeping the people of Venezuela from enjoying the fruits of nature’s abundance.
The people of Venezuela are starving, with shortages of the most basic items everywhere. Yet not too long ago, Venezuela was known as the wealthiest nation in South America. Then socialism came along, largely destroying what the people of Venezuela had worked to build.
President Trump has declared economic sanctions against Venezuela, citing human rights violations and that the country is a threat to US security. While that threat may seem ludicrous on its face, President Maduro has called on his nation’s military to prepare for war against the US.
But it should be noted that this threat from Venezuela wasn’t caused by the economic sanctions, but rather by Trump restricting the travel of Venezuelan officials to the United States.
In Maduro’s words, the United States is the aggressor and is creating “illegal sanctions” and “economic persecution” against his country. Like many other dictators of small countries, he apparently believes that he has the right to dictate policy to the US, the most powerful country in the world.
About the only thing that Venezuela has going for them in this is the backing of Russia. Once again, we are seeing the Russian Bear rise up to stand against the United States, as it did all through the Cold War.
While the current risk of a nuclear exchange between our two countries is extremely low, it appears that the Russian government is once again stirring up trouble and backing every two-bit dictator who stands against the USA, just as the Soviet Union did in the past.
But there’s a huge difference between what was going on before the Berlin Wall came down and what’s going on today. That is, this is shaping up to be more of an economic war, than any other kind.
Last year, Russia and China signed an agreement to fund trade between their two countries in their own currency, rather than in US Dollars. This has started a slow trend away from the dollar, with both Russia and China signing other such agreements with other trading partners. According to a speech by President Maduro, Venezuela may very well be the next country to join in that sort of trade agreement.
Ever since shortly after World War II, the American Dollar has been the world’s reserve currency, with all other currencies measured against it. International trade has been mostly in US dollars, causing countries and businesses to have dollar accounts, in addition to their own currency.
In turn, this has allowed the United States to ship much of our federal debt overseas, where it is held by these other countries, primarily China and Russia.
Today, China is trading petroleum for the Chinese Yaun, which can be converted to gold. They will soon be allowing payment directly in physical gold. This bypasses the dollar totally, limiting their need for American dollars. Considering that more gold is being mined in China today, than anywhere else in the world, the Chinese government should have no problem meeting their obligations in gold.
Maduro recently stated that Venezuela is going to join these other countries in eliminating the dollar and using other currencies in international trade. While that may seem unimportant to us here in the US, it is deadly serious.
If this trend continues, it has the potential of destroying the US economy.
Who’s Going to Pay the Price?
Money can’t just be made to disappear. Countries which decide that they will no longer use the dollar have the option of selling of their dollar holdings. This creates a glut of dollars on the worldwide currency market. Following the law of supply and demand, this excess of dollars will cause the value of the dollar to drop, even if it is only temporarily.
But what if more and more countries decide to follow suit, dropping the dollar as the medium of international exchange and replacing it with something else, or even with a hodgepodge of different currencies as Venezuela is doing? Someone has to buy those dollars and if they don’t the value of the dollar goes into free fall, dropping until it reaches a point where people will buy them.
It doesn’t take much of a drop in the value of the dollar for it to have a drastic impact on our economy. Even a few percentage points is a huge shift, which could cause a ripple affect all across the country. Financial markets can crash, businesses can lose profits and people can lose jobs.
Taking the scenario a little farther, imagine what would happen if China decided that they would no longer accept payment for products in American dollars. Our current trade with China comes to $578.6 billion per year. $115.8 billion of that is exports from us to them and $462.8 billion is imports that we buy from China.
While many Americans might think it would be good if we stopped buying from China, the fact of the matter is that our own manufacturing capability is not ready to suddenly take over manufacturing all those products.
It would take a huge investment in facilities and equipment to tool up for making all those products. That effort would last more than a year, creating massive shortages in the interim.
The manufacturing capability which would be brought back to the United States would not provide high paying jobs, but rather jobs which are slightly above minimum wage. Even at that low a wage, the cost of most products would rise significantly, as the average wage for Chinese factory workers is less than a tenth of that for American factory workers.
Quite literally, a large part of the affluence we enjoy in this country is because we import so many products from China and other countries with low wages.
If we produced all those products here in the US, the average family would not be able to afford to buy them. We’d be living at a much lower standard of living, closer to that experienced by China and the other countries we buy low cost products from. While the real unemployment rate might be lower, the increase would be mostly in low-paying jobs.
Can Venezuela cause all this? No, they can’t. They are merely a part of the trend, something that is showing us what is happening in other parts of the world. But what it is showing us is terrifying. It could quite literally be the end of life as we know it, as America slides a little closer to an economic collapse.
But there’s another side of Venezuela that’s important to look at too. That’s the communist/socialist side of the country. Venezuela was a republic, like the United States. But it has been gradually slipping into socialism and now into communism. The current powers the president holds, which are much more than even Hugo Chaves held, were voted in by the people. They wanted a strong centralized government and they have gotten one.
This is much like what the progressive-liberal left envisions for the United States of America. Today, the vast majority of our youth would prefer to see our government replaced by a socialist or communist one.
How Can That Be Possible?
Because educators at all levels, but especially at the university level, are lying to our youth. Our universities have become a hotbed of socialist thought and indoctrination, putting the progressive-liberal agenda before education.
As such, they are turning our youth into robots who accept the idea of an authoritarian government, just as long as it promises them free health care, free education, free birth control and the freedom to choose their gender identity.
Those same youth are being shielded from seeing the reality of what is happening in Venezuela by the mainstream media. Socialism is being glorified, while the free-market capitalist society which has made this the greatest nation on the face of the Earth is being villainized. Corporations aren’t lauded for giving people jobs, but are seen as evil for taking advantage of workers.
It may take another generation, but the United States will cease to exist as a functioning republic. Our children will vote for a socialist government and applaud it when it comes. Then they will applaud again when it turns into a socialist one.
All the while, they will be screaming about how the one-percent have stolen from them, not realizing that it is the government, specifically the progressive-liberal government who has stolen from them.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Robert Muller, the special prosecutor looking into the supposed Russian scandal, has filed his first criminal charges in that ongoing investigation. This long-awaited event has been rather anti-climatic, as we still don’t know the charges against Trump’s former Campaign Chairman. Apparently Muller decided to seal them, something that I didn’t even know was possible.
But this doesn’t mean that the investigation is over or even anywhere near completion. Rather, it is merely the first in what will probably be a long string of charges brought against various people. What makes it interesting is that it is the first.
Nothing More than Noise
Even that doesn’t mean that the accused will stand trial or be convicted, merely that it is going before a Grand Jury to determine if there is enough evidence to bring the accused to trial. Either Muller thinks there is or he is merely using this as a tactic to gain the leverage needed to flip the accused and turn him into an informant.
This is not an uncommon tactic in federal investigations.
Due to the high manpower cost in prosecuting federal cases, the FBI predominantly focuses on bringing down criminal organizations, not just bringing down individuals. In that process, it is normal for them to start by bringing charges against the smaller fish, with the intent of convincing them to be witnesses against the big fish that they really want to catch.
But this filing of charges once again brings to the forefront the Democrats’ fixation on President Trump colluding with the Russians to win the election. The apparent fact that his dealings with the Russians was years before becoming Trump’s campaign manager is apparently not important, Democrats smell blood in the water.
To date, there has not been a shred of evidence to show any collusion between Trump, his campaign and the Russian government, even though there have been an awful lot of cries of “Wolf” going on. So where did these come from and why have the Democrats been banging on the same drum for so long?
There are probably many factors here, but there are at least two that are important to know.
First, and most important, is the collusion between Hillary Clinton and the Russians. The commonly-known and well-documented fact that she sold roughly one-fourth of the nation’s uranium reserves to Uranium One, a Russian controlled company, while she was Secretary of State, might actually be illegal. But even if it isn’t it was clearly against our country’s best interests.
The sale and ownership of strategic materials, like uranium, is strictly controlled, especially the sale of them to foreign interests. This policy goes back at least as far as World War II, and might go back even farther. In those strategic materials fuel the economy , allowing factories to produce the vast amount of material required by modern warfare.
That’s why Hillary, in her role as Secretary of State was such a key figure in that sale. It was up to her to approve or disprove the sale, which we all know was approved. The fact that the Russians paid her husband, a former president, a ridiculous sum of money, much more than his normal honorarium for giving a speech, was merely coincidental… yeah, right.
Hillary’s former campaign chairman, John Podesta, knew how inflammatory her involvement was to her campaign and had to take action. What to do to deflect interest in that involvement? Simple, follow a common Democrat tactic and accuse Trump of colluding with the Russians.
That this happened is also a documented fact, part of what came to light through the Wikileaks dump of e-mails that belonged to Hillary’s staff and top Democrat operatives. But while there has been some interest in this from those on the political right, there has been little done about it. Maybe that’s because Republicans are less likely to weaponize the government against their political foes, than Democrats are.
Another key factor in this is the supposed Trump Dossier, a document that supposedly spells out Trump’s collusion with the Russians in great detail. While the dossier itself has been kept largely from public view, it has been reported on and quoted a huge amount. It has also been used as the reason behind Muller’s investigation.
However, this document is not evidence of anything, regardless of how many people refer to it or quote it. First of all, there is no proof that it is a legitimate intelligence document. Rather, it has been shown on numerous occasions to be a political document, paid for by Hillary’s campaign, the Democrat party and even Obama campaign funds.
All this document does is prove that there was massive effort put in by the Democrats to hide Hillary’s involvement with the Russians and fabricate Trump’s supposed involvement.
Apparently the Democrats think that if they can make enough noise, they can topple Donald Trump from power and miraculously elevate Hillary Clinton to the highest office in the land. Forget the Constitution; forget the line of succession; all they have to do is create enough noise to topple Trump from power and they’ll get everything they want.
This tactic has been employed in one form or another, countless times since the election. The supposed Million Woman march, days after the inauguration, was more of the same. The scream of their outrage was supposed to change something and get Trump out of office.
Can You See the Deflection?
Then there’s ANTIFA. Apparently since Black Lives Matter had been so effective in creating noise and fomenting violence, creating other similar organizations would be a great means of changing the country. All they needed was a common theme to rally their people behind; so they called Trump a fascist, meaning that everyone who voted for him had to be a fascist as well. Since fascism is widely regarded as evil, anything against it would have to be good.
Choosing fascism to stand against, rather than communism, was a stroke of genius. After all, Americans have a pretty good idea what communism is, but they don’t have any idea of what fascism is. All they know is that it is evil. So the leftists were able to redefine the word, as they are wont to do, equating fascism with conservatism.
But in reality, fascism is defined as a dictatorial government system, which forcibly oppresses its opposition, regimenting industry and eliminating the free-market capitalistic system.
Political correctness in its extreme form looks pretty much like a manifestation of fascism. Conservatism espouses freedom of speech, something that has traditionally been part of the classic liberal ideology. Yet those who are trying to suppress freedom of speech are calling themselves anti-fascists and calling those who support freedom of speech fascists.
Once again, we see the deflection, as the left tries to accuse the right of doing what they are doing.
The huge mistake that the left is making with ANTIFA is that they don’t have the race card to hide behind. Black Lives Matter was largely free to do whatever they wanted, simply because any opposition to them was called “racist.” This allowed them to get away with breaking the law in innumerable ways, simply because they were able to point the finger of racism at those who tried to reign in their destructive, illegal ways.
This brings us to another way that the left is using deflection to hide their own sins; that of racism. The left has become so quick to shout “Racist!” at anyone who opposes their ideology, that their battle cry is losing effect; they just don’t realize it yet. But like anything else, overuse renders it impotent.
The Democrat Party’s long history of racism is well documented. They’re the ones who stood against the Civil Rights movement. They’re the ones who passed the Jim Crow laws. They’re also the ones who gave birth to the KKK.
On a more subtle level, Democrats have continued their racism through affirmative action and their constant insistence that Blacks and other minorities need to live off the fruits of hard-working Americans, rather than working for themselves.
So, what’s the Democrat answer to this accusation? They claim that all the racists left the Democrat Party and became Republicans. A false charge, which can verified by history.
There is no record of any mass exodus of racists in the Democrat Party leaving the party to become Republicans. Yet they persist in their claims, tarring all southerners with the paintbrush of “racist,” simply based on the south’s racist past. Since that’s part of “flyover country” they don’t even see that the south has changed and is no longer the haven of racism that it used to be.
But that is unimportant to the Democrats, as long as they can continue to convince those in the coastal enclaves that southerners are racist.
All they want is a scapegoat, so that they can hide their own evil behind accusations of other people’s wrongs.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, the political left has been in a collective tizzy fit. Howls of outrage have resonated across the land, as each self-proclaimed activist has tried to outdo the next in the fury and outlandishness of their rhetoric.
Many of the demonstrations we are seeing the media focus on, like the NFL taking a knee and “civil rights” groups calling for the tearing down of statues, are nothing more than an expression of this collective outrage.
The consensus of the left seems to be that if they can’t beat us in the polls, they’ll beat us on the streets. They are living in a circular argument, where they tell themselves they are the majority and then are publicly outraged, garnering the attention of the media.
That attention proves to them that they are the majority, based on the faulty logic that there aren’t similar stories about those of us on the right. You’ll never see normal conservatives tearing down a statue of Martin Luther King Jr. That’s just not the way we work. But even if we would, you wouldn’t find the media reporting it in the same way.
Since the media is about the most liberal part of society, when they report on what leftists do, they give it a positive slant. They’ll either present it in a positive light, or they’ll ignore it altogether.
Yet in the midst of ignoring truly dangerous actions on those on the left, the media has no qualms about slandering anyone on the right, even if they have to make up a false story to do so. Nor do they have an problem tarring us all with the same brush, calling anyone who isn’t on the left by every name in the book.
In a very real way, the mainstream media is fueling the fires of hatred in this country. They’re also fueling the fear of those on the left. Rather than leaving fear-mongering to those who are on the fringes, fear-mongering has become mainstream. It is being used to manipulate the masses and create unrest.
Read or watch anything that is produced specifically for those on the left and you’ll find that fear-mongering going on. It is a tool they use very effectively, for the purpose of rallying the masses behind their banner. Keep the people afraid of what those nasty, hateful conservatives might do, and you can keep them in your pocket and voting for Democrats no matter what.
When Fear Becomes Dangerous
But this fear may manifest into something much uglier than the demonstrations and civil unrest we’ve seen to date. Ever since Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2016, the left has been arming themselves. While this still isn’t a widespread phenomenon, it is becoming much more common.
I have nothing against any law-abiding citizen of this country exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, regardless of their political beliefs. After the Pulse massacre earlier in 2017, some conservative gun groups even started reaching out to the LGBT community, offering them shooting and self-defense lessons. This was accepted with both gladness and surprise, as the members of that community have been told that conservatives hate them.
But, as you and I know, those of us on the right don’t hate people, even if we disagree with them. Besides, these people obviously need to be able to defend themselves, just like the rest of us do.
Traditionally, guns have been in the hands of conservatives, with liberals crying and pulling out their hair to enact “sensible” gun control laws. Of course, sensible in their minds and sensible in the minds of those of us who own guns are two different things.
To them, sensible is denying us our Second Amendment rights, in the name of “safety.” To us, it’s denying guns to criminals, which there are already laws on the books to do. All that needs to happen is for the government to start seriously prosecuting those who break those laws. Not enough of that happens, especially for straw purchases.
Leftist Militant Groups Arming Themselves
While there is nothing wrong with those on the political left exercising their Second Amendment rights, any more than any other American citizen, this seems to be extending beyond peaceful law-abiding citizens… not with criminals, but amongst the social justice warriors.
Word is coming out that militant groups, such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter are also arming themselves, as well as giving their members lessons in “self-defense.” But what do they mean by self-defense?
We’ve already seen, on multiple occasions, how violent these groups can be. Images from Ferguson and Baltimore are still all over the internet, as well as a score of other similar “demonstrations” that turned ugly. The violence at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was started by Antifa, even though there were a number of the white supremacist protesters who were armed.
These people, like others on the left, equate what they consider to be “hate speech” with violence. So they respond to anything they see as hateful with violent acts. The problem is, according to pretty much anyone on the left, all it takes for something to be considered hate speech is for it to be in disagreement with the left’s groupthink. In other words, any conservative opinion is hate speech and should be responded to with violence.
It’s bad enough when these people respond with their fists, rocks and sticks. They’ve put too may people in the hospital already, without using firearms. So what’s going to happen when they decide to ramp it up a bit, and use guns to express their outrage, rather than fists?
Owning and carrying a gun is a grave responsibility. I know men who won’t carry, simply because they don’t trust their own temper. They don’t want to put themselves at risk of acting irrationally with a gun, so they make sure that they can’t. I applaud them for their responsibility.
But what about these groups who have already shown their irresponsibility? What’s going to happen when they are armed and trained? Will they operate with the same restraint? Or will we start to see demonstrations like Ferguson turn even uglier? The risk we face from that is growing by the day.
Yet at the same time, we can’t take those people’s Second Amendment rights away from them, without just cause.
For us to take their guns away from them, simply because we suspect that they will use them inappropriately, is no different than them wanting to take ours away, because they think that we’re going to use them inappropriately. Until someone proves themselves to be a criminal, our laws require that they be presumed to be innocent.
Is a War Breaking Out?
The big risk here isn’t just that militant leftist groups arm themselves, or even that they use those arms in the midst of other violent acts. No, the big risk is that such an act break out into a full-scale battle.
With as many gun owners as there are in the United States and as many of us who are carrying concealed, chances are that any time that these militant groups would start shooting, someone would be there to respond.
This is rightly the job of the police, not you and I. Conservative gun owners and conservative militias must prepare themselves to use restraint in such a situation. That won’t be easy.
Don’t misunderstand me here; I’m not advocating letting them get away with attempted murder. Nor am I suggesting that we put our guns down. I firmly believe in our right to defend ourselves. All I’m suggesting is that we don’t go farther than necessary in defending ourselves and other innocent civilians.
I’m also suggesting that when the police take over, we step back and allow them to do their jobs.
Remember, there is no way for the police to know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in any violent confrontation. They’re forced to assume that anyone who is shooting is automatically a bad guy, until proven innocent. So if they see you or I shooting, there’s a good chance that they might shoot back at us, in an attempt to do the same thing we’re going; protecting innocent lives.
Situations like this can deteriorate quickly. It’s up to use to make sure that they don’t. Even if the left offers war, we don’t have to accept their offer.
There are enough of us, with enough firearms, that we can easily afford to fight a purely defensive war, forcing them to bring the battle to us.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
In July of 1953, the Korean armistice was signed by North and South Korea, China and the United Nations Command, putting a stop to three full years of conflict.
This isn’t to say the war ended, because it really didn’t. An armistice and a peace treaty aren’t the same thing. All an armistice is, is an agreement to cease hostilities. After that, a treaty is usually negotiated and then signed. But in this case, there was no treaty.
Considering the latest events in North Korean crisis, we’re about to fight. Are we fighting the same war, or we’re going into another?
For more than a half century, all we’ve seen on the Korean peninsula is a cessation of hostilities, a pause in the war. Both sides are still fully armed, poised for battle and staring at each other across the demilitarization zone.
From time to time, the North sends incursions into the South, small unit raids across this area of no-man’s-land, proving that to them, the war isn’t really over.
Part of the reason for this lull in the war has been the North Korean obsession with becoming a nuclear power. Ever since the United States first unleashed nuclear energy in the form of a bomb, ending World War II, being a nuclear-armed country gave one entry in the world’s most exclusive club. Only the big boys had nukes and other countries who craved power and position, also craved to be part of this club.
Probably no country has put more effort into gaining membership in this exclusive club than North Korea, putting their entire country on a war footing and starving their own people, so that resources could be poured into both their nuclear program and their missile program.
During all this time, the belligerence coming out of Pyongyang has increased. While the North Korean government has focused their hatred on three historic enemies, South Korea, Japan and the United States, they have essentially given the middle finger to the rest of the world as well.
As far as the North Koreans are concerned, the rest of the world has to accept them on their terms, essentially allowing them to have dominance over countries which are much larger, more powerful and richer than they are.
This incessant drive for power has been fueled by the rhetoric of the Kim dynasty, of which the current leader is the third to rise to power in that small country. As crazy as it might sound to us, the Kims are revered by their people, who look to them almost as gods.
They have succeeded in molding the whole country’s collective will to their desire, essentially turning the entire population into an extension of their army.
A New Cold War
North Korea’s efforts have not been in vain either. In recent months they have tested a number of newer missiles, one of which was multi-staged. According to calculations made by South Korea’s intelligence agencies, that missile has enough range to target a large part of the United States mainland.
In addition, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has accelerated rapidly, with them recently conducting their sixth testing of a nuclear bomb. This bomb was reported by the state news agency to be a hydrogen bomb, roughly ten times more powerful than anything that the North Koreans have successfully fielded before.
This has served to merely up the ante on North Korean threats and intimidation tactics. Their most recent threat is to “sink Japan” with nuclear weapons. Whether that is nothing more than a figure of speech or whether Kim Jong-un actually thinks that the Japanese Islands are afloat is a question we will probably never see answered. Either way, it is a very real threat to one of our allies, one that can’t be ignored.
Between their threats and their rapid development of the necessary hardware to carry them out, North Korean has succeeded in doing something that no other country has been able to do, since the end of the Soviet Union… start a new cold war.
One of the theoretical basis behind the Cold War was MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. As things sit right now with North Korea, that philosophy is back in effect. Any military attack on North Korea is bound to result in retaliatory attacks by the North Koreans, launching as many nuclear-tipped missiles as they can at Japan, South Korea and the US.
While that launch would most likely guarantee the total destruction of North Korea, it would carry a very high cost. Recent studies show that even a very minimal nuclear war with North Korea would cost a minimum of four million lives, just between the attacks launched against Seoul, South Korea and Tokyo, Japan; attacks that could very well succeed.
While we and our allies in this conflict all have anti-missile defense systems, their capabilities are limited.
For example, between Alaska and Southern California, the US has only 32 anti-ICBM missiles deployed. That number is scheduled to increase to 44 in the near future, but event that does not guarantee having overwhelming force to defend ourselves.
The real danger here is shown by statements from the Pentagon, which has said that our missile defense are sufficient against a few ICBMs, but not against a large-scale attack. Since these defenses have been in place for a long time, we can be sure that the North Korean military is aware of them, as well as being aware of their capabilities and limitations.
The limitations are something to be concerned about, as the testing they have undergone has been, like all such testing, rather contrived. In other words, until the North Koreans actually launch an ICBM towards us, with the intent of hitting one of our cities, we really don’t know how well it will work.
Yes, those missile systems have worked well in tests, succeeding about half the time, including the one time they were tested against an actual ICBM. But hitting an incoming ICBM is about as difficult as shooting at a bullet that’s been shot at you. The missiles are less than three meters in diameter, which is a really small target to hit with a kinetic weapon over such a huge distance.
No matter what, Kim Jong-un can overcome our missile defenses by the simple expedient of using a mass-attack. All he needs is enough missiles to fire at us, so that he can ensure that we’ll expend our defensive rockets shooting down the first wave or two. After that, we’re sitting ducks.
The situation is even worse for Japan and South Korea, mostly due to their close proximity. The THADD anti-missile system was just recently installed in South Korea and Japan doesn’t have it yet. While President Trump has indicated a willingness to sell more military hardware to both countries, in order to help them prepare for the inevitability of an attack, military hardware is expensive and those countries have to come up with the money to make the purchase.
Then, of course, there’s the problem of training the personnel who will man those weapons. Putting a new weapons system into play requires much more than just buying hardware and assigning people. The people need to be trained. While that can be done and even done fairly quickly, you can’t give them experience quickly.
That can only come with time and nobody knows how much time is available.
A Difficult Battle Problem
The threat of being on the receiving end of a nuclear attack from North Korea has become increasingly real, attracting the attention of high-ranking officials in our government and military. As we’ve already discussed, our ability to counter such an attack is somewhat limited, meaning that we, the American people, are at risk, just as our allies are.
Our government, along with the rest of the world, has been trying to use sanctions to force the North Koreans to the bargaining table, if not to quit their nuclear and missile programs altogether. However, those efforts have only served to inflame the rhetoric out of Pyongyang. It seems that there is little that diplomatic pressure can do to alter the situation.
This might be seen to some as a failure and to others as an impossibility. The ethos of the diplomatic community is to avert war at all costs. But that requires either serious discourse between all interested parties or that one side buckle under to the other. Since neither side is willing to buckle under and the North Korean government refused to come to the bargaining table, our options are rapidly dwindling. We will soon be left with no other option than open armed conflict. With nukes in the picture, that’s not an attractive option.
The logical strategy to take in that case is a preemptive attack on North Korea, taking out their nuclear and missile testing facilities. But that wouldn’t solve the problem. North Korea already has quite a number of nuclear bombs, as well as missiles of various sorts. They aren’t all in one place.
Actually, our government probably doesn’t know where the North Korean missiles are, as they are all mounted on mobile launchers. While those are more susceptible to damage than hardened underground silos, you have to find them first.
That’s not as easy as one might think. During the First Gulf War, the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) had a bear of a time locating SCUD missiles in Iraq; and Iraq is a much more open country, with much less vegetation, than North Korea.
Unless we were able to take out all the missiles in one fell swoop, chances are that any missiles which survived would be immediately readied for attack. If they couldn’t make it across the ocean, they would at least be able to strike South Korea and Japan. Considering that the North Koreans can hit Seoul, the South Korean capital, with artillery, because it is so close to the Demilitarization Zone, hitting it with missiles wouldn’t be much of a challenge.
Video first seen on Golden State Times.
The other preemptive strike that I’m sure has been considered is to assassinate Kim Jong-un, the North Korean dictator. But that wouldn’t solve anything either; all it would do is cause some internal conflict, with top military brass jockeying for position and trying to take over the country.
Anyone in the upper echelons of the North Korean government would probably be just as bad as Kim and maybe even worse. We can safely assume that the generals surrounding Kim have more knowledge of military strategy and tactics than he does, so if any of them assumed power, they would be better suited for a retaliatory strike against us than ever.
With the North Korean people being totally behind their government, it wouldn’t take much for a popular outcry to rise up, demanding that the government launch an attack. Killing of their beloved leader would certainly cause such an outcry to come forth.
So the battle problem is much more complicated than just destroying the missiles or just destroying the nukes. We would literally have to eliminate the ability of the North Koreans to make any sort of retaliatory strike at all. That means eliminating all their nukes, all their missiles, all their leadership and destroying their military’s ability to strike at South Korea, all at the same time.
It Might Mean War
I have to say, we, the United States, as well as the rest of the free world, have kicked this problem down the road just about as far as we can. Previous administrations have tried to appease the North Koreans, hoping to prevent us being in the situation we find ourselves in.
But those efforts were clearly unsuccessful. We are now facing a situation where we are likely going to be forced into war, not because of the things that President Trump has been saying, but because of what Kim Jong-un has said.
I’m sure that there are those on the political left who would say that we should just give North Korea what they want. Those were probably some of the same voices or their ideological descendants, who thought we should give Joseph Stalin what he wanted too. The left is always quick to capitulate to evil regimes, not understanding that such a move merely encourages them to demand more.
Some tried that tactic with Hitler, as he made demands for country after country to be “given” to Germany. That caused a world war. Could this cause another such war? I doubt it.
For it to be a world war, North Korea would need other countries on their side; and right now, it appears that they don’t have any. Both Russia and China, the two countries that have traditionally backed the North Koreans, seem to be backing off from them and the danger that they represent.
China has been North Korea’s biggest ally. During the first part of the Korean War, it was the Chinese who saved the North Koreans from annihilation. Their military had all but been defeated by UN forces, under the command of General McArthur. That all changed when the Chinese came in, leading to the armistice.
Would the Chinese back North Korea again? That’s the big question. They have joined the international community in levying sanctions on the North Koreans, mostly because of pressure from the United States. But how far will that go? We might not know, until the Cold War with North Korea becomes hot again.
Looking at the alternatives, continuing a conventional war with North Korea might be preferable, as horrible an option as that may be. Even so, conventional war with them doesn’t preclude the option of them going nuclear. It could just end up being another excuse for them to press the button.
Besides that, North Korea is much better prepared to enter into a restart of conventional war now, than they were in 1950. Literally every adult in the country is part of their military, if not actively serving, than in the reserves. They aren’t all armed, like the Israelis, but are expected to pick up the arms of those who fall in battle.
How does one fight against a populace which is ready and willing to give up their lives for their leaders? Any assumption of someone being an innocent civilian has to go out the window; but that goes against the ethos of our military forces, who are trained to conserve and protect innocent lives.
Yes, we have faced such a situation before, but it is never easy, and our troops have suffered for it. They either held back and were attacked by those they thought to be innocent, or they attacked and were castigated by the press and in the courts.
It becomes a no-win situation for them, even when they win. All we can do is support them and prepare to face whatever will come!
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Hello Fernando –
As an avid reader of your blog I am curious about your opinion regarding the news from Spain and the possibility that Catalonia will declare itself a separate country. Any SHTF advice regarding this at all? Would love to see you blog about it.
What you see happening in Cataluña is simply an attempt to overthrow the government.
The recent referendum, which was illegal both according to Cataluña law and the Spanish constitution agreed by all Spaniards, including Catalans, in 1978.
Spain has always been far more complex than what most people think. For example, Spanish, although the official language of Spain for obvious reasons, is not the only language across the country. In Galicia there’s Gallego. In Basque country here’s Euskera and in Cataluña there’s Catalan, a Spanish dialect with a few bits of French here and there.
For centuries, these autonomous regions have mostly lived in peace but there have been sporadic attempts to secede from Spain. Given that common sense generally prevails, these rarely have much support from a majority of the population. You probably remember the ETA terrorist group. A perfect example of trying to achieve through violence what is impossible through democratic means.
In the case of Cataluña, rather than using terrorism, separatists took their time and used a far more effective tactic: Attacking children. Taking advantage of the independence they had as an autonomous region in control of the education, they started brainwashing the very young. Although legally obligated to teach children Spanish, it was limited to 1 hour a week. Children were in fact punished by their teachers for speaking Spanish, even during break time. An alternative version of history was taught, one in which Cataluña was violently annexed to Spain. The idea was to plant an anti-Spanish, anti-monarchy sentiment in children and in due time across society in general. After 30 years, it was time to reap what they had sowed.
Who did this, who are the separatists? A complex group, but mostly its left, far-left, anti-capitalist, anti-system, anarcho-communists and liberals. There are of course very rich people, with a liberal speech and agenda but an aristocrat’s bank account, that have been promoting separatism as well. This would be the very rich, very corrupt Catalan elite (Pujols for example). Their main concern is creating a separate State so as to avoid going to jail given the many corruption scandals they have been involved in over the years. Politically speaking the Spanish right, called the PP(People’s Party) is very much against separatism, while traditional the further left you go (PSOE socialist party, Podemos left wing populism) , the more sympathetic they are with these separatist, anti Spain agendas.
Communists and Antifacists in Spain have been strong allies of Cristina Kirchner in Argentina and Hugo Chavez and then Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela… and they are strong supporters of Cataluña independence. In my book, that tells me all I need to know about these people.
After the failed referendum attempt, illegal, with no national or international monitors and ballot boxes full of votes even before people started voting, the powerful Catalan press is at it again and the mainstream liberal media eats it up.
You’ve probably heard that there’s been 900 wounded. But Cataluña hospitals only report treating four people in relation to the protests that day. A woman supposedly had all her fingers broken by the Spanish police… turns out she was only treated for a luxation… in one finger…
CNN will not tell you that Spanish police has been attack for upholding the law and entering illegally occupied schools. I doubt they’ll report that in public schools children of police officers have been singled out by commie separatist teachers and verbally abused.
The situation now is tense in Cataluña to say the least. The rest of Spain watches with attention as the situation over there develops.
Legally speaking The Spanish government has every right to charge the Cataluña government for attempting to overthrow the government. At this point I believe they are trying to jail these criminals with as minimum negative press as possible. This will be difficult to say the least since they have to support of significant part of the society. It may not be the majority, but as you know they can be loud and rebellious while the silent majority goes unnoticed.
At this point I would simply recommend to stay calm and prepared as we always do. For those is Cataluña, avoid the urge of going to the streets and engaging with troublemakers. That’s precisely what they want. I believe stores are closed in many places across the territory so you better have your supplies sorted out.
It’s a serious crisis and it is worth watching carefully. I wouldn’t bug out of the place just yet, but then again I would have never lived in a place that even years ago was clearly overrun by a left wing mafia.
The recent one-two punch of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have left the country reeling, as any such event does.
But this time, it wasn’t just one such event that struck the country, but two, with a mere eight days between the end of one and landfall of the next. Never before in our nation’s history, has there been so much destruction wrought in such a short amount of time.
In the past, natural disasters of this magnitude have become watershed moments for various presidents.
When Hurricane Katrina nailed New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in 2005, President Bush was lambasted thoroughly in the press for the poor response. Granted, not all of that poor response was his fault or even his administrations. But it happened on his watch, so he got the blame.
Specifically, Bush was blamed because it took three days for any government response to arrive in New Orleans. That’s enough time for people to start dying from the lack of adequate shelter and clean drinking water. Part of that delay was caused by the difficulty of getting through the deadfall trees on the highways, but the biggest part was that FEMA couldn’t move, until the state Governor declared a state of emergency.
The poor press generated by Hurricane Katrina stuck with President Bush until the end of his presidency. It’s even been said that the bad press that Bush received from Hurricane Katrina had a part in President Obama winning the election in November of 2008, as McCain was tainted by simply being in the same political party as Bush.
Seven years after Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, the conflux of two hurricanes, struck the New Jersey seashore, once again destroying homes and leaving people without the basic necessities of life. As with Katriana, FEMA was slow getting their act together; but this time, it couldn’t be blamed on the state’s governor. Rather, it simply demonstrated how inefficient FMEA is.
There are many examples of this, most notably the fact that they didn’t put out requests for bids until two days after the hurricane hit the coast. Considering that the National Hurricane Center had been tracking the storm since it formed off the West-African coast, that was inexcusable.
But the media hushed that up. In fact, President Obama didn’t receive any bad press in the national media.
However, that’s not to say that Hurricane Sandy had no affect on Obama’s presidency; it did. In fact, it had a huge affect. Days before the hurricane hit, Obama was running severely behind in the polls.
But Hurricane Sandy changed all that. Hitting just over a week before the elections, it allowed Obama to look good, as he authorized relief efforts and financial aid to the victims, as well as visiting the area to show his support and concern.
In both cases:
- The sitting presidents sent aid, petitioned Congress for disaster relief funds, gave speeches and visited the afflicted areas, although Bush delayed his visit to avoid getting in way of relief efforts.
- People were displaced from their homes, lost property and in some cases lost their lives.
- Thousands of homes were without electric power, in some cases for as long as seven weeks.
- FEMA’s efforts at bringing disaster relief were slow and poorly managed. They apparently hadn’t learned much in the intervening seven years.
- People were digging in dumpsters, trying to find something to eat.
But in one case, the sitting president came out smelling like a rose and in the other, like he had fallen in a septic tank.
What Was the Difference?
The difference was how the media handled the event.
Hurricanes are a big visual event for the media, with lots of good footage and pictures of flooding, general destruction, families in refugee centers and relief workers. People all over the nation are concerned and interested, so they can count on lots of viewers tuning in to see their “exclusive coverage.”
As such, it’s a major opportunity for politicians to make political hay. They get to stand in front of the cameras, talking about how bad it is, how much they support the victims and how much they are personally doing to get those people help.
Spending authorization bills get lots of “pork” projects attached to them, because nobody would dare vote against relief for the victims. For politicians with the right media connections, disasters are a great opportunity all around, too bad about those people who got hurt and lost their homes.
Since the media hated Bush, both for being a Republican and personally, they did everything they could to make him look bad in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But Obama was their fair-haired boy and he could do no wrong in their eyes.
So, as they did throughout his presidency and even during the campaign, they simply ignored anything that might make him look bad, refusing to report it. That left them with lots of good shots of President Obama looking concerned.
Since reality in the 21st Century is defined by televisions, computer monitors and handheld devices, all that most people know, is what the media tells them. This gives the media a huge amount of influence over society, influence that they use for the political benefit of their masters.
With the mainstream media totally sold out to the progressive-liberal left, what the low-information voters are receiving is political propaganda, not anything that even resembles the truth. Fake news has taken over, and the purveyors of that fake news have an agenda that they are trying to fulfill. It doesn’t matter how much they loudly and publically proclaim their innocence and lack of bias, it’s all a lie.
So, How Does this Affect Trump?
Enter President Donald Trump, a true enemy of the media. Trump’s war with the mainstream media has become famous, with neither side backing down. The mainstream media had thrown all their weight behind Hillary Clinton in the presidential race and they lost. Like the rest of those on the left, they don’t know how to handle that, so they’ve doubled down, attacking Trump at every turn.
When Donald Trump and his wife went to Houston, to see the damage and relief efforts for themselves, the media freaked out about the First Lady’s high heel shoes, accusing her of being “out of touch” with the victims, by wearing high heels to go to a flooded region of the country. Of course, they didn’t say anything when she got off of Air Force One, wearing a sensible pair of sneakers. Oops.
You would think that even the media would learn from a mistake like that, but they didn’t.
A few days later, when the Trumps went back to Houston again, we were treated to an instant replay, as the mainstream media once again started a Twitter firestorm about Melania getting on board Air Force One in heels. As with the first time, there was nothing that even vaguely resembled a retraction or apology when she once again got off the airplane in tennies.
That’s it. That’s the coverage that the media gave Donald Trump from Hurricane Harvey. There was nothing about FEMA and their relief efforts. Nothing about Trump’s request for billions in relief funds. There wasn’t even any photos about Trump and his wife helping out at a relief center.
Not even a word about Trump giving one million dollars of his own money to help Hurricane Harvey victims. Rather, they pushed a photo showing Obama feeding the hungry in a shelter, claiming that it was hurricane relief, when it wasn’t.
Such is the objectivity of the media today. Their whole purpose is to make Democrats look good and Republicans look bad. To do so, they hide any good news about Republicans and hide any bad news about Democrats.
Of course, they’re talking into an echo chamber, repeating the same things over and over again; telling their audience how bad Republicans are. But who is that audience? The low-information voters who don’t bother researching anything for themselves and merely repeat whatever Democrat talking points the media tells them to believe.
They apparently haven’t learned yet. Bashing Republicans isn’t going to win them any elections. The Democrat Party doesn’t even have a message anymore. Their supposed “message” is to talk about how bad they think Trump is, based purely on the name calling they’ve been doing. As if name calling is any sort of evidence. Yet apparently they think it is.
But it Doesn’t Stop There!
It’s bad enough to have the mainstream media giving a false narrative and convincing the low-information voters that Trump and the Republican party are bad. But that’s just the foundation level of what they’re doing.
From there it gets even more interesting. Conspiracy theories don’t just exist in the far right of the political spectrum, the far left has their own collection of conspiracy theorists at work.
According to this group of pseudo-scientists and pseudo-political theorists, Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are Donald Trump’s fault. Yes folks, our president apparently hates the American people so much, that he’s intentionally trying to ruin their lives and even kill them. He is doing this by hand-crafting hurricanes out of thin air.
One theory holds that Donald Trump ordered cloud seeding to create the hurricanes, using some ultra-secret magic dust, that they can sprinkle in clouds, causing any sort of natural disaster they want.
Cloud seeding does apparently exist, and it’s been done to cause rain during a drought. But there’s a huge difference between causing a little rain to fall on some farmlands, and creating a storm that’s 400 miles across and has winds in excess of 150 miles per hour.
Then there’s the theory of hurricanes being caused by global warming, or “climate change” as it’s called now. The global warming narrative has been debunked so many times now, that it’s not even funny. Yet there are still lots of people who stick to that story, saying that the rest of us are criminal for not accepting “settled science.” Settled? It’s only settled in their warped minds.
Once again, we can go back to the Mayans to disprove that pseudo-science. If global warming caused hurricanes, how could there have been hurricanes in Mesoamerica over 1,000 years ago? How could those hurricanes have continued to exist through the mini ice-age?
Yet the global warming crowd is trying to blame Trump for these hurricanes; not for anything he’s done, which created more warming; but rather for pulling the US out of the Paris accord. Apparently, pulling out of an agreement that wasn’t going to make any discernible difference anyway is enough to cause hurricanes to start attacking our country. I never knew nature could read.
The cause of hurricanes is known. While we are powerless to do anything to stop it, we can see from the recent hurricane activity that the National Hurricane Center is good at predicting the actions of these hurricanes and warning people of what is to come.
No matter how much pseudo-science they invent to try and pin them on Donald Trump, it’s not going to work. The only people who will believe them are those that already hate Trump and are looking for whatever excuse they can find to talk about how bad he is.
Whatever they do and say on politics, you need to be prepared and expect the worse!
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
During the Obama administration, the prepping community grew exponentially. Too many, it seemed like we were constantly on the brink of natural disaster, national gun seizures, UN takeovers, martial law, terrorism, you name it. The Obama administration was stressful and gave us all very good reason to prepare our families for disaster, and it’s certainly a relief it’s over.
Now that Trump is in office, however, you might think the tables seem to have turned, and many who were comfortable and happy under Obama have now begun to prep, fearing things like WWIII or a neo-nazi crackdown from President Trump.
While the left might be quite hysterical and delusional in comparing Trump to the National Socialist party of Hitler’s Germany (if anything, Obama was much more similar ideologically), the truth is that just because Obama is no longer in office, we ought not to stop prepping. If anything, we need to be even more prepared.
We seem to be in the midst of one of the most politically volatile periods in American history, and the tension is certainly not limited to domestic issues. There are a number of very important reasons the prepper should be more alert than ever in this highly toxic political environment. Let’s discuss some of these reasons:
Just because the Democrats no longer control the White House, Senate, or House, does not mean their ability to send dog whistles to the angry masses has gone away. After all, they still control the majority of the mainstream media, and at the drop of the hat, they could incite the type of violence we’ve seen in Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, and Berkeley over the last few years, not to mention the way much of the public reacted when Trump was elected and then inaugurated.
One of the few languages young, angry, idealistic leftists understand is violence, and there is actually a terrifying rationale for such violence that is becoming more and more common: as The Daily Wire reports, many on the left rationalize using violence against anything they deem “hate speech”. If it seems a bit hypocritical to the peace-loving, tolerant left to burn cars, smash windows, and beat up Trump supports, it’s because it is. But, in their minds, it’s some kind of twisted form of self-defense, because they consider the very existence of ideas that run contrary to their own as violent.
There’s no telling what will set off these angry masses, and while they are fortunately not the gun-owning type, if their violence was to escalate to such a level that people felt compelled to defend themselves and their property with firearms, it could end up being very bad for non-leftists everywhere.
Love him or hate him, Trump is certainly unpredictable. With the newly appointed General Kelly at the helm of White House operations, many are breathing a sigh of relief, but we all still remember the crazy week last month in which Trump cyberbullied Jeff Sessions, Sean Spicer resigned, and Scaramucci spent a total of ten days at the White House before going down in flames.
While the fact remains and most likely always will that there is virtually no evidence to indicate that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, the path Mueller’s investigation is now taking, he will most likely dig up something on the President, in the way Kenneth Starr did when he was investigating the White Water scandal and ultimately discovered Monica Lewinsky. If Trump were to fire Mueller, he would most likely be in no better position.
There certainly seems to never be a dull moment with the President, so between his unpredictable behavior and the Democrat’s undying commitment to bring him down, it remains prudent to be prepared for anything.
Speaking on the constant UN Sanctions violations from everyone’s favorite communist dictator in Pyongyang, Trump had some very harsh words.
Vowing to react if North Korea continued with their risky behavior, Trump promised ‘fire and fury like the world has never seen’ in a press conference.
While in many ways, it seems unlikely anyone but the citizens of North Korea face any real threat. But concerns always hover that once the other shoe drops, the West Coast of the US could get hit with a nuclear weapon.
At this point in time, the international community is supporting increased pressure on North Korea, but it hasn’t always been that way, and it might not remain that way, as the US has clashed with both Russia and China over how to react to North Korea’s nuclear program.
North Korea is like a ticking time bomb, and one of the biggest reasons we have right now to prep. While it is unlikely the impoverished communist country could do much damage the majority of the US, if the West Coast were to be struck, it could cause some serious chaos in our country for at least some time, and of course if you live on the West Coast, this is an important consideration.
Speaking of Russia, tensions with the massive northern giant never seem to go away. As the left constantly hurls accusations of election hacking at Putin, Trump shuts down their collusion narrative by posturing against the famous oligarch at times.
Conflict over the outcome in Syria has both brought our two countries together and pitted them against each other, and while things seem relatively civil now, there’s no telling what the future might hold.
In many ways, the Cold War never ended with our biggest military rival on the globe, and they certainly are the most likely contender in the next world war. It’s always prudent to hope for civil relations with Russia, but this is one important factor to watch in the news if you want to stay abreast of the possibilities of war.
The US has one enemy that has no problem declaring itself as such: Islamic terrorists. While the Trump administration seems to be gaining the upper hand on the fight against ISIS in the Middle East, the nature of radical Islamic terrorism is such that you simply never know when they might manage to strike on American soil again.
Terrorists like the Pulse Nightclub, Ft. Hood, and San Bernardino shooters were living and working in the US, and, radicalized one way or another, simply planned out and executed their brutal slayings upon unsuspecting American citizens just going about their daily lives.
9/11 of course being the extreme example, there is also always the possibility of large-scale terrorists attacks as well, even cyber attacks or bioterrorism. Terrorism should remain high on your lists of reasons to prep, as well as a specific scenario you should be prepping for. Make sure to add training situational awareness and crisis response to your preparedness regimen.
Second Civil War
We have not had such a politically polarizing time in recent memory as we do right now, and as we continue to see, people on the left are getting more and more militant. The elephant in the room, of course, is the fact that people on the right tend to be far better well-armed.
As we have seen in Berkeley and now Charlottesville, there are many people on both sides of the political spectrum who are ready and willing to brawl over differences of opinion, and this is not unlike the public violence seen in the Weimar republic between the fascists’ shirts and the communists.
Emotions are charged right now, and that is taking physical form in a dangerous way. Hopefully it won’t amount to much, but until this swell of violent political rivalry passes, it’s best to stay prepared.
Possible Impeachment or Ousting of the Trump Administration
Last but not least, of course, is the hypothetical constitutional crisis that has been on the horizon since before Trump even took office: impeachment, or other, potentially messier, attempts at destabilizing the Trump administration.
There is a mess in Washington right now between the so-called deep state war on the President, Mueller’s grand jury investigating the Trump campaign, and the Democrats laser-sharp focus on finding even the slightest hint of a chink in the armor of the Trump administration.
The Democratic commitment to upsetting the presidency in any way possible, even at the risk of a huge national crisis, are certainly something to be wary of, and a very good reason to stay vigilant and prepared.
Presidential administrations and political trends come and go, but if history has taught us anything, it’s that you never do know when you might regret not getting prepared. Now, more than ever, many volatile forces hover on the horizon as potential disasters or crises.
Don’t let your guard down just because Obama is out of office–keep prepping!
Experts agree that Harvey was NOT your grand-daddy’s typical Hurricane.
This mega mystery storm has meteorologists unnerved as to its strange formation and inexplicable, atypical pattern behavior which inspired some reporters like one from the New York Times to write an article entitled “Harvey, The Storm That Humans Helped Cause”.
An agenda based commentary derived from certain points of view from the global warming activists. But the article is a focus on the point that represents an important reality that too many of us are still apathetic about.
Something bad IS definitely happening to our atmospheric environment that is NOT natural and far from normal.
But some of us know the terrifying truth. It is important to start to prepare yourself because it’s not what you think, and new shocking evidence indicates that “Frankenstein” weather might be here to stay…
It All Started With God
Ever since the Almighty wiped out his creation of flawed disobedient humans with horrendous floods, weather manipulation was always a smoldering ember in the souls of following generations of even more flawed people who eventually desired to get around to playing god, themselves.
Weather manipulation became serious business after aircraft were invented and science had a better comprehension of the physics and chemistry of our atmosphere. After all, rain was essential to everyday life and prosperity.
Indian rain dances and praying were one thing, and shooting fireworks into the sky to stimulate the thunder gods for rain was another, but good old hard scientific genius always comes through if you’re persistent and have enough money.
The dark state powers took a great interest in weather manipulation. They saw GeoEngineering as a means to expand and sustain their growing world power base through its proprietary agenda based exploitation.
Weaponizing the Weather!
In WWII, Weather was a major battlefield factor. Had the allies or the enemy benefitted from satellite weather observations like we have today, the entire course of the war may have been different.
In Viet Nam heavy Monsoon clouds drifted over the country for weeks at a time. If they were to suddenly ‘dump their load’ at the time the enemy was bringing supplies down the Ho Chi Minh trail there would be major damage to their efforts because the trail would be so muddy that every soldier and piece of equipment would get irretrievably stuck and be sitting ducks for air strikes.
So the military tried something called “cloud seeding” on the trails to help make it rain just at the right time and place. Weather Weaponization science has been around a long time.
But nevermind warfare, what about weather as civilian population controls?
What if the people someday had enough of totalitarian rule and planned mass disruptive anti-government demonstrations to exercise their constitutional mandate to demand physical removal of the current regime and restore the Constitution? But the mass rallies were…CANCELED, due to extremely inclement weather? Because it was so dangerously cold, wet, and stormy you couldn’t even stand outside and hear yourself protest!
That would be far better than water cannons, tear gas, sound frequency devices, or frying your skin microwave weapons for crowd control. And you wouldn’t have to endanger your riot police or pay them overtime?
Fast forward to 2017 and ‘we’ve come a long way, Baby’ when it comes to weather manipulation.
We all know by now that about the only thing the government does well anymore is lying to the public. This is why most people don’t know about how advanced weather manipulation science has become. Serious details of it stay out of public reach under sanitation cover of military black projects.
And we finally realize that anytime government PTB gets an opportunity to politicize scientific technology to further their proprietary power agendas, they take full advantage and lie through their teeth about it.
Like the CIA recently saying to Congress “No, we don’t spy on our Citizens with NSA computer surveillance technology”…all the while collecting everything you privately say and do online and everywhere else,and storing it for future government ‘necessity’.
Even the FBI (no surprise there) lied to Representative Chavett’s face in a hearing not long ago about not maintaining a facial recognition base of all citizens! It looks like weather manipulation now might be fitting into the overall totalitarian program.
Video first seen on WeatherWar101.
The Great “Climate Change” Hoax
Notice I didn’t say global warming? That’s because we’re really not talking about that as a cause of anything of the magnitude we all may be in direct catastrophic experience of sooner than we want to believe. Even “climate change” is technically not adequate because all weather, by definition, IS climate change in and of itself, in its perpetual dynamics.
But pay attention closely now. The environmentalists and global warming proponents tend to believe that humans are a huge cause of our radically changing environments, particularly the alleged deleterious carbon “warming” of our average normal environment, thus the notion “global warming” which, by the way, is not supported by all scientists.
There’s an ongoing debate in the science community that if there really IS a climate situation where the average world temperature is warming up so rapidly that soon you’d be able to fry an egg on the top of your bald head, you should get huge amounts of verified scientific studies and comparisons and analysis to prove that beyond any doubt.
But that is simply not happening. Melting ice caps are a specious indicator because there’s a constant fluctuation in melting and freezing with glaciers over time in different regions.
While there are weather/climate events around the world that seem to be extreme, these are mostly isolated incidents in the bigger picture. And maybe something more insidious as we are starting to learn.
And one side of the scientific community claims to have proof that there’s barely any minor elevation of any significance in the world average temperature if you compare all the past data over the years? Which could just as easily lean back toward global cooling at some future time in the greater cosmic schema, given enough time.
As far as specific human cause examples sometimes affecting weather in certain parts of the world, this is correct to some extent.
Giant oil spills and heavy pollutions do have some effects on the relative environment, but these are not expanded enough to represent a major global change. And damages occur in specific local areas. Which can be cleaned and managed. While the rest of the world barely blinks.
Of course humans should always tread lightly when the risk of carelessly damaging our natural environment exists, but this planet has endured tens of thousands of years of humans and their destructive habits and barely frowned. It would take an unbelievable amount of human intervention to destroy the Earth.
And stupid humans who even try anything usually get a severe lesson in humility right up front. Ma Nature takes no prisoners. Most of our species would likely be extincted first, if we tried too hard to destroy the climate. Which leads us into the real deal here…
Know This or Die
Even if you don’t believe in global warming as a result of greenhouse gasses as the cause of anything, most of us would stipulate at least to some increase in adverse climate change. And, naturally (pun intended) the PTB want you to believe that.
All of us to some degree understand that orbit distances around the sun and the sun’s activity along with the Earth’s own roiling ocean currents, continental plate movements and volcanic disruption account for slow but often very different climate changes around the world.
But these take place gradually in the Earth’s greater time schema and eventually return to an average. And that’s how they hide their sinister agenda from you. The literally hide the details and manifestations of their GeoEngineering experiments in the clouds so nothing can easily be determined at first glance, especially if it remains secret military business.
When they sometimes get busted out, like in the videos here, with obvious outside proof of serious chemtrailing activities, HAARP, and weather systems far too suspicious to be normal, they quickly dismiss any nefarious content by making unverifiable statements like “oh, don’t worry about that”, it’s just some science experiments in Solar Radiation Management to help keep environment from getting too hot.
This creates the illusion that the government is trying to help make the nasty old climate changes more user friendly for the folks.
And “naturally”, we buy it like bacon and eggs at Sunday church brunch. Never accepting the fact that these lies couldn’t be farther from the truth. And that the death and destruction from radical weather changes is caused by THEM. That THEY are CAUSING the deleterious climate change with their intentional weather control experiments!
And if there IS any kind of general global warming anywhere, THEY are causing that, as well.
Will Trump “Weather” the Storm?
The political writing is on the wall with Trump’s insider government deep state enemies.
Anybody who can’t see that just doesn’t have their glasses on, or doesn’t care. He’s not part of their karma club. He doesn’t flow with the status quo. He’s gotta go!
The interesting coincidence is that if the deep state needed something huge to take down Trump’s presidency with, outside of the constant barrages of agenda based criminal investigations and fake news media attacks nitpicking and distracting his efficacy as POTUS, you couldn’t get a better tailor made event than a massive natural disaster.
This kind of event puts immense pressure on the administration and tests the endurance of the nation’s already strained nerves by causing a level of devastation that will usher in everything from draining Federal emergency disaster funds and requiring untold billions more to even start a clean up.
In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of intrepid Texans brave everything from food and clean water shortages to disease outbreaks to insurance companies refusing to pay, to even huge alligators loose in the vast new instant neighborhood swamplands! And there’s no end in sight to the multiplying problems and domino effects.
This storm completely upended this administration’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) platform. Trump already is forced to equivocate on previous issues he strongly supported like funding for the Border Wall and other financial changes his administration promised in view of the coming debt ceiling votes.
But now he’s challenged with out of control complications that could easily bring down any president, and certainly a vulnerable one like Trump already is?
Another coincidence is the area in which Harvey decided to hunker down and replicate the great flood. Because it’s no coincidence that Texas was the brass knuckles in a political bar room brawl for the election. And it was the Texas electoral college that provided the tipping point for Trump’s election?
If Trump makes one screw up in the Harvey relief effort–which will be greatly hoped for and facilitated by his enemies—during the process of the salvation of Texas, now, his future chances for winning his favorite vote state again are ‘Gone Girl’.
And the Leftist mainstream media will circle like voracious vultures to pick the bones of every single problem with the Harvey Recovery right up until Trump either quits from frustration or loses in 2020.
Also, Texas was the one state that always represented a thorn in dark state totalitarian agenda. They always thought they could take on any Federal government jackbooting by simply seceding from the Union if they had to. After all, they were bigger than several countries in the world. And they have self-reliant resources to where they could easily survive and even thrive without Federal association in their own sovereign, global economy?
But they certainly can’t thrive and are barely surviving now! In this unholy abyss of destruction and economic devastation. Which will be hurting Texas for years to come. No chance for any delusions of secession in the foreseeable future.
Those of us predisposed to intransigent denial might say “You can’t be serious, no government, not even an evil deep state totalitarian regime would risk their own innocent civilians’ lives by intentionally creating a dangerous weather environment to ensure future political success for their agenda?”
Oh really? You think that secret shadow governments who allow Big Pharma to inject deadly poisons for profits into millions of our bodies from cradle to the grave in the form of mandatory vaccinations, or send tens of thousands of our nation’s best and brightest young people to worthless foreign countries to bleed and die or come back mutilated beyond repair would care at all about relatively “minor” human storm casualties and misery by comparison?
Or let that ridiculous notion of “the value of human life” interfere with their plans when they are on the verge of creating environmental weapons systems that will make them “masters of the universe”?
Hell No! They’ll even USE humans as lab rats like they’ve often done in the past! Why not, the planet’s getting far too overpopulated anyway?
Got your ‘glasses’ on yet?
There are very dark storm clouds forming on the horizon. It’s time we all should seriously start preparing.
The Earth will survive even if humans are a “cause’”of catastrophic weather control. But most humans won’t.
Maybe that’s the plan!
This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.
Problems with North Korea are nothing new. Ever since the closing days of World War II, this small country has tried to take on the world with their bravado and fiery rhetoric.
Almost 70 years ago, that broke out into the first Korean War on June 25, 1950. Now they’re scratching the surface again…
The only reason why North Korea wasn’t annihilated as a political entity and absorbed into the nation of South Korea was that China came into the war once American forces got close to the Yalu River; the boundary between North Korea and China.
Concern that American forces wouldn’t stop at the Yalu, not a love for North Korea, caused China to enter that war, pushing American and South Korean forces back past the 38th parallel and forcing an armistice.
The reason why the Chinese wanted to protect North Korea is that they see the small country as a buffer. So North Korea serves an important purpose for them, as part of their defensive perimeter.
Given that, it’s no wonder that China has stood behind North Korea, as they have tried to bully the rest of the world.
So the problems we currently have with North Korea aren’t anything new. The only new aspect of them is that North Korea is finally reaching their long-stated goal of developing nuclear tipped missiles. Recent test launches show that they have finally developed an ICBM which will reach American cities, making their threat to rain nuclear war down upon us much more real.
Living in Suicidal Denial
American media and the intelligence community have had a hard time accepting North Korea’s success in missile and nuclear technology.
Denial after denial has come forth, downplaying the success that they have had and making it seem like it will be years before Km Jong-un can be a real threat to our nation’s security.
But while this has all been going on, North Korean engineers and scientists have been working hard to fulfill their dictator’s goals.
As we’ve watched missile test after missile test, we’ve been hearing over and over again that it didn’t matter, because North Korea still had to learn how to miniaturize their warheads, so that they’d fit on the missile. But that’s been a false narrative, given to use as a placebo, so we wouldn’t worry.
You see, one thing that has been kept secret from the US population is that North Korea already has miniaturized nuclear warheads. That information was found out and reported during the Obama presidency. But since it went against Obama’s agenda, the report was buried and we were all led to believe that North Korea wasn’t as ready as their missile program made it seem they were.
This hit a whole new level last Sunday, as North Korea did another nuclear bomb test; the first since last September. While any nuclear bomb test is something worth noting, this one is attracting a lot of attention.
Video first seen on euronews (in English).
The reason is that according to the official North Korean state news, this was a hydrogen bomb, the first such bomb built by the North Koreans. Producing roughly ten times the explosive yield of any previous test, this one caused an earthquake measured at a 6.3 magnitude.
The epicenter of the earthquake was less than a mile from the last underground test the hermit kingdom had, increasing the credibility that this was an actual nuclear weapons test, even if it wasn’t a hydrogen bomb. Shock waves from the test were felt in both South Korea and China.
Are We Heading to Disaster?
So we need to ask the question… Is North Korea really ready to launch a nuclear-tipped missile at the United States?
The answer to that question is probably yes… and no.
From what we’ve seen of the North Korean tests, they really haven’t mastered the fine art of missile manufacturing. Their success rate still isn’t 100% or anywhere close to it. Nor do we know of if they have figured out how to protect their warheads from heat on reentry, a minor technical problem that could render their nukes ineffective.
But that’s assuming American ideas about success rates. We expect every missile we launch to work perfectly. A 98% success rate isn’t good enough.
But if Kim Jong-un is willing to roll the dice, realizing that not all his missiles will function perfectly, he could launch an attack right now. At least some of his nukes would reach their mark, or at least close enough to their mark to give him success.
Since Kim Jong-un isn’t planning on shooting his first ICBMs at the American mainland, his chances of success are probably even higher than 50%.
Recent statements he’s made indicate that he has Guam in his sights right now. Perhaps he thinks we will be impressed by his restraint in not destroying a major American city with his nukes, but rather going after a Pacific island which has been a major American military stronghold since before World War I.
So why would Pyongyang threaten Guam, rather than one of our major population centers here at home? Besides the fact that it’s a closer target, making it easier to attack; Guam is a major part of the US Military’s plans for any action in Asia. As our closest major base to North Korea, any attack we might need to make against the hermit kingdom will use Guam as a staging base. The naval base there would probably become the most important logistics hub in that effort.
Attacking Guam would also be attacking American citizens, as the people of Guam hold American passports. That’s not even including the thousands of American military personnel who are stationed there. That would be a direct attack against our military, something that’s considered an act of war in anybody’s book.
The threat of North Korea attacking Guam has supposedly reduced a little, with North Korea stating that they are going to “watch a little more of the foolish and stupid conduct of the Yankees.”
Why is that? Probably because of statements by President Trump and Secretary of Defense Mattis, both of whom have made it clear that any attack by North Korea would be met with the full force and fury of the United States military.
Who’s Cards Is China Playing?
But there’s another factor coming into play here that might be scaring Pyongyang even more than statements by Donald Trump and General Mattis, that is that China has made it clear that they won’t support North Korea in any attack they make against the USA.
This is something that President Trump has been pushing for ever since taking office. As North Korea’s major trading partner and protector, China has a major influence on the actions of the North Korean leadership. Kim Jong-un might be a dictator and might think he’s the toughest kid on the block, but when it all comes down to it; he needs the backing of China to do anything.
But obviously, we don’t want it to come down to North Korea launching a nuke at anyone. The question then becomes how to stop them?
That’s where politicians, military planners and pundits all disagree. Former President Obama tried appeasement, just as he did with Islamic terrorists.
But appeasement doesn’t work against countries which are hell-bent on destruction. There is absolutely no indication that North Korea took any more notice of Obama’s foreign policy, than to see it as an opportunity to continue their testing, without interference from the United States.
The South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, has favored a similar philosophy, wanting to open a dialog with the North, with the hope of renewing the “Sunshine Policy.” The idea behind this is to lure the North into disarmament through engaging them economically. However, those efforts have failed.
Actually, the North Korean government has been totally opposed to any sort of negotiations, preferring to use angry rhetoric and threats instead. They have taken a hard line to any South Korean or American military presence at all in the area.
Specifically, they have objected for years to joint exercises between North Korean and American military force. As far as they are concerned, American and South Korean military presence in the region is a provocation.
President Trump and his Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, have taken the opposite approach to the North Korean problem, standing strong against this adversary. While that seems to be having some effect, at least in making the North Koreans take pause, it is yet to be seen how much overall effect it will have over the long term. While it may delay action by the north, that doesn’t mean that it will succeed in bringing such action to a complete standstill.
A large number of options are on the table and being looked at by President Trump, Defense Secretary Mattis and their advisors. One of the difficulties they face is that the North Korean missiles are all mounted on mobile launchers.
So the possibility of a preemptive strike taking out all of the North Korean missiles is extremely low. Should such an attack fail, it is almost guaranteed that North Korea will make good on their threats and launch a nuke at the USA.
Where Do We Go From Here?
It is clear that the crisis with North Korea isn’t ending anytime soon, and short of another Korean War, it might never end. Continued diligence is essential, as North Korea continues to test their missiles. Any one of those could actually be more than a test, should they decide to arm one secretly.
Just a few days ago, North Korea launched three medium-range missiles into the Sea of Japan, with one of them actually overflying Japanese airspace. This has surely attracted the attention of our Japanese allies, as it was a direct threat against them. Pyongyang claims that the threat was supposed to be against Guam, rather than Japan, but if that’s true, their aim was off by a good 60 degrees or more.
It is clear that the North Korean’s aren’t going to stop their missile testing program. This could be nothing more than thumbing their collective nose at US and UN demands; but it doesn’t really matter the motivation.
Each launch teaches them more about making their missiles function properly, so that when they do finally want to launch a nuclear-tipped missile, their chances of success will be higher.
Will they launch such an attack? Nobody knows. I don’t even think they know themselves. I would say that chances are high that they eventually will. You can’t put as much effort into such a program, literally starving your population to fund it, and not have anything to show for it. They need results.
Sadly, the results they get may not be the results they want. But in this day and age aggressive action by one nation-state against another is considered unacceptable. We cannot simply turn out head and ignore it, if they actually launch a nuclear-tipped missile at American territory or the territory of any of our allies.
For the sake of protecting the world, we would be forced to act as President Trump said, raining “fire and fury” down upon them.
The sad victims of all this will be the people of North Korea, those who are blindly following their leader, cut off from the rest of the world. They are being fed nothing but a diet of lies, as their “beloved leader” twists the tail of the tiger, daring it to bite. When it does, they will be the ones to die, not the dictator who is gambling their lives like poker chips.
As the governor of Guam said, “I am glad that we have a man like Donald Trump at the helm. One who will make clear statements and who is not afraid to make the tough decisions when it comes to our enemies.”
He may soon need to make those tough decisions and I can only hope that the information that is being given him is true and accurate, so that he can make the best possible decision in the defense of our country.
What can you do is to prepare yourself for the worst, and expect for the best!
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
A progressive movement towards socialism is being taught in our schools, our universities and being touted constantly by people like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. They are planning a quiet takeover of the world. The question is how are we going to survive the globalist scenario they are struggling to impose.
This group of the globalist elite met just a couple of months ago, working to determine the fate of the world. These people, known as the Bilderberg Group, consist of world leaders in banking, business and politics. There’s a core group that comes together every year, inviting others to join with them as seems appropriate for that year’s agenda.
Bilderberg is one of the world’s most secretive organizations. While they publish a list of attendees every year and an official agenda, nobody but the attendees knows if it is accurate. They’re not allowed to take notes, tape recorders, photos, videos or copies of papers with them. Everything that happens at Bilderberg, supposedly stays at Bilderberg.
Only it doesn’t.
These people are the main driving force behind a one world government, trying to bring all the governments of the world under a central power. The model is the European Union, which they want to expand, setting up other regional governments, which will all eventually come under one common worldwide umbrella, giving control to the elite of the world.
This new government will be a socialist one. We see that clearly in what’s happening in Europe. As time has gone on, the various European countries have become more and more socialist, now that the Soviet Union has been dissolved and Russia has moved away from socialism.
Anyone who knows anything about Biblical prophecy can see the writing on the wall. One of the things that is talked about in the book of Revelations is that one world government. So it’s likely that if this group doesn’t succeed, then another like it will. It’s just a matter of time.
You and I really can’t do much to stop that.
We can vote for politicians who will oppose putting the USA under such a system, but that’s about it. Since there are about as many people who vote Democrat in our country as there are who vote Republican, chances are that we’ll be back under the progressive-liberal leadership of the Democrats once again. When that happens, the globalists will have their instrument in place to push the United States closer to becoming part of that one world socialist order.
Remember the UN small arms treaty?
Barack Obama and John Kerry signed it on behalf of the United States. But it was never brought before the Senate, as the Constitution requires. So it hasn’t been ratified. What that means is that it isn’t law here in the USA. But if we ever had a Democrat president and a Democrat controlled Senate again, it’s waiting in the wings to be approved.
Should that happen, we can expect the Democrat controlled government to do everything they can to implement the provisions of that treaty, taking our guns from us, and with it, taking our ability to defend ourselves from tyranny.
That’s a prerequisite for making the country socialist, as they need us to be good little sheeple, who can’t rebel against the government. That, in turn, requires taking our rifles from us, because you can’t fight a war with pistols.
What is the Battle We Have to Face?
The question for us, is how will we survive that transition when it comes? How will we keep from losing our guns and our freedom when the US joins that global disaster?
I think there are a few things that we can assume will happen, when that day comes.
I also think that we can assume that it will be voted in by the people, specifically the younger generation, who are being brainwashed into believing that such a thing would be good. These assumptions include:
- Gun confiscation would be implemented before it happened.
- Paper money would be eliminated, replaced by a RFID chip or something similar, linked to an electronic bank account.
- Income taxes would skyrocket to pay for all the “free” stuff.
- The government would start rounding up dissidents who opposed the new world order.
At first, the change will be made to look good. We saw this with the roll out of Obamacare. The government and the media touted it as a great success, quoting exaggerated figures of how many people were receiving free healthcare.
But what they didn’t say was that those people were signing up for Medicaid and that you and I were going to have to pay for it.
So we need to be aware of what’s going on behind the news; the truth of what Washington is doing, rather than the leftist propaganda that the mainstream media is pushing. We also need to be thinking about the news we are hearing, looking for signs that the USA is getting closer to joining that one world government system.
When that time comes, we will each have to make a decision. Actually, we should make it before that time comes, but even if we do, we’ll need to reaffirm it then. The three options we will have are:
- Fight government troops in what will probably be a losing war.
- Knuckle under and accept totalitarian rule over us, along with higher taxes and a loss of freedom.
- Move to someplace where government agents will have a hard time finding us.
Of those three options, the third one is the most sustainable survival solution. If we stay where we are, in cities and towns, it’s too easy for the government to find us and control us. But if they can’t find us, they can’t do a whole lot to control us either.
This means either moving out of the country or moving to a remote area of the country where government agents would have trouble finding us.
Even at the height of the Soviet Union, there were people living on the fringes of society, who were not really accounted for. These people, many of whom lived in Siberia, were too far distant from the government and too few to really matter. So they were mostly left alone.
Of course, this means going totally off-grid and either living off the land or homesteading. You wouldn’t be able to have an e-mail account, a bank account or a Facebook account. For that matter, you wouldn’t be able to be online at all. Any electricity you consumed would have to be produced in house, as well as your food and pretty much everything else you would use.
Since there won’t be any money, it will be difficult to buy things without accepting the RFID chip or something similar. But there will always be a black market, as well as others who are working on the barter system.
Once again, we can use the now defunct Soviet Union as a model and see that they had the same. Shortages in the Soviet Union created a very lively smuggling business, especially for products that were made “in the west” but not available within their borders.
We can expect essentially the same thing, especially at the beginning. While many people will be quick to accept their chip, they won’t want to give up the freedom of buying with cash. So while greenbacks will not be usable for much of anything, there will always be people who are willing to accept gold and silver in exchange for products. Stocking up on these precious metals would be a good hedge against this system.
Another thing that would help is the ability to make things that you can use as trade goods. One of the ways that those living in Siberia were able to trade for things that they needed was by trapping and trading the furs. While that probably wouldn’t work here, other similar opportunities would show up, mostly based upon items that were in short supply.
Is Gun Control a Threat Anymore?
One of the biggest risks that any of us who attempt to drop off the grid would face would be government agents, probably UN troops, confiscating guns. While government agents tend to be a bit on the lazy side, soldiers are used to hardship. So they would seek us out, even in remote areas.
The solution is make sure that you have guns that are totally off the books, such as ghost guns, so that you could turn in the guns you’ve purchased over the counter and look like you’re obeying the law.
But you would still have your off the books guns at home. As long as you kept them out of sight, you could get away with keeping them.
Of course, that also means avoiding using them, unless you absolutely have to. So it would be a good idea to have an alternative, like a bow and be proficient with it. That would give you a means of hunting that is silent, wouldn’t attract attention, but would still provide you with meat for the table.
All in all, it would be possible to live and even enjoy a life of freedom in such a world; but it would require giving a lot up in order to maintain your freedom.
So the decision really breaks down to how much your freedom is really worth to you. What are you going to do to keep your family safe?
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
The devastating crisis in Venezuela has been going on for years, though mostly below the fold of our nation’s mainstream newspapers and websites. And as the citizens of this once prosperous, oil-rich nation are literally running out of trash to rummage through for sustenance, leftist celebrities who once praised the socialist government of Hugo Chavez are strangely silent.
A few decades ago, the enigmatic Chavez was promising to reserve the great wealth of Venezuela’s oil reserves for the poor, the people he identified with and vowed to help. He was praised around the world for his cutting-edge economic plan and being a champion of the poor and of “el pueblo”, the people.
Today, in the wake of his legacy, the people of Venezuela wake up at the crack of dawn to spend their whole day in food lines for the mere chance of being able to bring home groceries. Stray dogs, cats, and even pets are diminishing as they are killed and eaten for sustenance, even the animals in the zoo aren’t safe from the starving population.
Meanwhile, tankers full of Venezuelan oil sit in the Caribbean, unsold, because the government can’t even afford the maintenance and port fees to bring them into harbors to be sold.
Where did it all go wrong?
So how did this all happen? How did a dream of a utopia for the people turn into such a nightmare?
Well, the short answer, of course, is socialism. One of the reasons you will not hear the crisis in Venezuela spoken of often among leftist politicians and celebrities is that it is a perfect example of the failures bigger government, nationalized industries, and the redistribution of wealth. These kinds of policies are exactly what these leftist pundits want to see expanded here in the United States.
They also happen to be the exact same policies that led to this devastating crisis in Venezuela.
Let’s take a look at exactly how socialist policies is destroying Venezuela.
First Roots of Freedom in Venezuela
Venezuela is an incredibly fertile and resource-rich country that, at one time, was the most prosperous country in South America. Once a colony of Spain, Venezuela gained their independence in 1810 and, beginning in 1870, under the leadership of Antonio Guzman Blanco, they were able to attract foreign investors into their economy and modernize transportation and education.
In the first half of the 20th Century after the discovery of oil in Venezuela, it slowly grew to become the world’s single largest oil importer. While the government bounced back and forth from military dictatorships, coups, and several attempts at democratic rule, in 1958 the people of Venezuela were finally able to secure a democratic leader in Romulo Betancourt of the Democratic Action Party, who was the winner of a free election.
While the 70’s saw massive economic growth amid a huge oil boom, the 80’s brought instability and violence, as the people took to the streets in riots during a depression that resulted in hundreds killed and the implementation of martial law.
The Rise of the Chavistas
In the 90’s, Hugo Chavez led two failed coup attempts and was imprisoned for two years as a result. 120 people were killed in the government’s effort to suppress these coups. However in 1998, a few years after the impeachment of President Perez, Chavez was elected president.
Chavez’ election spurred the ‘Bolivarian Revoultion’, after Simón Bolívar, the so-called “liberator” of Venezuela who was a political and military leader in the early 1800’s. With Chavez at the helm, this revolution saw dramatic changes in the constitution of Venezuela, as well as the establishment of new political parties.
This was when socialism began to take flight in Venezuela. Chavez implemented dramatic new socialist and populist-inspired economic policies, all in the name of helping the poor and leveling the wealth in oil-rich Venezuela. At the time, oil prices were high, so there was a lot of wealth to level.
In 2001, he passed 49 new laws aimed at nationalizing industry and redistributing wealth. At this time, critics began to express concern that he was trying to follow the Cuban model of consolidating all economic power to the government.
The Socialist Foundation
Over the next decade, the socialist dream of Chavez began to blossom. Surviving an attempted coup in 2004, he begins to break up Venezuela’s large land estates, which ranchers said was an attack on private property. Of course, attacking private property is exactly what socialists do.
He also moved to restrict the flow of information to the people of Venezuela by imposing harsh regulations regarding the slander of public figures in his government. And, as opposition parties boycotted elections, his followers began to dominate parliament.
In 2006 and 2007, the government continues to tighten its grip. Chavez signed a massive arms deal with Russia, marking a significant shift in Venezuela’s relationship with the United States, which Chavez had always harshly criticized. He also won his third consecutive presidential term in a massive margin.
At this point, he began to nationalize major media and telecommunication industries in Venezuela. His government also refused to renew the broadcasting licence of a major network that had been critical of his regime. This prompted massive riots in response as citizens wake up to the implications of Chavez’ intentions.
Chavez’s Grip Begins to Tighten
As Chavez attempted to nationalize more of the oil industry, major US oil companies Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhilips refused to turn over their operations to the government, and so Chavez expropriated them.
At the end of 2007, Chavez began to experience his first serious drop in support, as voters failed to pass a referendum that would expand government power over private property and the Central Bank of Venezuela. He still managed to nationalize one of the country’s private banks the following year.
In 2008 and 2009, although opposition began to gain some control in parliament and even the Caracas mayoral election, a referendum was also passed that abolished limits on presidential terms, giving Chavez a clear path towards dictatorship, in theory.
He also began to cultivate more of a relationship with Russia, by signing an oil and gas cooperation accord and participating in war exercises together.
In 2009, Chavez devalued the bolivar for the first time, by 17% against the US dollar for “priority” imports, and by 50% so-called non-essential items, in an attempt to boost revenue from oil exports. Devaluing the bolivar was a practice his successor Maduro would follow, eventually leading to the devastating poverty we witness in Venezuela today.
The Beginnings of a Crisis
In 2010, massive floods in the country provided Chavez with an unexpected opportunity to gain more power. The phrase “never let a good crisis go to waste” comes to mind. Many begin to fear this slippery slope will lead to full-on authoritarianism.
In the following years, price control continued as the government tried to protect against inflation. Any companies that did not comply were threatened with expropriation. Media companies face massive fines to avoid being taken over by the government.
In 2012, Chavez won his fourth term in office. However, in 2013, he passes away after a long battle with cancer. Nicolas Maduro, the current president, won the emergency election in a narrow margin. He had been Chavez’s’ chosen successor, so he vowed to continue Chavez’ mission.
As inflation rose, the National Assembly gave Maduro emergency powers for a year, which prompted mass protests across the country. He promptly used these new powers to limit profit margins.
The Foundation Begins to Crumble
In 2014, protests spread across the country in favor of the opposition party. The government accused the opposition of trying to attempt a coup, and used this reasoning to violently suppress the uprisings.
The Maduro government continued in 2014 to implement harsh cuts in public spending as oil prices began to drop dramatically. Through 2014 and 2015, as the opposition party began to be more vocal and gain more public support, the Maduro party pushed back by accusing various figures of assassination and coup attempts.
In 2015, the opposition party briefly wins 2/3 majority in the National Assembly, only to have several of its members resign under pressure from the Socialist-controlled Supreme Court.
In 2016, Maduro continued to fight inflation by continuing to devalue the bolivar and restricting public spending. However, his government also refused to allow nationalized oil companies to trade privately. This spurred mass outrage from the citizens of Venezuela, which is what caught the attention of the international media.
This year, 2017, tensions have come to a head. Constant clashing and power struggles between the Socialists and opposition parties in the government have been reflected in the populace by constant clashing in the streets, including several young men being shot and killed by the police.
The Venezuelan government’s attempts to violently respond to the protests as well as suppress the opposition parties has caught criticism from many other Latin American countries, concluding in Venezuela’s decision to leave the Organization of American States, or OAS over pressure to end the harsh government crack-down of opposition.
While the leftist media here in the United States is convinced there is a constitutional crisis here in the United States nearly every week, Venezuela has been in the midst of a constitutional crisis for at least six months, as Maduro prepares a referendum on a new constitution to be written.
Thousands of protests have erupted in response to the newly proposed constitution, as many claim it will be very un-democratic. People have also been protesting the drastic food shortages and lack of necessities such as toilet paper, running water, and basic medical supplies.
Given the climate of conflict, protest, and devistating poverty of the last year in Venezuela, there is no telling what will happen in the face of the latest move from the new constitutional congress.
On August 8th, the new constitutional assembly declared themselves superior to all other branches of government. This is the most drastic move yet from the Maduro government to crackdown on opposition party politicians and voices.
“Opposition lawmakers said they were barred from entering the gold-domed legislative palace after security forces led by Rodriguez broke into congress late Monday,” Time reports.
The Ultimate Cautionary Tale of Socialism
What has happened in Venezuela should stand as a stark warning to the world of just how impossible it is for socialism to succeed. Wealth redistribution seemed promising when oil prices were high, but companies were nationalized and prices dropped, the government ultimately had no choice but to expand their own power as the people began to starve.
The more the people–the very people Chavez claimed to identify with and want to help–spoke out against what the government was doing, the more Maduro tried to consolidate power to himself.
The Maduro government isn’t interested in a healthy economy, it isn’t interested in creating wealth for its people, it’s only interested in keeping its own ideology alive, even as everything wrong with this ideology is causing Venezuela to crumble around it.
Most ironic of all, of course, is that Venezuela has turned into the kind of country that most Marxists think they’re fighting against. While socialists claim they want to eradicate poverty and empower the people, this socialistic system has damaged the economy so drastically that the people are hungry while tankers of oil sit rotting in the Caribbean.
And Chavez’s daughter is the wealthiest person in Venezuela.
So remember this the next time you hear a politician extolling the benefits of nationalized industry or harsh restrictions on private corporations. Venezuela is an incredibly fertile land and, with a free market economy, could easily be the wealthiest nation in Latin America. This would generate wealth for everyone, both at the top and the bottom.
Chavez’s socialism has done nothing but drain the wealth out of Venezuela and leave the people angry and starving. It is unlikely that any real change will happen in Venezuela without much more bloodshed, starvation, and death.
So how is that for a cautionary tale?
To bray and to act no different! James Walton “I Am Liberty” Audio player below! I haven’t seen such weakness in a long time. The faces carrying the torches were among the saddest and most predictable creatures I have seen in all of America. The same type that would bray about ISIS but they looked … Continue reading To bray and to act no different!
There are almost too many catastrophic possibilities for the end of the world as we know it these days. It’s almost creating an inoculation effect on the public and supporting normalcy bias.
Everything from giant meteors immolating most of the population, to a new and especially violent nation destroying civil war, fomented by billionaire totalitarians manipulating us all against each, other to burn our country down to the ground in anarchy, if they can’t continue their tyrannical agenda.
But most of these are not an imminent threat yet. What I’m talking about is the real time super SHTF world class catastrophes like war, weather, bio-pandemics and terrorism.
Things that are always hanging over us like a hellish cloud that can release its deadly hail storm at any minute.
Here are the ones hitting critical mass. Brace yourselves…
1. Strike on North Korea and the Potential Start of WWIII
In case you haven’t been paying attention, North Korea has been purposefully expanding its effort as an irascible world pestilence since the new Trump Administration arrived.
But history has shown North Korea to always have more ‘bark’ than ‘bite’, and nothing has ever come of it. In fact most people think it’s just their cultural mentality to threaten to nuke the U.S..
It’s the way they do diplomacy. Negotiation shave always failed because right up front the fact is stated that nothing The West wants them to do will be negotiated in talks. So there never will be any talks. This has been going on for decades. So what’s the big deal with all this now?
After all, in a military conflict with the U.S., NK would be like ant’s motor scooter getting run over by a 400 horse power Dodge Ram Charger!
We wouldn’t even need tactical nukes to reduce this insolent rogue country and its Maniac-in-Chief into a bomb crater pockmarked replica of the dark side of the moon? So why not Just continue the status quo and ignore NK altogether?
And maybe release their sanctions on high fructose corn syrup saturated foods, and maybe the tubby Corn flakes bowl haircut tyrant will die of morbid obesity, and be replaced by a less malevolent leadership?
Because this time it’s insanely different. NK has reached a threshold that emboldens him to new heights of deadly hubris. He is building intercontinental nuclear warhead ballistic missiles, and flaunting them in our faces, and then overtly threatening to nuke us with them!
One of Trump’s serious campaign promises was a “vow” to never let North Korea become a military nuclear power able to hit our mainland with nuclear weapons. If that ‘vow’ is not honored, there’s no chance for a second term for Trump and no future for his party.
So when Kim Jong-Un pulled his in-your-American-face missile test stunt last 4th of July, the final tune up of the Pentagon plans to strike North Korea were in play.
Trump doesn’t really have to justify a strike to anybody. You won’t find too many who’ll disagree with the notion that nobody wants to make the mistake made by Germany in the 1930’s by ignoring a similar mad dictator by the name of Hitler, who was basically ignored until it was too late, and he eventually amassed a military powerful enough to cause WWII, which destroyed entire countries!
In the past few weeks, Trump and his advisors carefully orchestrated world opinion to make it appear that we are not aggressors, only peaceful defenders of our land from a severely cracked nut job. Trump’s media courtship of the Chinese to try to persuade North Korea to stop their long range weapons development had everything but the engagement ring on bended knee.
The Chinese, however, threw it back on the U.S. saying that it’s our problem. Beijing confirmed that Kim Jong-Un doesn’t care about threats of military action from the U.S. or any increase in sanctions. He simply will NOT give up his nuclear missile efforts. Period. For Any reason.
Then Trump appealed to other UN world leadership to re-unite against NK for serious pressure and collective sanctions. This kind of obligatory politically correct groveling received no real patronage, and Trump exited the scene of international political ballroom dancing with the ‘anticipated’, but necessary world viewpoint that he did his best to find a peaceful alternative.
But nobody seems to care. So if “it’s only the responsibility of the U.S.”, then the rest of the story will soon become future American Military History.
Any Other Peaceful Options?
Oh, you mean like the North Korean leader suddenly having a “change of heart” and bowing down to the U.S. wearing olive branches on his mandatory state haircut with surrender papers in hand, so he’ll have a new chance to live long enough to grow into middle age while South Korean and Nato inspection teams sweep his country for WMD’s? FAT chance, HaHaHAH!
And How Bad Is That?
According to my mil-intel sources, the only reason this new administration hasn’t initiated a major surgical strike yet to take out his current nuclear arsenal is because of the politically formidable retaliatory response tactics deployed by North Korea in the form of the so-called Pyrrhic Victory principle, making it far too costly in terms of human life to be worth any perceived spoils of victory.
However, as we might painfully see, this might be a moot, and eventually irrelevant factor in the larger analysis for military action justification. With the subjectivity in the decision weighing in the same way it did with the decision to Nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To prevent even MORE loss of lives and treasure later on in a future conflict with decisive action now. It’s not even a very tough decision for the Trump Administration, considering that WWII precedent and weighing the cost of waiting too long.
It is estimated that there will be over a half million civilian casualties in the first few days of action before it “calms down”. But there will be no escaping the carnage not seen since the Viet Nam conflict, which will be paled by comparison as tens of thousands of heavy artillery and rockets rain down on Seoul. And a massive phalanx of military tanks and choppers on both sides demolish everything in their paths along the DMZ in a firestorm of death.
To preclude the escalation of a larger full scale war between South and North Korea after any initial surgical strike against North Korea’s nuclear missile program, Seoul is now allowing the THAAD anti-missile defense system in South Korea which is the advanced big brother of the Patriot shield system in Israel.
There are also two other relatively secret systems in play and now also being surreptitiously deployed for use to assist THAAD deployment in the taking down any Scud or other medium range heavy payload missiles launched by NK before they reach their targets.
“Dogs of War always growl before they attack…but their biting fangs are swift and silent…”
Whitehouse Press spokesperson Sarah Huckabee, when asked at a recent press conference about North Korea after an earlier U.S. intercontinental missile test, stated that “no option is off the table but we’re not tipping our hand with details…”
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also said this week that “Conflict is inevitable, unless Pyongyang stops testing weapons”.
North Korea’s foreign minister Ri Yong Ho just emphasized in an international interview that NK will never quit their nuclear ballistic missile defense program. NEVER!
Kim Jong-Un threatened massive retaliation for the latest sanctions voted on by Congress to cripple at least a third of North Korea’s already brutal economy.
Trump tweeted the other day, that “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met by fire and fury that the world has never seen”.
Up until now, we didn’t care much about his threats. It was estimated that he only had a few nuclear weapons. None capable of threatening the U.S.
That suddenly all changed. The Intelligence community just issued a new devastating alert. It appears that NK had been moving much faster than expected and now has powerful miniaturized nuclear warheads ready to install on their long range intercontinental missiles when perfected in the near future that will be able to reach Chicago.
What they’re not telling you is that one type of nuclear weapon that North Korea had always been interested in developing with the help of Russian and Chinese technology was a high electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) warhead!
Do they also have one of those as well? Vegas won’t give you odds that they don’t.
So here are the details of the military operation they won’t reveal. When our Asian war machine gets revved up and good to go, collateral damage is prepared for and can be controlled and minimized, and South Korea and allies are firmly on board, with a first strike attack, the supercomputer at the Pentagon will give the info and the War Department will analyze the algorithmic percentage of success probabilities and when it gives the “nod”…
Then the U.S. would want to be able to portray an initial attack as just a counter attack which followed a first move by North Korea. So we will wait patiently and likely attack during a future repeat North Korea long range missile test later claiming the missile’s trajectory was analyzed at launch to be a direct preemptive attack on Japan or Guam, or our own mainland.
Or, as just happened these days, we will “set the stage” for this by instigating and goading Kim Dim Wit to take the first punch to get things started. So Trump escalated the testosterone tirades to higher levels by stating that the U.S. war machine will be conducting massive joint allied military staging exercises this month off the coast of Korea, and that the U.S. Armada will then be “locked and loaded”!
And the toady Tyrant Boy responded with a detailed threat to immediately wipe out Guam if that occurred!
“ When the instruments of death are tuned up and the Orchestra of War is ready to play, The ‘Conductor’ will raise his mighty baton, and begin the ‘concert’ of death and destruction…”
Will you be “enjoying” the music? I hope you are at least prepping for it?
The more serious problem with this powerful poker hand are the two wild cards that are still waiting to be turned over on the world gaming table.
One, is whether or not the Pentagon will decide to use smaller scale tactical nukes on NK to end the war quickly and save prolonged engagement and allied casualties?
Considering the complications of nuclear weapons deployment, it would set a precedent if a country like Iran or China, or Pakistan decides to take advantage of the military preoccupation of the U.S. and its allies to bust a military move elsewhere for its own hegemonic agenda. Then all hell could break loose and seriously affect our own economy and lifestyle here.
The other wild card is considering the now serious “Russia-gate” problems with his “dark state” enemies homing in forcefully on Trump’s family and associates for serious prosecutions, Trump might just decide to pull the trigger on North Korea ASAP for ANY acceptable excuse? After all, there are no impeachments or potential criminal proceedings allowed against a sitting wartime president.
It all would get put on hold for the duration which would be more than enough time for the Trump administration to fix everything by firing whoever needed firing and put a stop to “Russia-gate” investigations once and for all.
That alone would be worth pulling the trigger. But if it succeeded in quickly taking out the North Korean regime and destroying their nuclear capability for future without creating WWIII in the process for the defense of the American people, that would likely ensure his second term and make the risks even more worth taking.
2. A Mortally Wounded Power Grid
The second imminent nationwide catastrophe will be the power grid, and I’ve already told you about it. Many prepare for a potentially imminent Solar event, HEMP attack, or devastating grid hack by cyber terrorists, the worst case scenario(s) for a major grid collapse are far more mundane, and about to happen any time now. Interestingly, major cyber attack power outages happen to be FEMA’s major priority right now.
Just this week the major vacation area of Cape Hatteras Carolina Islands on the East Coast experienced a total power outage black out when the main power source to the area was severed by a piece of heavy construction equipment. The situation got worse when there is no telling when the power will be restored.
Fresh water is gone and thousands of tourists are being evacuated and a state of emergency has been declared. There are virtually no backup generators on the islands. And they can’t get them there fast enough before the situation goes from bad to worse. The business losses will not be recoverable for years.
There was little significant MSM coverage of a recent event where three major cities in the U.S. had three very curious major, but brief, power outages simultaneously one morning. Then a nuclear power station out West was hit with a cyber attack but managed to resist it with advanced counter-cyber IT.
There are outages across the country almost every week. These are warnings of severe power infrastructure problems currently at dangerous levels that are only deteriorating until a major Domino effect can shut down enough of the country’s power to throw it in mass chaos. Because when that many areas are blacked out, there will NOT be help coming any time soon, if at all.
But we are so dependent upon electricity in our lives that if you are a master off grid bushcraft perish right along with their dying homesteader, you might be one of the fortunate few. Most of the world simply is NOT. And many will flashlight batteries.
Then there’s the other way to cause a major grid collapse: a concentrated well planned commando style attack on certain power stations, to begin the domino effect widespread blackout. It’s unnerving to realize how weak and fragile our grid system really is. And how all three of these “in progress” events could all somehow contribute to nation-wide blackouts.
At a recent privately held world summit in Washington on the impact of a massive cataclysm and its effect on the infrastructure and survivability of societies attended by experts from 200 countries, one of the hosts former Florida Congresswoman Michelle Vasillinda made an alarming statement that “it’s not ‘if’ a Black SKY (massive power infrastructure collapse) event will occur, it’s when!”
SHTF events don’t get much worse than a dead and buried power grid. Where nothing is ON anymore. And life as we need it comes to a grinding, unbearable halt.
3. End of the World Geoengineering
AKA Chemtrails/Haarp weather control. Despite the grave imminence of the aforementioned SHTF scenarios, this one is, by far, the most ominously horrible. Because the catastrophe is being created by OUR own Dark State government, and We, The Sheeple, are virtually oblivious to it and do nothing about it.
And because this apocalypse is NOT imminent. It Is Not Near. It Is Absolutely Happening Right HERE AND RIGHT NOW!
It just may become the worst apocalypse humanity as ever seen even ushering in an actual human species extinction! Just look up in the sky? It’s a bird, No, it’s a plane! But it definitely ain’t Superman. More like the Grim Reaper.
Video first seen on Dane Wigington.
I wrote about celebrities like the late Prince and Merle Haggert who were Chemtrail activists, and I was amazed at how many people still thought chemtrails were a conspiracy theory. That’s got to be one of the World’s Greatest Hoaxes continuously perpetrated on the people.
But unauthorized criminally covered up geoengineering and chem-trails are a proven fact. But the dark state government has cleverly kept us “under heavy cloud cover” in the form of target focused brainwashing. And it has gotten much worse lately.
I won’t elaborate now. Combined with the above doom and gloom it might be too depressing for you all at once. But prepare yourself for a life-changing revelation. You’ll learn why the only real global warming is the one intentionally created by the geoengineering totalitarian monsters!
The major prep focus for the above events are food and power back up. Each above event in expanded danger could affect these areas tremendously. If you haven’t done so already, you should at least get some of the survival guide books we have here to start planning!
Good Luck, but we all know it ain’t about luck.
This article has been written by Mahatma Muhjesbude for Survivopedia.
Before the primaries had even begun for the 2016 presidential election, an ultra-secret organization met in Telfs-Buchen, Austria.
There, amongst other pressing matters of business, they decided who should be the next American president. Looking at it in hindsight, it’s clear that their vote was for Hillary Clinton.
The fails of the group may not be over, but these are people with money and the influence that money can buy. We’re on the edge of the financial crisis and they will work to perpetuate it. Because when everyone else suffers, they become richer.
This group, which is known as the Bilderberg Group, is the leading force behind the movement for a one-world government. Founded in 1954, the group consists of a small core, with a larger number of people, liberals all, who are invitees to their annual conferences.
The Bilderberg Group is made up of some of the world’s biggest movers and shakers. While the core group apparently isn’t made of politicians, they have many of the world’s top political figures at their beck and call.
These people prefer to be the kingmakers, allowing them to concentrate on making money and consolidating their power, while using those politicians to that end. To be favored by this secret society seems to be a ticket into high government office, as they are able to provide the one thing that politicians need above all, campaign funds; lots of campaign funds.
Interestingly enough, Donald Trump doesn’t seem to have any association with Bilderberg, or with the Trilateral Commission, although it is reported that several of his cabinet members have some connection. In fact, for the 2017 convention, the top item on their agenda is a “progress report” on the Trump Administration, which explains why these cabinet officials have been summoned.
But this doesn’t mean that Trump is reporting to them, or even that his cabinet officials are. Nor does it mean that the secretive group has any real pull on the president.
The key fact we must keep in mind here is that Donald Trump has been strongly pro-America since he started running for office, which goes directly against the Bilderberg’s stated purpose of globalization.
In other words, this “progress report” could just as likely be planned as a time to discuss and analyze how much damage President Trump has done to their agenda and what should be done about it.
The Bilderbergs took a public stand against him in the 2016 elections and there is no reason why they would have changed their opinion. He is clearly against their agenda of a one-world government and they know it. Not only that, but he has stirred a popular wave of nationalism not only here in the United States, but in parts of Europe as well.
If anything, the Bilderberg Group has more to fear from Donald Trump, than he has from them.
The Bilderbergs have taken a major blow in the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, rather than their candidate, Hillary. At the same time, both Hillary and her husband have lost a lot of currency with the group, even though both of them are members.
They took another major blow when the British people voted for Brexit, a move that is still ongoing and will be for some years. But the blows to the group may not be over with that. It appears that a combination of Trumpism and Brexit are motivating some other European countries to vote for a referendum on their membership in the globalists’ pet project, the European Union. Should that happen and the EU fall apart, it will set their plans back for years.
The EU was the globalist model for the next stage of world takeover. Pulling the European nations together under one central government gave them the chance of developing the system for implementing it elsewhere.
Their next target was the North American continent, where they expected to create another union. Trump has not only ended that dream, but appears to be on the verge of pushing them back a step in demanding a renegotiation of NAFTA.
Some have tried to say that the Bilderberg Group could fire Trump, if he doesn’t receive a high enough “grade” in their review. But they have no power to do that. They didn’t vote him into office and they can’t remove him.
But these are people with money and the influence that money can buy. So they will probably throw their considerable resources behind doing anything they can to unseat Trump in the 2020 elections. In the meantime, they will use their influence to work against his agenda, especially where it crosses swords with theirs.
Amongst the group’s strategic goals, we find a number of things that are truly troublesome, in addition to creating a one-world government. I will only mention two of those here:
- Manufactured crises and perpetual wars
- A one-world central bank, with one global currency
The United States of American stands in their way of accomplishing both of these goals. Our military and political influence has operated as the world’s police since the end of World War II.
About the same time, the American Dollar became the world’s reserve currency. So as a nation, we alone block two of their goals. That means they need to defeat us in these two areas, in order to accomplish what they wish.
A military conquest of the United States is impossible, unless it were to happen from the inside.
Had Barack Obama been able to fill the office of the presidency longer, that might have happened. His unilateral destruction of much of the military’s highest level of leadership and use of the armed forces as a social experiment has done much to destroy our military’s efficiency. But even in their reduced state, our military is more than a match for the next two or three armed forces in the world.
So that leaves destroying us economically; something that the Bilderberg group and other similar globalist organizations are well situated to do.
With our high national debt, which nearly doubled under Obama’s presidency, we are teetering on the edge of the financial abyss. All it would take is the wrong sort of shove to push us over the edge and trigger the disaster.
Back to the Roots of Globalization
The Economist, a magazine controlled by the Rothschild family, published an article 20 years ago, which could give us some insight into what these globalists are planning.
(As the power behind most of the world’s central banks, the Rothschilds are, of course, a part of the Bilderberg Group. In fact, they are the ones who fund the group and its meetings. So you could say that they are the power behind those who are the power behind the world’s thrones.)
In volume 306 of the Economist; published on January 9, 1988, the Rothschilds set forth their plan for a one-world currency, which at that time was called the “Phoenix.”
Details are given about how this comes about, but the key is through a worldwide financial crisis. As the people cry out for some relief and financial stability, the world elite offer a solution… a single world currency and a single world economy.
When is this supposed to happen? Next year, 2018.
So what does all this mean for us?
It means that the globalists are still on the march. Like we see from progressive liberals everywhere, when they can’t get what they want legally, they look for a back door.
Here in the US, that’s often been the courts. But there are many ways of manipulating things to get what one wants; especially if they aren’t concerned about breaking laws or leaving a trail of bodies in their wake.
It has been said that these powerful people have caused countries to have financial collapses in the past. It has even been said that the same families were responsible for causing the two world wars. While that might be a bit of a stretch, they did profit off of them, so it is possible.
Before you think that this isn’t possible, because they would have to hurt themselves financially, go back and read that last paragraph again.
While everyone else suffered from World War I and World War II, these people merely became richer. They consolidated more wealth and more power in their own hands. You can be sure that if we were to face another worldwide crisis, such as a financial collapse, they would not be hurt by it, you and I would.
Guarding a House of Cards
I have been hearing about a pending financial collapse for years.
While the reasons and the actual trigger for the collapse have changed, depending on who was doing the analysis, one key fact remained the same… the mounting national debt. Washington has built a house of cards, which is just waiting for someone to come along and remove a single card from the bottom. Then it all comes crashing down.
While this is not the only risk we face, it is one that we can’t ignore. When this collapse comes, and I believe it must, it will be devastating. It will larger than even the Great Depression. It has to be, so that it can have the worldwide impact that the globalists want it to have. They will invest whatever they have to, in order to make that happen.
Countless lives will be destroyed by this collapse, both here and abroad. Some of the hardest hit will be those in third-world countries. With the industrialized world in the midst of their own financial woes, help that would normally be sent to those countries will not be forthcoming. They will have to suffer through on their own.
Here at home, we can expect unemployment to top out over 30%, along with runaway inflation. While those who lose their jobs will be hit hard, the employed won’t have it much better.
In countless cases, people in the middle class will suddenly find themselves poor, even though they are doing the same jobs that have sustained them for years.
Salaries never keep up in times of financial collapse. Inflation outstrips even the best of raises, eating them up and making them disappear in the depths of despair.
Yes, those who are still working will have it better; but only in the sense that those who are the working poor have it better than those who are on the streets. They will lose much of what they have today.
How can we prepare for such a thing?
Can we actually be ready to not only survive, but even thrive through a major financial collapse? Yes we can. While we will all suffer, there are things we can do, which will help us to suffer less:
- Get out of debt. Many who lose their homes will do so because they can’t make the payments
- Stockpile supplies, especially food. Food shortages will become common
- Develop a sideline business, so that you are not totally dependent on your job. If possible, make it some sort of repair business, as those fare well in financially hard times. If not, focus on something essential for life
- Fortify your home to protect your family from attack. Learn how to defend your family
- Put whatever savings you have, including your retirement fund, into gold and silver
- Become as independent as possible, raising your own food and having your own source of water
While these actions will not prevent you from suffering, they will reduce the suffering that you go through. Everyone but those at the top will suffer. But you don’t have to accept that you will be one who suffers a lot. With proper planning and preparation, you can make it through a financial crisis with minimal loss, even gaining from the misfortune of others.
That always happens. Everything that is lost by one, is gained by someone else.
If you are in a financially sound position going into the crisis, you might be able to pick up property or other valuables during the crisis, coming out the other side in much better shape. Be prepared!
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
North Korea’s antics and activities have filled the news for months now, having accelerated since Donald Trump was sworn in as president.
While their pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile technology is nothing new, the hermit kingdom of Kin Jong-un seems to be making strides in that direction.
Their latest missile test is a prime example of this. Scheduled on our Independence Day, this missile was a “present” to the United States, according to North Korea’s dictator.
This missile, the Hwasong-14, was the first truly intercontinental missile that the North Korean’s have developed, and its maiden flight went off flawlessly. After the failures of their most recent missile tests, the success of this new model has suddenly made the threat from North Korea much more real.
According to the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Hwasong-14 missile flew over 900 miles, all of it under power. It splashed into the ocean within Japan’s exclusive economic zone, making it a real threat to the Japanese as well, another country that the North Korean government hates almost as much as it hates the United States.
But Japan is a long way from the United States, isn’t it? Yes it is, but the missile didn’t fly its full designed range, probably so that North Korea’s engineers could watch the descent and splashdown as well.
According to experts, the 37 minute flight time of the missile would have given it the ability to reach a maximum altitude of 2,800 km. That would give it a total range of 8,000 km or more, exactly what the government in Pyongyang has stated it would do.
What this means is that the North Koreans finally have a missile that has the potential of reaching the United States. Alaska, Seattle, Washington and Hawaii are all within its range, making Kim Jong-un’s oft-repeated threat of unleashing nuclear hell on the United States a real possibility for the first time.
The fact that this missile, the first of its type, performed so well on its maiden voyage is especially troubling, as it shows how much North Korea’s engineers have been learning from the failures of their recent launches. While those were not of the Hwasong-14, the lessons learned from those less-capable missile launches were obviously applied to the design and manufacture of this new one.
Essentially, this missile is an improvement on the Hwasong-12, with a second stage added. While the first three launches of the Hwasong-12 were failures, the fourth attempt, in May of this year, was a success, with the missile’s apogee 2,111.5 km above the ground and landing 787 km away in the Sea of Japan.
This leads me to think that the Hwasong-14 may actually be able to surpass the 2,800 hm altitude necessary to reach the West Coast of the United States.
What’s Next on the Battlefield?
Does this mean that thermonuclear war is going to come in the next few weeks? Probably not. But it does clearly show us that we are one step closer.
How many of these new missiles they have in production right now is a big question that remains unanswered, as well as whether their nuclear program has reached the point where their bombs are small enough to be installed on top of one of these missiles.
But it is clear that at the rate in which North Korea is improving their missile technology that it won’t be long before they are a true threat to the mainland United States. This new missile, if launched close enough to the United States, could easily carry a nuclear bomb high enough to generate an EMP that would blanket all 48 contiguous states.
Since the missile launches off a mobile launcher, rather than from a silo, this is a very real possibility. It is too large to fit into North Korea’s ballistic missile subs, but it is not too large to be ship-launched.
While too long to fit into a standard shipping container, a special container could be manufactured for it, with the launcher built in. Shipped on a North Korean freighter, this would not be noticeable by the international community.
Such a ship, armed with the Hwasong-14 and a team of technicians, could launch from the middle of the ocean, conducting an effective EMP strike. Being in the middle of the ocean would make detection and interdiction of the responsible ship difficult, but not impossible.
Even so, I am sure that Kim Jong-un would be happy to trade the lives of that crew for the destruction of the United States’ electrical grid.
In addition, North Korea has as many as six ballistic missile submarines. While they are actually obsolete technology, their existence can’t be ignored. Each of those subs can carry up to two Pukkuksong-1 nuclear missiles.
While the range of that missile is limited to 500 km, the submarine could sneak in close to the shore, launching their missiles to take the heart out of any city within about 300 miles of the coast. Used in conjunction with the Hwasong-14, in a coordinated attack, these could add a considerable amount of punch to the attack.
Recently, I was discussing this with a friend in the military, who dismissed the North Korean’s submarine fleet as obsolete. While I have to agree with him to some extent, there is one glaring statistic which is of supreme importance in any discussion of North Korea’s submarine capabilities. That is, they have a lot of them.
Current estimates put their submarine fleet near 70, which means it would take every submarine the United States Navy owns, including our ballistic submarines to shadow them all.
What this means is that the North Koreans could swarm their submarines to sea and we would not be able to follow them all. Properly executed, there is a chance that their ballistic submarines would escape detection and therefore would not be shadowed. Should that happen, they would have a potent weapon pointed at our country.
Of course, a lot depends on what sort of attack the North Korean military would choose to hurl at the United States. While Kim Jong-un has made it clear that his intent is to attack us with nuclear arms, there are many forms that attack could take. Most specifically, it could be an EMP or a more conventional nuclear attack.
Video first seen on PBS NewsHour .
Our best chances would be if he launched a conventional nuclear attack against us. While that would probably mean the destruction of a number of our most important cities, as a nation we would survive.
But an EMP attack would take out our electrical grid, our communications and just about everything else in the country. Chances are, 90 percent of our population would die.
Currently, we have three aircraft carriers and their battle groups steaming off the Korean Peninsula, ready for anything that North Korea might do. While this constitutes a major naval force, projecting more power than any other nation’s military can project.
But it is of little use against a nuclear threat, except in the case of a disarming first strike. Should the president decide that such a strike was necessary, the combined air power of the three aircraft carriers doesn’t come close to the number of fighters available to North Korea.
Of course, our Navy’s F-16s are more advanced than the North Korean’s fighter jets, even their F-21s, of which they have about 200. Nevertheless, sheer numbers are on the side of the North Koreans, if it is decided that it is necessary to do a preemptive strike against them. Between 458 fighter aircraft and 572 attack aircraft, our 180 Navy aircraft will have a busy time of it.
Then there’s the risk of North Korea attacking our aircraft carriers with their submarine fleet, if we launch a preemptive strike. While our naval fleets always work with submarines in attendance and our nuclear-powered fast-attack boats are technologically far superior to their diesel-electric ones, the sheer numbers of submarines that the North Korean’s have available to them would make things interesting for the submarines working to defend our carrier fleets.
But the real trump card that the North Koreans hold, is the fact that their missiles are mobile. Unlike fixed locations, the missile carriers themselves would have to be located, before any attack could be made. While I’m sure that the NRO is hard at work at this task, hunting for something as small as a missile launcher, in the vastness of any country, even one as small as North Korea, is not easy.
Looking at all this together, it is clear that the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea is a real threat. It is clear that we would win any exchange with the North Koreans. If they chose to use a nuclear-tipped missile against us, our long-standing policy would be to retaliate in kind.
While I would hate to have the responsibility to give that order, someone in the Pentagon has to be thinking about it.
Who’s Paying the Price?
Turning North Korea into a parking lot, in retaliation for destroying our country or even one of our major cities, is not an equitable bargain. We might win the war, but it would be at a terrible price in both military and civilian lives. That’s a price that we as a nation, can’t afford to pay.
So, while chances of a non-military solution are looking thinner and thinner by the day, we need to be praying and hoping for just that. The last Korean war cost approximately 1.9 million total casualties, this next one could cost many times more.
You and I need to be prepared for such an eventuality, regardless of whether it means a conventional nuclear exchange or suffering an EMP attack.
If you live in or near a major city, especially on the West Coast, I would recommend that it’s time to move. Find yourself some greener pastures elsewhere, where you would not be living in the midst of a target. If you can make that move be to a small town, where you wouldn’t have to content with the massive number of people trying to survive after an EMP, so much the better.
Either way, we have apparently just entered another Cold War, and this one seems like we are facing off against an enemy who is much less stable than the old Soviet Union was.
Chances of an actual nuclear attack are clearly much greater than they have ever been. Take the right steps to survival and prepare to face the blackout with your own energy bank! Click the banner for more!
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Two-hundred forty-one years ago, a group of 56 men gathered together in Philadelphia to declare themselves and their countrymen free from the tyranny of the British Empire.
These men, elected representatives from the 13 colonies, made a decision that changed the history of the world and created the first nation founded as a Christian nation.
The Declaration of Independence was a dangerous document, slapping King George in the face. Placing their names on it was signing their own death warrant. Yet those men did so willingly, pledging their lives, their liberty and their sacred honor to the cause.
This wasn’t a light pledge either. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence were, by and large, well off. While most weren’t what we’d call part of the one-percent today, they were business owners and men of means, important men in their communities. They had much to lose, if their bid for freedom failed.
The American Revolution
The American revolution isn’t unique in world history. Many other countries have been birthed out of similar rebellions, especially in Latin America.
But it is unique in that it was our rebellion and that it gave birth to the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. The United States of America, once nothing more than a smattering of colonies owned by European countries, has become the beacon of freedom for the whole world.
As a country, America has been unique. We are a country of immigrants, more than any other country in the world. We have declared it from the rooftops and we have accepted the refuse of other countries for over two centuries. The inscription on the Statue of Liberty says:
Throughout our history, we have taken the worlds castaways, and we still do so today. While debate rages about illegal immigration and Syrian refugees, the US takes in a million immigrants per year, each and every year. We take those with a dream in their eye and give them something they were missing where they came from opportunity.
For it is this, the chance of opportunity, which has brought immigrants to our shores ever since the first settlers came from Europe. Whether it is the opportunity of religious freedom, the opportunity for financial gain or simply the opportunity for a fresh start and adventure, America has always offered opportunity to those who came.
This has drawn a certain type of person to our country. Whether they came here from European aristocracy, an African village or to leave the crowding of the Far East, the people who have migrated to the United States, whether legally or illegally, all have the same characteristic. They are people who are willing to take a chance, break out of the norm, think outside the box, defy the societies that they left and look for something better. They all placed their lives on the table, saying “Give me liberty, or give me death.”
Perhaps they didn’t realize that their very lives were the chip they were placing on the gambling table, yet they were. Some, like the Cuban refugees who have crossed the waters on small, leaky, overcrowded boats have been more aware of their potential to lose their lives, yet they have willingly taken the risk, with the dream of freedom and a better life to lead them on. Others didn’t know the risks, yet the same dream led them too, even leading some to their deaths.
But these people, all of them, were fighters. Not in the sense of brawling, but fighting for survival. They will do whatever they have to, in order to make their way in the world.
Unlike the snowflakes with their entitlement mentality, they will take whatever work they can, working as many hours as they have to, without spending their day on their cell phones, as they need to, in order to make it. Many will even become business owners, making the sacrifice and taking the risk necessary to start their own business.
The types of people who migrate to the United States are thinkers, even if they aren’t educated. They look for solutions, finding a way, and making things work. As such, they are inventors, creating something out of what seems like almost nothing and turning that something into a success.
It is this work ethic and inventiveness that has built this country into the world’s financial powerhouse. Others complain about American riches, but they haven’t made the sacrifices and put in the effort to accomplish what we have. In some cases, their countries are filled with the richness of natural resources, yet they haven’t taken advantage of them.
Ask yourself this; why is it that Europe, Australia, the United States and Japan are the richest countries in the world? Is it because we have more natural resources? No. Is it because of some racial superiority? Again, no.
The only thing that has made these parts of the world as rich as they are, is the hard work of their citizens. The only exception to this is the Middle East, where riches have grown out of their natural resources (petroleum). But they are the exception, not the rule.
America was built by the sweat of our ancestors’ brows. Many of them, coming here as immigrants, worked the most menial, back-breaking jobs, in order to survive. But their children had it better than they did, and their grandchildren even better.
By that third generation they were no longer immigrants, but fully assimilated into American culture and society. They were Americans.
This is Who We Are
A nation of hard-working innovators, who have built the world’s greatest economy and are protected by the world’s greatest military. We have reason for pride in our country, as we are the model the rest of the world looks to. The experiment in democracy started by the Founding Fathers in 1776 has been a success, at least to this point.
Yet there are those who would destroy the success, loathing the very fact of who we are. They have turned their back on America and are trying to build a new America, one that is not founded upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but upon their own whims, their own desires, and a desire to take from the rich (everyone else) in order to give to the poor (themselves).
These people deem themselves better than anyone else. Not, I must add, because of anything that they’ve accomplished, but simply because of who they are. They have decided that they are better than anyone else, the elite; simply because their ideas are better… they know that, because they constantly remind each other of it.
We have just seen eight years of what the “elite” can do to our country, as Barack Obama tried to recreate the USA into his own image. Through it, he has degraded our country’s credit rating, destroyed businesses with overregulation, weakened our military and made the United States to seem weak before the world’s eyes.
His policies have undermined marriage, our national work ethic and our economy. Had he been able to continue on the road he laid out, he would have destroyed this country.
The Return to Our Greatness
It is time to return to the greatness that our ancestors envisioned for our country. We need to return to our constitutional roots. That means more than just draining the swamp, it means getting rid of much of it. The Founding Fathers clearly intended a limited federal government, as described in the Constitution.
Yet the federal government we have today has become a behemoth of red tape, regulations and overreaching bureaucrats, trying to control people’s lives. Yes, there is a need for some regulation. Yes, people and companies will do bad things if they are not watched. But there comes a time where the watchers in government do more harm than good, and we’ve clearly passed that point.
Last November’s elections were a crossroads. Would we, as a nation, continue down the road to destruction that Obama paved or would we return to our roots and become a great nation again. It seems that the people have spoken, and they have spoken for greatness, not destruction.
Even so, there are countless millions of the elite and their low-information voters who follow them like lemmings. They stand against our country’s greatness; seeking to go the path of socialism and destroying what previous generations have built. They have not slithered away into the shadows, but continue to riot and complain, in a prolonged scream against losing the election.
We, the people of the United States of America, must stand strong if our country is to survive.
There are many powers in the world, some in darkness and others in the light, who are clamoring for our destruction. They want to undo what the Founding Fathers did over two centuries ago. They have their own vision, and it’s not of a strong America. Rather, it’s of America gone and replaced by a one–world socialist government, with them at the helm.
This fight will not end soon. Donald Trump will not be able to eliminate it on his own. For the powers arrayed against our freedom are vast. They can be patient when they need to and they can move when the time is right for their purposes. They will strike, when they feel they can win.
For this reason, the “silent majority” can afford to be silent no longer. We can’t go back into our homes and live a quiet life. We must be ready to defend the republic and defend freedom. History requires it. The Founding Fathers require it. But most importantly, our children and grandchildren require it.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Here’s a quick word association test – how big is the gender pay gap? How
much less are women paid for doing the same work? You might automatically
say 30% less. Or 25% less. Or even 21% less. These are all common figures,
all used by various experts, celebrities and even heads of state. Yet they
are all totally and tragically wrong.
There is no gender pay gap. It is a complete myth.
1/1000th of an inch is the width of a human hair. That’s about the real
size of the gender pay gap – and it is probably in favor of women.
How could that be? The gender pay gap is common knowledge. As carved in
stone as 365 1/4 days in a year or 5280 feet in a mile. You don’t even have
to think about things like this.
That, of course, is the problem. You don’t think about it. You got your
information about the gender pay gap from a reliable source at some point
in the past and have had no reason to think about it since.
If you did think about it, however, it would be quite obvious that there
were serious problems with it. The fact is – and you know this already – if
a man and a woman worked in adjacent cubicles doing exactly the same work,
then they would get exactly the same pay. Their cubicles would be exactly
the same size. And there would probably be exactly the same number of steps
to the washroom and to their parking spaces. Because if that were not the
case, it would be against the law in any western country. The company would
be charged with discrimination and forced to pay a huge fine. Furthermore,
the woman would sue the company – and win – and get a huge settlement. In
addition the resultant bad publicity could actually force the company out
of business. So no company would pay men and women differently for the same
job. They simply would not dare to take that much risk for such a small
Another, humorous side of this argument is made by Christina Hoff Somers –
who calls herself The Factual Feminist. She says that if women really could
be paid a lot less for the same work, then every company would immediately
fire all of its men and hire all those low paid women to do the same work. (
But, of course, they don’t.
So it’s pretty clear when you do think about it – a gender pay gap for the
same work simply does not and could not exist in today’s workplace.
Why then do feminists continue to claim such a pay gap exists? Again,
Christina Hoff Somers suggests that it is agenda driven. Modern day
feminists need women to be victims, oppressed by the evil patriarchy in
order to have something to fight against. So they keep using the gender pay
gap as a trigger to get people riled up.
In fact, if there was an evil patriarchy oppressing women, why would it let
more women into universities than men, allow more women than men to graduate
universities, give women advantages in private sector job hunting, as well
in criminal and in family courts. Pretty inefficient patriarchy.
If they are so patently wrong, then where did these pay gap figures of 30%
less, 25% less and 21% less come from? Benjamin Disraeli once said there
are three kinds of lies. Lies. Damned lies. And statistics. And that’s
exactly where the discrepancy figures come from. Milo Yiannopoulos, the
Conservative speaker, who recently billed himself as The Dangerous Faggot
on his tour of American Universities, says the figure comes from bad math
and bad economics. If you take the earnings of all women who work and
compare it to the wages earned by all men who work, there will be a gap.
But it’s certainly not a gap in pay for doing the same work. It’s a
statistic and one that lies, because it doesn’t take into account the life
choices women make – to have a more balanced life, rather than to spend
every waking moment at work. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTcy4GiN1iQ)
Dr Jordan Peterson, a Psychology Professor from the University of Toronto
expands upon this idea, saying that competitive places, like top law firms
simply cannot keep their female lawyers after age 35, because there are
innate differences between men and women, and at that age women generally
decide that they simply do not want to spend 8 hour weeks working and every
waking moment in the office. They’d rather have a more balanced life.
The point is, with a little research and a bit of thinking, it’s obvious
that there is no gender pay gap for the same work. It’s a myth. Even
measured in 1/1000ths of an inch, there is no difference. The question, of
course is, why don’t more people question it? Why didn’t you?
The truth is, like most of us, you probably don’t have lot of spare time.
What little you do have you don’t want to waste on things like calculating
how many feet in a mile. Or how many days in a year. You simply take the
figures for granted.
This exercise illustrates not so much about the agenda of modern feminists
or about the mythical gender pay gap, but rather a phenomenon that Tom
Peters in the Search for Excellence books defined as a “blinding flash of
the obvious”. Maybe you need to reorganize your life so you do have more
time. More time to think. More time to spend with your friends and family.
More time to relax and enjoy life.
The path to this state of being is probably to become your own boss – which
the internet let’s you do now with little to no investment and a lot
greater job satisfaction and a lot more fun. For example, you could set up
your own website quite affordably and write out a blog every week or every
day. It could become very popular very quickly and begin attracting
advertisers and paying you, in some cases, even more than you earn now. If
you have a lot of opinions you’d like to share, this is something you can
do easily, from anywhere in the world. Here’s an idea how to get started. (
Another exciting possibility is making a regular podcast. You can do this
in audio alone or audio and video. All you really need to do this is a
smart phone with a camera. Once you’re done you upload your podcasts, which
can contain your opinions on big issues, your take on breaking news and
even your conversations with your friends. It could be serious. It could be
comedy. It could be dramatic. But it’s said to be the most fun you can have
with your clothes on. You upload your finished productions to YouTube and
when your unique brand of entertainment catches on, you can make millions
from advertisers or from viewer contributions. Thousands of people are
doing just that right now, and more are coming on-line every hour. Here’s
an idea of how to do a podcast: (http://www.podbean.com/start-podcast)
If you don’t have strong opinions or you don’t want to put yourself up
front as a target, however, there’s an even more comfortable way to be your
own boss on the intenet and make the money you need to take care of things.
Selling. This is far beyond selling a few things out of the garage on
eBay. This is serious business. Internet millionaires can teach you how to
join their exclusive club and show you how to sell pretty well anything to
anybody and make a big profit on the transaction. One way to learn this
skill is here: (https://go.preppers.org/action-plan-video)
All of these exciting internet possibilities can be tried out without
giving up your day job. See what works for you before you make huge
changes in your life. But start working towards a future that gives you
more control, more spare time and quite possibly even more money.
The Gender pay gap is a myth. And so is the idea that you have to work long
hours for someone else. You are the author of your own novel. Make it into
an exciting story, starting today. Write on.
The post The gender pay gap – as measured by 1000ths of an inch appeared first on American Preppers Network.
This is the warning that God gave the ancient nation of Israel should they be rebellious and reject His statutes and commandments, and break His covenant. This would be the penalty if they turned away from Him to follow after leaders who led them to worship pagan idols; and leaders who abandoned God to increase their own wealth and power; or leaders who neglected God’s moral laws to serve their own lusts and flesh.
You know, I’ve had good reason to take my eyes off the world stage for the last year or so. And it was never made clearer than what I’ve witnessed happening in our own nation in the past couple of months. The leaders of our country seem to have lost all sense of decorum and legitimacy. There is no respect for the duly elected President of the United States — and whether you like him or not, the idea that it is entertainment to promote his beheading or assassination should be repugnant to every law-abiding citizen and person of faith. The fact that this repulsive image is welcomed by both media and politicians should tell you the rate of the decline of our republic.
History is said to be a great predictor of the future. And as a Christian, I am appalled at the state of my nation. But I also see a clear parallel in the history of ancient Israel and Judah. The success and well-being of a nation and its citizens is greatly impacted by what kind of men are in leadership roles. Today, our leaders are more focused on secularism, consumerism, and moral relativism than Jesus’s teachings and living by the principles established by God.
What I am seeing in my country today is no different than what the prophet Isaiah saw during Israel’s prosperous reign. He could just as easily have been speaking to us when he warned, “O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths” (Isaiah 3:12). And isn’t his admonishment of “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20) just as appropriate for today?
Leaders make a difference in the continued survival of their nations, and the Bible records that even the nations favored by God lived or died by the influence and actions of their leaders. Both Israel and Judah had every advantage from being in close relationship with YHWH, yet their leaders ultimately led them to adopt pagan ways, to worship false gods, and to reject God’s commandments. When looking at a rating chart of the Kings of Israel, it is astonishing to see that from Jeroboam to Hoshea, a matter of 207 years, they were all rated as some degree of Bad.
The Kings of Judah didn’t fare much better. Although Judah existed for 344 years, the reigns of its kings, from Rehoboam to Zedekiah were rated Bad, Devilish, Worst and Wicked; although six kings attempted to reform the nation and return it to God’s ways, receiving a rating of Good. But, ultimately, the nations of Israel and Judah were both taken into captivity — with the ten tribes of Israel vanishing into history. The nation of Judah was resurrected by King Cyrus and it is generally accepted that the descendants of that ancient nation are among the inhabitants of the modern nation of Israel.
As I look upon the utter chaos that seems to be at the heart of governing leaders today, I want to thunder like Jeremiah, and shout at our misguided and hateful Congress. These are the leaders “who try to make My people forget My name… and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness”. Yes, I know that this nation is a melting pot and we are to respect and help all people try to achieve the “American Dream”. But what I’m seeing now is more like a nightmare! And the fact that everything Christian is excoriated, and the ways of God are ridiculed, warns my spirit that this nation will also pay a penalty for its disobedience to the God who so richly blessed it at its founding.
I confess that I am embarrassed and ashamed of how the leaders of my country are acting. It’s as if all common sense and decency have left our shores. The Bible makes it very clear that the nations who obey God will be blessed. I’m afraid that our leaders have been deceived into thinking it is by their own power and abilities that we have become a prosperous nation. I’m afraid they have forgotten the statutes and commandments of our God who judges between the nations, and either raises them up or destroys them.
I would advise our leaders to read Leviticus, Chapter 26 and hearken to what God says He will do to a nation that walks contrary to Him. If He was willing to execute His wrath on His beloved nations of Israel and Judah, what makes our leaders think this nation will be immune? And, yes, Leviticus is an ancient book of the Old Covenant, but for those of us who know the God of Leviticus to be the same God as today, we regard Him with Awe, Reverence, and an expectation of His Righteous Judgment. There is a definite spirit of Unrighteous Pride in our nation’s capitol and I pray that corrupted minds and hearts will be renewed, so that men’s pride in their own power will be broken by contrite and repentant hearts, and this land can once again walk erect with our God. I know the following Scripture is in vogue these days, but it has never been more true. Please seek His face!
2 Chronicles 7:14 “If My people who are called by My name humble themselves, and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land”.
Amongst the many fallacies that the former president foisted upon the American people was 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement.
While technically and legally a treaty, Obama signed it without it ever being ratified by the Senate, making our participation in it totally illegal according to the Constitution.
President Trump just solved that problem by declaring that the USA was withdrawing from the Paris agreement.
Trump is fulfilling yet another campaign promise and saving the country billions of dollars at the same time. Yet while conservatives everywhere applaud his actions, the liberal left is talking about how Trump’s actions will mean the end of the world.
The Ice Age that Never Came
In my opinion, global warming, or climate change as it is now called, is nothing but false science. The entire climate debate is driven by computer models, and anyone who knows anything about computer modeling can tell you that you can make models give you whatever results you want them too. It’s all in how you write the model and what data you give it.
Not all that long ago, the climate debate was about global cooling, rather than global warming. According to the environmentalists of the 1970s, we were entering into a new ice age, which would destroy all live. Their solution was to take billions of dollars away from rich countries and give that money to poor countries.
Then, there was a change in the wind and global cooling was replaced by global warming. Once again the environmentalists had a solution; take billions of dollars away from rich countries and give it to poor countries. Now that global warming has been proven to be fake, they changed its name to climate change and came up with a solution… you guessed it.
Clearly, the issue isn’t whether the world is warming or cooling. It’s about getting money into the hands of politicians, so that they can further their globalist goals and redistribute the wealth. Climate change, by any name, isn’t a science, it’s a religion, one which the left is trying to force upon us through political correctness, calling people “climate change deniers” and taking out tax dollars.
The reality of climate change is nothing like what the climate change movement claims. Yes, the climate changes; it has all through history and it probably will continue to change as long as the world exists. The world has known alternating warm and cool spells, long before man started burning fossil fuels.
Yet according to the left, man and man alone is responsible for the warming trend that their computer models show, once they massage the data. They have even gone so far as to name carbon dioxide a “greenhouse gas” and the biggest danger to the climate there is.
Obviously, these so-called scientists have forgotten their basic biology, or they would remember that animals breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide and plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen.
In fact, how would plant life would be served if we had a carbon dioxide level that was four to five times higher than what we have today? It happened before, during the Jurassic Period.
If were it to suddenly rise that high again, would we see an explosive growth of plant life around the globe? Would it be any reason to be concerned about the rain forests, as they would grow faster than the tribal farmers could cut clearings to farm? Under the circumstances, farmers would see incredible yields from their crops, going a long way towards solving global hunger, wouldn’t they?
But mankind is no more able to boost the carbon dioxide level to that point, than we are to prevent it from rising. That’s because the biggest producer of carbon dioxide in the world is the world’s oceans. After that, it’s the decomposition of biomass around the globe.
Compared to these two sources of carbon dioxide, what our atmosphere receives from the burning of fossil fuels is a miniscule amount.
Who’s Making the Difference?
Even so, the Paris agreement was supposed to be a turning point in mankind’s history, with mankind finally taking responsibility for our destruction of the climate and taking drastic action to put an end to that destruction. The goal of the summit and ensuing agreement was to reduce the average temperature of the Earth by two-tenths of a degree Celsius, by the turn of the next century.
Yet the agreement itself could only accomplish a few percentage points of even that miniscule goal, if every signatory nation fulfilled their commitment to the agreement. America’s commitment, which would have cost us billions of dollars, would account for only 0.023 degrees of change, by the end of the century.
One of the biggest problems with the agreement is that each nation is given permission to establish their own goals. Hence, China and India, the first and third largest consumers of coal, respectably, aren’t committing to reducing their coal consumption at all before 2030, the end date of the agreement.
In fact, China, which uses 41% of the coal burned in the world (more than the next 11 consumers combined), is planning on increasing their consumption of coal over the next decade and won’t even consider any reductions until after 2030.
So, what Obama and Kerry had negotiated was a treaty which hurt the United States, while allowing other countries to continue polluting. Even if we take the whole global warming hoax out of the equation and look at the agreement just from the viewpoint of polluting the world we all share, this was a horrible agreement. No wonder President Trump wants to get out of it.
By the way, the United States has drastically reduced our dependence on coal anyway, before the Paris agreement and before Obama’s war on coal. With the energy industry moving away from coal and towards natural gas, the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is, we are making great strides in reducing the pollution we create.
Of course, that creates another problem for the environmentalist; that of fracking. In order to harvest the nearly unlimited supply of natural gas trapped beneath the surface of the Earth, gas companies are using hydraulic fracking to push the gas out of the sedimentary layers in the ground and towards wells where it can be harvested.
Where is This All Going?
Getting out of the Paris agreement will be good for the country. The price tag on reducing global temperatures by 0.2°C by the turn of the century is $100 trillion (that’s not a typo).
By exiting the agreement, Trump is refusing to pay that blackmail and the high cost to our country. That will ultimately help taxpayers and businesses across the country. Oh and, all that money would have bought us essentially… nothing.
But what if it is real? What if global warming or global cooling were something that we should be concerned with? Would the methods that are being proposed by its proponents effective?
No. All that the politicians and environmentalists have done is to create a huge, expensive industry, which lines their pockets, without offering any real solutions. Spending $100 trillion without coming up with a solution isn’t effective use of money, no matter who you are.
Actually, the real cause of global climate fluctuations has been discovered. It’s caused by the main source of heat for the surface of the Earth… the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun cause the warm and cool spells that have existed throughout the Earth’s history.
Nothing man has done or can do will affect that at all. The Earth will continue to go through alternating warm and cool spells, for as long as the Sun will shine and the Earth will continue its orbit around the Sun.
But let’s think about this for a moment. First of all, it appears that the orbital variations the Earth has been experiencing are evening out. As far as I know, no scientist has declared that, I’m just basing it on the fact that the “little ice age” of the 17th to 18th centuries was not as cold as previous ice ages. While there was an increase in polar ice, it didn’t come as far towards the equator as had previously happened.
Okay, so it looks like we’re safe; but what if we’re not? What if my conclusion is totally wrong? What if a huge asteroid hits the Earth with enough mass and energy to put more instability into the Earth’s orbit? Would we see an increase in the global warming and cooling periods?
Yes, most assuredly that would be the result.
In that case, with life on this Earth being such a delicate thing, how could mankind survive? What could we do to make it through another ice age or a period of global warming that brought surface temperatures up another 50 degrees? Is there an answer to that?
Actually, the answer to this question has been known for decades. While such a massive shift in the Earth’s temperature would cause massive amounts of plant and animal life to die, mankind could survive, taking at least some of nature along with us. The secret would be to go underground.
An underground bunker or even an underground city could be designed to maintain a reasonable temperature year round, even while the temperature on the surface was considerably hotter or colder than it is today. This solution was proposed as early as the 1970s, back when the argument was whether global warming or global cooling would kill us first.
Or there are other options that humankind could appeal to?
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Renaissance Man introductory show economy and more! Ray Becker “Renaissance Man” Audio in player below! On this, my first show with Prepper Broadcasting Network, I will start off with a brief introduction about me and some of the information that I will be covering. We will then look over some economic indexes and any key … Continue reading Renaissance Man introductory show economy and more!
The post Renaissance Man introductory show economy and more! appeared first on Prepper Broadcasting |Network.
Remember the high hopes for the “Arab Spring” in 2011? It’s almost forgotten now, apart from one grim legacy – the Syrian Civil War. This has now been raging for
The post The US in Syria: Boots on the Ground or Get the Heck Out? appeared first on Ask a Prepper.
Will another world war happen anytime soon?
Tensions between the great powers of the world are increasing. And if they are going to burst, how would a world war would look today?
World War II was a world-changing event. While not all the countries of the world were involved in the war, it affected most of them to some extent.
More than anything, it affected the industrialized nations of the world, what are known as the “first world countries,” a term that you don’t hear all the time.
It is this wide-reaching impact that made what was thought of by some to be a European war, into a world war.
There have only been two world wars in the world’s history and both of them were fought largely in Europe.
Considering that the European countries, especially the British Empire, controlled 30% of the world’s landmass until World War II, it’s really not surprising that those wars became world wars.
But things have changed. One of the major, but little talked about results of World War II was that the British lost their empire. This caused the British Empire to drop from being the world’s greatest superpower to being just one more European country, amongst many. The United States of America took its place as the world’s premiere superpower.
This leads me to think that any future world war would have to center around the United States. That’s not pride and patriotism talking, but merely an analysis of the facts.
No major war (defined as involving more than two countries) happens today, without the USA being involved in some way.
Of course, being the strongest and richest country in the world has its price. Part of that price is that we accumulate enemies much faster than other countries, with many countries claiming that the US government tries to dictate to the rest of the world. Of course, the countries who complain about that either want to invade others or want the USA out of the way for other nefarious purposes.
So, like the Japanese in World War II, these countries turn against the United States. The Japanese never intended to invade the USA during World War II, they just attacked Pearl Harbor to keep the United States from interfering with their plans of conquering the Far East and creating an empire.
What is the Threat?
Predicting the next war is an inexact science that baffles even the best informed. Throughout my years in the military, I heard talk about how the Soviet Union was going to come barreling through the Fulda Gap, launching World War III. That was the war we prepared for, and the war that never happened. The Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union collapsed and the world went in a different direction.
That next war turned out to be in the Middle East. I suppose I could say “I told you so” to all my old military buddies, but I’ve lost contact with them in the ensuing years. Even if I could tell them that, the satisfaction would be tempered by the fact that I successfully predicted a war, not something more profitable or enjoyable.
Some of today’s threats are akin to that of the Soviet Union, but others are smaller, even if they are more dangerous. What makes them more dangerous is their unpredictability. Those smaller threats don’t follow the rules the rest of the world does; in fact, it’s hard to say if they follow any rules at all.
Our Current “Threat Board”
Russia – the world’s second largest power and one with imperial ambitions
China – the largest country in the world and one that historically has no love for the United States
Iran – a sworn enemy who has previously declared war on the USA
North Korea – headed by a despotic dynasty, North Korea has also declared war against us
ISIS – while not really accepted as a nation, the Islamic State calls themselves one. They are also the most dangerous nation on the face of the Earth, murdering thousands of people in their “holy war”
There are other countries that we could add to this list, but these would have to be the major players. Our other enemies are either too small, too weak, or smart enough to not make too much noise about attacking America.
Of that list, we can identify four different types of threats that we face:
Conventional war, with Russia or China trying to invade the United States. Not a very likely scenario.
Cyberwarfare, again with Russia or China being the attackers, trying to take down the US government, military, power grid or financial network. Any of those would cause us serious harm and none are adequately protected.
Nuclear War; while Russia and China actually have the ability to attack the USA with nuclear weapons, it is doubtful that either of them will do so. On the other hand, both Iran and North Korea are actively working on the development of nuclear weapons and the intercontinental missiles to deliver them. However, they would be better served by an EMP attack, which would have much wider impact on the United States.
Terrorism, propagated by ISIS or by another terrorist organization, funded and supported by Iran. This is already happening in many parts of the world. Extending it more aggressively into the United States would be child’s play, especially with our porous southern border.
The greatest threats come from the most unstable countries. So, while a war with Russia or China might be more devastating, the reality is that we are at more of a risk of attack from Iran, North Korea or ISIS. Each has declared against us and would love to take us out of their way.
Aren’t We Already in the Midst of World War III?
Some have said that we are already in the midst of World War III; specifically referring to the jihad being waged by ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorist organizations. In one sense, they are absolutely right; radical Islam has declared a war of conquest against the rest of the world, and it appears that they have no intention of stopping until they have succeeded.
With 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today, a fair percentage of which support the idea of jihad to conquer the world and convert every living soul to Islam, it doesn’t look like this war is going to stop anytime soon.
But the Islamic jihad has a number of problems as a war of conquest. First and foremost, Islam itself is divided. More than anything, Muslims are killing other Muslims over doctrinal differences. As long as that continues, it is doubtful that they will succeed in conquering the world.
But that doesn’t mean that they won’t continue trying. Between jihadic terrorism and what I like to call “social jihad” Muslims are making inroads in many countries, especially in Europe, using the Syrian refugee crisis to infiltrate the European countries. Even social jihad has its violent element, as we’ve seen in Europe: supposed Syrian refugees have attacked citizens in Sweden, Germany, France and England.
This makes the central focus of this world war Europe at the moment, just like it was for the last two world wars. Not only is Europe involved in it, but a number of other countries, such as the Philippines, Malaysia, India, Kenya and Tanzania, to name a few. Islam is even making inroads into China, Serbia, Albania and Serbia. Unless something is done about it, the expansion of Islam will continue to take over more and more of the world.
We have felt little of this war here in the United States. But that is about to change. As Europe closes the doors to Syrian refugees, more and more are entering Mexico, first to start the Islamification of that country and then to move into the United States.
Border Patrol is seeing more and more Middle Eastern men crossing the border with Mexican names. They are taking on Mexican identities and even marrying into Mexican families, so that they can come to the United States as Mexicans, rather than Syrians.
In this, they are once again using our own laws against us. While the problem of illegal aliens coming into the United States from Mexico is one that concerns Americans, it is nothing compared to the problem of unveted Muslims. The invasion is on and it is only time until they start to do the same sort of violent acts here in the USA, that they are doing in Europe.
Escalation of the Islamic Threat
While there is a very real war being waged by radicalized Islam today, it is a slow war; one that is intended to last for years. These invaders are patient in their conquest and have centuries of experience in taking over countries through a combination of social jihad and violence.
The tricky thing about this third jihad is identifying when it moves from being a nuisance to being an actual war. It is clear that the jihadists themselves have declared war on us. But many of the methods they use are known to us, defining whether they are acts of war or simple criminal actions is difficult.
Part of the methodology of social jihad is making the areas that Muslims occupy ungovernable, so that the legally constituted government abandons the area, turning it into a “no-go zone” and allowing the Muslims to “self govern;” or institute Sharia Law.
But while the low level warfare of jihad is a clear and present danger to the United States of America, it is nothing compared to what is going on in the Middle East. There, ISIS and other terror groups are killing people by the thousands, some through warfare, but even more through gristly executions. We’ve all seen the videos of ISIS executioners beheading people, setting them on fire and even drowning them because they would not convert to their version of Sunni Islam.
While we have seen the violence of terrorism at work here in the United States, it is hard to quantify it. The previous administration refused to acknowledge that many of the deaths caused by Muslims were acts of terrorism, even while the killers declared their loyalty to ISIS or Mohammad. Instead, they were labeled “workplace violence” denying us accurate data on how bad the situation is.
Hopefully this will change. Unlike the former president, Trump has no ties to Islam, nor reason to give them preferential treatment. Therefore, it is highly likely we will see an upswing in reported Muslim terrorist attacks. Not because there are more, but because they will be reported honestly as what they are.
But I think we can probably expect to see an upswing in actual attacks as well. ISIS is learning from their mistakes and is constantly looking for new means of infiltrating soldiers into our midst. Not only that, but their online recruitment is continuing, seeking marginalized youth that they can convert to their work.
These young terrorists get all the technical and emotional support they need from their Muslim handlers, who encourage them to engage in acts of violence, including taking their own lives as holy warriors.
When we see these attacks, either from misguided youth or infiltrated soldiers on the upswing, we will know that the war has truly reached our shores. But that war is not our biggest danger.
Video first seen on Fox News.
Nuclear War on the Horizon
While the threat of Islamic terrorism isn’t something we can ignore, it is not the biggest threat on the horizon. While they are horrible in and of themselves, terrorist acts hurt few people compared to what nuclear war can kill.
Even the most effective terrorist attack in the history of the United State, the destruction of the twin towers in New York, only killed 2,996 people. An atomic bomb, exploding over Los Angeles, could kill millions.
Chances of an enemy invading the United States are minimal. As Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is reputed to have said during World War II, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” While obviously an exaggeration, this statement is based upon a very real truth. That is, the American people, especially conservatives, own a lot of guns.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Any invading force would not only have the problem of defeating the United States military, which is the most powerful military on Earth, they’d have to deal with all the armed Americans out there, many of whom are hunters.
The only two countries in the world who have the military might to even attempt it would be Russia and China, and neither of them can muster enough troop transports to make the assault and support it logistically. On top of that, our countries 10 aircraft carriers are more than all the aircraft carriers of all the other countries of the world combined.
But that’s not to say that enemies couldn’t attack the United States and do so effectively. One such attack would be a cyberattack, taking out our communications and the electrical grid. The defenses of our electrical grid are probed regularly, as if potential enemies are seeking weaknesses to exploit.
Both China and Russia are far ahead of the United States in developing cyberwarfare. We ignored this new battle front, at a time when China was creating their fist cyberwarfare division. Their capability today is largely unknown, but it is clear that they have the capability of taking down much that we depend on, without firing a shot.
Should China ever choose to initiate cyberwarfare against the United States, we would probably lose. But then, so would they.
China holds over a trillion dollars of the US federal debt, something that they wouldn’t want to lose. Besides, they wouldn’t want to lose the 347 billion dollars in trade deficit, money that their economy needs to receive, or their country plummets into worse poverty than they’ve ever known.
So, while the risks of invasion or cyberwarfare are real, they are not the biggest risk that we face. Rather, the risk of nuclear war is.
For over 40 years, the United States and the now defunct Soviet Union stared at each other across the world’s oceans, with both sides wondering if that day would be the last. At its height, the two countries held a total of over 70,000 nuclear warheads between them; many more than the approximately 15,000 that exist today. We could have destroyed the world in less than an hour.
Fortunately, we never reached that point. The closest we came was the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The only reason why John F. Kennedy was able to stare down the Kremlin and put that crisis to bed was that we had intelligence which confirmed that the missiles were not ready for use. This caused the Kremlin to back down and defused the situation.
While we never shot a nuclear tipped missile at Russia and they never shot one at us, the threat of nuclear war has never really left. Our mutual nuclear arms stockpiles make it unlikely that we ever will.
However, there are two countries who are actively seeking to build nuclear arms and the missiles to turn them into weapons of mass destruction, North Korea and Iran; two countries that have declared themselves to be against the United States.
It actually goes deeper than that. Kim Jong Un, the North Korean dictator, has threatened the United States of America with nuclear holocaust over and over again. While his military has had trouble with their missiles, they are continuing testing, seeking to build a missile that can be used against us.
Video first seen on Fox News.
Likewise, Obama’s deal with Iran literally gave them permission to go ahead with their nuclear program, working towards developing their own capability to build nuclear bombs.
Both of these countries are dangerous, due to their unstable leadership and their hatred of the United States. Either could attack with little to no notice, as the preparations for a nuclear strike aren’t something that can be seen by satellite, as the buildup of troops for a conventional invasion is.
What looks like another simple missile test could easily turn out to be the launch of nuclear war, and we wouldn’t know it until the missile was on the way.
It is almost a certainty that both North Korea and Iran will become nuclear powers with ICBMs in the next five years. The question is, what are these countries going to do with that nuclear power? Will they be content with saber rattling or will they feel a need to use it and attack?
There is no real way to predict the answer to that question, but I would not put my faith in either country or their leadership. Their hatred for us might easily overcome their common sense, causing them to attack. Such an attack would of course require retaliation, a retaliation which would make their countries the ultimate losers in that war.
Neither country is likely to have the nuclear might to fight a full-fledged nuclear war, but they could do us considerable damage. Even the destruction of one city, such as Los Angeles (the most likely target for North Korea), would have a huge impact on the American people and on American politics. Regardless of how we responded to that attack, it would scar the country deeply.
But attacking one, two or even 20 cities in the United States would not destroy our country. While it would be a major blow, the United States is too big a country to be destroyed like that. Yes, millions would die and billions in capital would be lost, but the country would survive.
On the other hand, an EMP attack would be much more effective. It quite possibly could spell the destruction of our country, if properly planned and executed. It does not take thermonuclear weapons, ICBMs or miniaturization to create a Nuclear High-Altitude EMP (HEMP). Actually any country that has nuclear weapons and can orbit satellites has the technology and ability to carry out an EMP attack on the USA.
The very nature of this sort of attack would give the attackers the element of surprise, and foreknowledge wouldn’t do us much good anyway.
Regardless of how much notice we had, there is little that any of us could do, or even that our government could do, to prevent the destruction of an EMP. Our power grid would be down, much of our electronics destroyed, and the United States set back by about 150 years.
This is the most likely and the most dangerous scenario for an attack by another country.
Will it happen? Nobody knows. But to ignore the possibility and pretend that everything is okay would be foolish. Learning the error of that mistake would be too expensive to contemplate. Till then, keep preparing!
Interested in keeping you and your family safe? Click the banner below for more!
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Obamacare has been a thorn in Republicans’ sides ever since the then-Democrat controlled Congress passed the law in 2010.
There have been several reasons why Obamacare hasn’t been popular with the Republican Party and their voter base. Its great unpopularity is based upon it being seen as just one more tax on the middle class, so that the Democrats can give freebies to the lower class.
Originally passed as a purely partisan bill by the Democrats, the originally titled “Affordable Care Act” (ACA) was more about giving freebies to Democrat constituents, than anything else. But then, that’s what a lot of the bills out of the Democrat Party are.
While nobody is against lending a helping hand to those in need, there are a lot of times where the poor are receiving things paid for by tax dollars, which the middle class can’t afford for themselves.
The left loves to crow about how many people are on Obamacare now. But as per usual, they really aren’t telling us the truth.
The claim is that 20 million people have received insurance, who didn’t have health insurance before. But that information is based upon six years of surveys, not upon people who actually signed up. If we look at that, we find that there are about 14 million, a difference of 30%.
The Medicaid Expansion
Of the 14 million people who signed up for health insurance through Obamacare, 84% of them are on Medicaid. That’s right, another 11.8 million people are receiving “free” health insurance, courtesy of the Democrat Party and paid for by the middle class.
Then there are all the people who lost their insurance due to Obamacare. While many of them have bought insurance on the marketplace, there are still some who don’t have insurance. These people make too much to get on Medicaid, but are not making enough to afford the higher cost of health insurance that Obamacare has caused.
Probably the worst hit of those people are the 15 million self-employed people in our country and their employees. To put that in perspective, three in ten workers, fall into this category.
They make too much money to receive Medicaid, don’t have an employer to pay for their health insurance and so must pay for it themselves. With the prices on the marketplace, few can afford health insurance.
Those who are self-employed and have employees working for them are even worse off, as well as their employees. The ACA doesn’t make any provision for these people, who work in businesses that have less than 50 full-time employees. The employers usually can’t afford their own health insurance, let alone buying it for their employees.
Suffice it to say that Obamacare has had winners and it has had losers. The winners are the 11.8 million people who are now receiving Medicaid. About half of those people qualified for Medicaid before Obamacare was signed into law, so counting them as Obamacare winners really isn’t fair.
But even so, fewer and fewer physicians are accepting Medicaid, so even the win that the winners got is somewhat shaky. What good is insurance that nobody will accept?
Politics Has its Costs Too
Yet Obamacare is the law of the land and getting rid of it is going to have a cost. Most specifically, it’s going to have a cost for some of the people who have health insurance now, but will lose it when Obamacare is finally repealed.
Not repealing Obamacare has a huge cost in the Republicans own constituency. For the last three election cycles, we’ve heard promises of repealing Obamacare; first to win the House, then to win the Senate and now to win the Presidency.
So if they don’t repeal Obamacare, the Republicans are going to break faith with their own people, resulting in a reduction of Republican voters in the next election.
What this means is that the mocking that the Democrats are giving to the Republicans is the opposite of the truth. They’re trying to say that repealing Obamacare will destroy the Republicans’ chances in the 2018 elections, when the truth is that not repealing it will destroy their chances.
It’s not like Republican lawmakers have lacked in practice in drafting a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare either. Through the last six years of Obama’s presidency, they’ve drafted over 50 bills to do just that. But unsurprisingly, none of those bills passed into law.
At first, the Republicans didn’t have enough votes in the Senate. Then once they won that, they still had the hurdle of Obama killing the bill with a presidential veto.
In a way, we can say that those repeal attempts were “safe” in that there was no chance of any of them passing. The Republicans who drafted and voted for those bills weren’t ever going to pay the price of having to face an angry public, whipped up to fury by the mainstream media, for passing a bill that takes health insurance coverage from some little old grandma.
But things are no longer safe in that manner. Whatever repeal and replace law the Republicans now come up with, they’ll have to live with. Democrat lawmakers and media pundits alike will be looking for every little error they can find, for the sole purpose of telling the nation how bad a job Republicans did in repealing the Affordable Care Act.
The Republicans’ first attempt was a bill designed to please the moderates, essentially creating an Obamacare II, the same thing with a different name. But conservative Republicans wouldn’t back it, making that attempt fail.
Now they’re working to pass a second version. This time, one that conservative lawmakers can truly get behind. That has managed to get the bill through the House of Representatives, although by a much narrower margin than they would have liked.
Now the question is whether or not this bill will make it through the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to pass. That means that they’re going to have to get some Democrats to break ranks and vote in favor of the bill.
That’s going to be quite a challenge, as the Democrats have been walking in lockstep for quite some time now. But some of the smarter Democrats are finally starting to realize that Obamacare is imploding.
Without Obama in the White House to keep writing executive orders to keep it alive, as well as channel money to Obamacare that is intended for other things, the law doesn’t stand a chance of surviving. It is better for them to see it replaced, before that can happen.
Some have said all along that Obamacare was never intended to succeed, but to prepare the way for a change over to a single-payer healthcare plan; something along the lines of the entire nation being on Medicaid. But that plan, if it even existed, required the Democrats maintaining control of both houses of Congress, as well as the presidency. There is no way that Republicans would vote in favor of such a thing. It smacks too much of socialism.
Video first seen on Fox News.
The American Health Care Act – What Does This Mean?
Now we’ve got the American Health Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare Repeal and Replace II, going through congress. What does this bill mean for you and me?
First of all, I’ve got to say that it’s doubtful that it will pass. But assuming it does, the first thing it means is lower taxes.
The new bill eliminates both the individual mandate and the employer mandate, two of the most objectionable parts of Obamacare. It also removes a number of other taxes associated with the original Obamacare bill.
The thing it doesn’t do, or at least it doesn’t from what I’ve seen, is that it doesn’t mention any way for the government to pay for all the extra people on Medicaid. Part of that will be taken care of by reducing the number of people eligible for Medicaid, something that is supposed to happen in 2020.
This is a common tactic, used by both parties in Congress. They create a bill which they know will have negative consequences, but put an implementation date that’s a couple of years down the road. That way, most people won’t fret about the implementation, because it’s not now.
That mechanism was used quite successfully in creating Obamacare and it seems to be being used in getting rid of it too.
One of the things that Obamacare was touted for was helping people who have preexisting conditions. Many of these people were considered “uninsurable” by the insurance companies, because the cost of taking care of them was so high.
Putting them in a common pool with everyone else was supposed to reduce the cost of healthcare for them, by spreading the cost around to everyone else.
As nice as that may be for the people so afflicted, it’s part of what made Obamacare so expensive. The new bill puts these people in a separate insurance category, so that they can still get insurance, but it won’t affect everyone else as much.
Likewise, the same is being done with the elderly, who typically have much higher medical costs than those who are younger. The new law would allow their premiums to be higher, rather than making young people, just out of college, pay for their medical costs.
Another key element of the bill is allowing the states to opt out of providing some of what are considered the ACA’s essential health benefits. This means that each state can decide for itself whether it is paying for free birth control, health screenings and a number of other things that were mandated in the original Obamacare plan, whether the individual needed them or not. After all, men really don’t need free pregnancy screening.
Between these two measures, and others, Republican lawmakers are hoping that the American Health Care Act will counter the effects of Obamacare and bring insurance prices back down to a more affordable level. While we won’t really know if they succeed until the law is passed, it is looking promising. We’ll just have to see.
At the same time, the new bill doesn’t significantly change any of the core provisions of Obamacare. Dependents will still be able to stay on their parents’ plans until 26 years of age. Subsidies for insurance premiums wouldn’t go away.
Nor would the requirement that insurance companies cover people with preexisting conditions be removed.
So a lot of what made Obamacare look good is still going to be there, while getting rid of some of the things that made it bad.
Keep one thing in mind – knowledge is the only doctor that can save you when there is no medical help around.
Click the banner below to find out more!
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
The rhetoric coming out of North Korea has been belligerent for some time now. Every time we hear anything about Kim John-un, it seems that he’s talking about how tough he is and how he’s going to make the United States pay for our actions. If that’s all for domestic consumption, that’s fine; but he doesn’t seem to limit it to his national news services. Rather, he’s spouting off those threats for the whole world to hear.
Just this year, Kim claimed that America’s annual military exercises with South Korea were a provocation, threatening the United States with retaliation if anything went wrong. On its face, it looks like he’s looking for any excuse to attack the USA, regardless of the outcome.
The very idea of a tiny nation like North Korea even threatening to attack the United States is ridiculous. North Korea has the 25th largest military in the world, compared to the United States, which tops the list as number one. Our standing military is twice their size, and in critical categories such as tanks and attack helicopters, we outnumber them by as much as 48 to 1, even though they have more artillery strength than we do.
Even South Korea has a considerably stronger military than the North does, although the North has more men in uniform. But wars are not ultimately won by bodies in uniforms, but on a country’s logistical strength. While the soldier in the field is the one who must fight for his country, his ability to do so will depend on the logistical support he receives.
It’s clear that Kim John-un isn’t going to invade the American landmass. He doesn’t have the navy to support such an attack. Of the 309 in his navy, 211 are small patrol craft. The only sizeable surface ships he has are his 3 frigates. More than anything, North Korea depends on their fleet of 70 submarines to project strength.
But submarines are a very poor platform for projecting power, as their whole idea is to remain unseen by the enemy. The only way that they can project power is either by making themselves visible and therefore vulnerable or by attacking. Of course, any attack by a submarine would be considered an act of war.
While all of North Korea’s submarines are diesel-electric powered, making them much easier to detect than nuclear powered submarines, some of them are reported to have the capability of carrying one or two missiles in vertical launch tubes.
Coupled with their missile program and their nuclear program, the missile capability of roughly 40 of North Korea’s navy gives them a potentially frightening capability, that of launching a nuclear strike on the United States mainland.
Video first seen on Fox News.
Of course, we don’t know if the missiles that North Korea are developing are compatible with their submarines, as they have yet to launch one from a sub. So this might not be much of a threat after all. But that’s not to say that there is no way whatsoever that North Korea could attack the United States of America with nuclear missiles. They’ve stated that as their purpose, and we can be sure that they are working to make it a reality.
Most of North Korea’s missiles are mobile, meaning that they are mounted on large, military-grade vehicles. This gives them the strategic advantage of being easy to hide, especially in North Korea’s mountainous terrain. But it has another tactical advantage that needs to be considered. Since the launch vehicle is all that’s needed to send these missiles skywards, they can be launched off of any ship, such as a typical container ship used for general cargo.
Both the Rodong-1 and Hwasong-10 missiles are vehicle mounted and thought to have nuclear capability. While the Rodong-1 is a bit long to fit into a standard cargo container, the Hwasong-10 would fit with room left over. Building a special container, which looks like a standard shipping container and contains the necessary launch hardware and electronics would actually be easier than building a launch vehicle.
The Devastating Nuclear Threat
The North Koreans currently have the capability, technologically speaking, of attacking the United States with nuclear weapons. While they don’t publish their current nuclear inventory on the internet, experts put the total at about 20 weapons. That means that North Korea currently has the ability to gut the hearts out 20 major U.S. cities in a surprise attack.
Such an attack would have a major effect on our country, especially as those 20 cities would probably be many of our biggest ones. Any city within about 600 miles of the coast could be a potential target. Other than Washington, DC, they would probably pick targets with the largest population or strategic value.
Of course, such an attack would motivate our government to retaliate in kind. Considering that we have many more nuclear weapons than they do, we could easily level their country. That would make the attack a suicide mission, and it’s anyone’s guess if Kim’s hatred for us is strong enough for him to risk ordering a suicide mission against us.
Of course, the other, more dangerous, possibility is that Kim could order an EMP attack, rather than a conventional nuclear attack. The missiles mentioned above have a terminal altitude in a lofted trajectory of 160 km, or just shy of 100 miles. At that altitude, a nuclear weapon explosion would cause an EMP whose effects would be felt over 2/3 of the continental United States.
Should such attacks be coordinated to happen from both sides of the country at the same time, pretty much the entire continental US could go dark at once. The only states unaffected would be Alaska and Hawaii.
Since the Pacific Fleet is still headquartered at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, we would still retain some retaliatory ability against Pyongyang. But that would be of little comfort to the 320 million people who would suddenly be without electricity and everything that electricity provides for us.
This is the single biggest threat that we, as a country, face today. Iran isn’t as far along in their nuclear problem as North Korea is, nor their missile program. So, while both countries would love to attack the USA, the North Koreans seem to have the advantage in the race to do so.
Not only is an EMP from North Korea the most likely threat we face today, it’s also one of the most devastating possible. By comparison, a conventional nuclear attack would be minor. That conventional nuclear attack would only affect one city, killing a few million people at the most. The EMP attack I outlined above has the potential of killing up to 90% of our population.
That isn’t my figure; it came from the study created by the EMP Commission. Their conclusion was that a High-altitude EMP, exploding over the central United States, would end up killing 60 to 90 percent of our population, mostly through starvation. That’s clearly an unacceptable outcome for us.
Regardless of how likely you or I think such an attack is, the risk is too large to be ignored. The very fact that North Korea, a country whose leader hates us, has that capability, means that it could happen. If it did, it’s unlikely that our military could stop it. At best, they could retaliate, but that won’t help us here at home.
I’ve studied the potential effect of an EMP attack extensively. While there are some things which would survive such an attack, it is clear that the nation’s power grids would be taken down. The key component here is the massive transformers, of which there are thousands. Without those transformers, which are not protected against EMP, the power can’t flow.
Video first seen on Fox News.
Looking at that logically, our chances aren’t all that good. There is no reserve supply of transformers available, so we’d have to wait for them to be built. Most likely, the first ones to be built would go to areas that would be considered to be the most crucial to the country; substations serving Washington and a few of our largest cities. If you don’t live near one of them, you can forget about getting any electricity for at least a year, if not several years.
Survival of the fittest will become survival of the most prepared. Without electrical power, our entire infrastructure will come to a grinding halt. Municipal water authorities won’t be able to provide water to our cities. Trucks wouldn’t be able to move merchandise. Since pretty much everything we depend on comes from somewhere else, society would be at a standstill.
Those who survive will either do so because they have a large enough stockpile to survive, they are able to produce their own food and other necessities, or they are strong enough and mean enough to take what they need from others.
Pretty much everyone else will die off. Oh, there will be a few who learn to survive, planting gardens and hunting for meat. But those will be people who live in rural areas, close to forests where game can be found. The hardest hit will be those in the cities, who not only don’t have the space necessary to grow their own food, but don’t have the skills needed either.
Many will move, seeking a better chance of survival. But more will die while moving, than those that find a place to start over. The mass migration from big cities to rural areas will be met with resistance, as the rural towns won’t be able to feed the huge numbers of city dwellers, few of whom will bring useful skills to go with their hungry bellies.
There will be pitched battles, as those rural communities try to defend themselves from what will seem like a zombie invasion.
I’m sure that the rural communities will win the most of those battles, as they will be better armed than the invaders from the city. But their win won’t be without cost, especially the cost to their souls.
Killing your fellow man for a crime no greater than to be hungry, is not something to make one feel good about themselves. But other than criminal gangs who will try to attack those rural communities, that’s the biggest crime that many of those invaders will commit.
The population will probably stabilize after that first year, as those who remain are the ones who are able to feed themselves without depending on the system to bring them food. I think we can expect the majority of those people to be in rural communities, although there will be some suburbanites who survive as well. Those still alive will then begin the arduous task of rebuilding society.
The question that faces you and I is whether or not we’ll be counted amongst those who survive. More than anything, that will depend on our level of preparedness. But there’s another important factor that we must take into consideration. That of being able to protect ourselves from others.
The ability to protect ourselves will be a complicated one. Those “others” will consist of anything from beggars who show up at our door, to heavily armed gangs who are willing to kill us in order to get what we have. Solo survival or attempting to survive as a family won’t be enough to fend off those attacks. We’ll need to be part of a larger survival community, which is prepared and organized to repel those who want what we have.
With this being the potential cost, could it be that a preemptive attack against North Korea’s nuclear weapons be better?
Interested in keeping you and your family safe? Click the banner below for more!
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Amid warnings that North Korea and Iran have plans to take out parts of the U.S. electric grid through a cyber attack or atmospheric nuclear blast, the Pentagon is taking steps to both protect the nation’s communications and power lifeline.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has charged BAE Systems to map a system that can detect a cyber attack and gin up an alternative communications network for military and civilian use if the grid is fried, according to Defense Systems, the online newsletter.
Interesting article. A lot of people forget that the internet was originally envisioned for exactly this sort of scenario – a resilient communications system that could operate even with chunks of it destroyed. It’s decentralized nature increased survivability and resiliency.
I find it interesting that the focus is on the East Coast which has gotta be a lot tougher for the NorKs than getting a warhead to the West Coast. But, here in Montana we’d be relatively insulated from either coast getting whomped on.
War on the horizon? Nope. I’m putting it right up there with the return of Xenu or Planet X. But, remember, there doesn’t have to be a war to screw up your plans…all that has to happen is for enough people to believe that there’s one on the way and it becomes virtually self-fulfilling. Don’t be surprised if gas prices go up and the metals market does some weird shimmying.
I liked the emphasis on EMP in the article. It’s something that has still never really been done, as far as I know, on any researchable large scale….kinda hard to set off a high altitude nuke these days without someone getting their panties in a twist. I think EMP is a tad overrated in terms of potential damage. Fiction would have us believe that planes will fall from the sky and even your Casio G-Shock will stop working. I suspect that smaller, simpler, electrical systems will probably work just fine. The planes? Mmmmm…(waggles hand).
It’ll be interesting to see where this goes, but I think this is such a non-event that I’m not really doing anything special…but then again, life is always a “DOUBLE TAKE” around here anyway.
In August of 2012, former President Obama warned the Syrian president not to cross the “red line” of using chemical weapons on the citizens of his country. As there are numerous treaties and international agreements limiting the manufacture and use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), this was an appropriate stance for Obama, as the president of the United States to take.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about it, the United States of America is the world’s police and has fulfilled that role since the end of World War II.
When corrupt governments or dictators break international law, it falls to us to punish them.
Oh, we could wait for the United Nations to do something, but that would take months and merely result in a paper that condemns “in the strongest language” the actions which broke international law and convention.
Bad actors, whether on the world stage or in the ghetto need to receive heavier consequences than a verbal warning. Criminals who receive a warning walk out of court with a smile on their face. The same happens with these international criminals, when all they receive is a verbal hand slap from the UN.
So President Assad should have expected the United States to do something more substantive than a verbal warning when he used chemical weapons on his own population, breaking international law. Trump’s red line speech has now been supported by military action, showing Assad and the world that there are lines that should not be crossed.
To anyone who understands international discourse and the use of limited military force as part of that, President Trump’s response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons on the 4th of April was appropriate. A measured military attack, taken out on a military target, sends the exact type of message that needs to be sent, without having to put boots on the ground or start a war.
The world’s reaction to Trump’s response was largely positive, with one UN Ambassador actually telling Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, that they were glad to see America leading once again. But not everyone was overjoyed. Both Russia and Iran, allies of Assad and Syria, have made threatening noises at the United States in response.
On one hand, that’s not at all surprising. Allies back up the action of each other. It was necessary for those countries to back up Assad’s actions, or risk being seen as untrustworthy on the world stage. But is there really a chance of war breaking out over the illegal actions of a despot ruler?
Video first seen on Fox News.
War with Iran
The idea of war with Iran isn’t anything new. They declared war on us, for the first time, in 1979. Since then, there have been other threats and declarations, making it clear that Iran doesn’t like us and would love to kick the United States into next week. There’s only one thing… they’re not big enough to do it.
With a population a fourth the size of the United States and a GDP per capita that’s less than a tenth of ours, Iran is not prepared in any way to fight a war with the USA. However, that’s not to say they will never be.
Thanks to Obama, Iran’s nuclear and missile programs are proceeding full steam ahead and will eventually result in the ability to launch nuclear tipped ICBMs. The only question is, where will they target them from?
The only real choices for Iran are the USA and Israel, as their decision would be made by their theocratic government. Iran were the ones to originally declare the US as the “Great Satan” giving Israel the title of being the “Lesser Satan.” In their world view, there is nothing more important than destroying both of these enemies.
Once Iran reaches the point of nuclear missiles, they could make a targeted nuclear attack against tiny Israel, causing extensive damage and possibly crippling the country. Depending on their targeting, they could either decapitate the government or severely damage their military. With enough missiles, they could totally destroy Israel as a political entity.
But an attack against the United States would be much harder to accomplish, both due to distance and our larger size. It would take hundreds of nuclear warheads to severely cripple the USA. Even trying to decapitate our government would be difficult, as NORAD could provide sufficient warning to get the key players out of Washington and into safe places.
War with Russia
While war with Russia is more likely from the viewpoint of comparable military strength, it is also more unlikely for the same reason.
Russia has the second most powerful military in the world, even stronger than ours in a few key areas (like tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery). They also have a huge merchant marine, which could be pressed into service to transport their military.
But Russia doesn’t want war with the United States any more than the USA wants war with Russia.
What both countries want is to influence the rest of the world. That puts us at opposite sides many times. Russia still has imperial ambitions, something that has been made clear by some of Vladimir Putin’s actions towards Russia’s neighbors. But regardless of how good a story it makes, invading the American landmass is something that the Russians don’t want to do.
Any conflict that Russia has with the United States would be carried out by surrogates. They might support an ally, like Syria, even to the point of providing military hardware, training and even troops to help the fight, but they don’t want to go head-to-head with the US, any more than we want to with them.
Can We be Attacked?
None of this says that the United States of America can’t be attacked.
But one of the reasons that terrorism exists is that it provides smaller countries with a means of waging war against larger ones “on the cheap.” Terrorism doesn’t require huge amounts of manpower, a massive infrastructure and a huge financial investment.
Likewise, special operations can be taken out against specific targets in the United States, causing the country harm and even disrupting our government. But even as with terrorism, chances are that our government would figure out where the attack came from and retaliate against the country who sent those forces against us.
For over a century, the United States has operated under the principle that it is easier to fight wars overseas, then it is to fight them here at home. During World War II, we fought in Europe and the Pacific, preventing our enemies from getting close to our shores. This protected our population, our infrastructure and our manufacturing capability, allowing us to fight more effectively.
Our military commanders have not forgotten this lesson. One of the reasons we opposed the Soviet Union for so long, was to keep them from taking over the world and then coming after us.
Likewise, Bush’s “War on Terror” was about taking the fight to the terrorists, in their home countries, so as to minimize their ability to attack us here. In both cases, while it seemed like we were fighting someone else’s war, we were protecting vital American interests, as well as protecting our own country from attack.
The likelihood of anyone invading the USA is extremely slim. Both of our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, are allies, even though our relations with Mexico are a bit strained at times. Neither has the military power to attack the USA and neither has any reason to do so. Even with disagreement over illegal immigration, Mexico would lose too much if they were to attack the USA.
Yet there are two major military risks that the United States faces; those of Islamic terrorism and a high-altitude EMP. Either can cause huge amounts of harm to the United States, perhaps even ending our ability to be a major player on the world stage.
Preparing for War
Warfare of any sort is devastating. Much of Europe was decimated in World War II, with whole towns turned to rubble. The cost of rebuilding Europe after that war was measured in the billions, with the Marshall Plan alone counting for $40 billion.
Likewise, both terrorism and an EMP could have massive effects on our society, requiring several years and much money to recover.
If terrorism and an EMP are the two types of attacks that the United States has a potential to receive, then it only makes sense for us, as preppers, to be prepared for them.
While terrorism especially offers a wide range of possibilities, making it more or less impossible for us to accurately estimate its effects, there are some common things that we can think of, regardless of the type or scope of terrorist attack.
To start with, the answer to any terrorist attack is to thwart the attack before it can be realized.
When two Muslim terrorists tried to repeat the success of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Garland, Texas, their efforts bore little fruit. Armed Americans took out the terrorists before they could do more than wound one security guard. Had the people of France been armed, like those Texans were, chances are that the Charlie Hebdo attack would have ended much different.
Texas is the number two state in the nation for concealed carry licenses, with one out of every 37 citizens carrying legally. County Sheriff’s departments along the Texas/Mexican border see this as a major deterrent to terrorism, saying that no officer would have to draw his weapon, as the armed citizens would most likely end the attack before the police could arrive.
If you are a prepper and you don’t have a license to carry, then you are missing part of your preps. Granted, that’s not possible in all states, I understand that. But if you can legally get a license and carry, I have to ask, why aren’t you? Just do yourself and your neighbors a favor and make sure you practice enough to be competent.
While an EMP may not be as big a risk as terrorism, it would have a much greater impact. Of all the disasters that could befall us today, this is the most grave. According to the report of the EMP Commission, as much as 90% of the population could die within the first year after an EMP.
With that many people dying off, it’s quite possible that the country could never fully recover from an EMP. There wouldn’t be enough trained manpower to rebuild the electrical grid, let alone having the materials necessary to do so. An EMP would put the country back by more than 100 years.
Actually, it would be worse than that, as our modern society has lost many of the skills necessary to live without electricity and a massive infrastructure to support us. Few people are truly self-sufficient and surviving a world after an EMP would require the ability to do literally everything for yourself.
From growing your own food to fixing your own shoes, you would have to be able to do it all.
This is the greatest threat of our time, as well as the hardest to prepare for. Not only do we need to become self-sufficient, in order to survive such a scenario, but we also need to have the ability to defend ourselves from hungry gangs, willing to risk their lives for the chance to kill us to get our food.
In order to protect ourselves, we’re going to have to belong to a survival community. One family alone can’t survive attack after attack against their home, no matter how good they shoot, how much ammo they have and how well they are trained. Eventually, one family member will be shot, and then the defensive plan will begin to fall apart.
A survival community would stand a much better chance against such attacks. With a larger number of people in the community, it would be easier to develop an effective defensive plan. Not only that, but if something happened to one member of the team, it would be easier to make up for the loss.
Plans to adjust the defensive lines could be drawn up, so that in such a case, everyone would know what to do, so that your team could continue fighting.
Please note that I’m not advocating any sort of offensive action here, just defensive action.
While the best defense is a good offense, we must remain above board, so that no legal repercussions can come against us. Eventually law and order would be reestablished. We want to be on the right side, when that time comes.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
In 1972 Watergate, one of the biggest scandals in American political history hit Washington.
President Nixon had ordered wiretapping of his political opponents, for what turned out to be purely political reasons. His operatives, who weren’t government employees were caught, and accused the president as part of a plea bargain.
The result of this boondoggle was Richard Nixon resigning from the presidency, in order to avoid being the second president to be impeached.
Of course, the media had a real hay day with Nixon’s scandal, giving birth to what then became known as “investigative journalism.”
Every reporter who graduated from college wanted to be the next one to break the story on a major scandal. For a few decades our politicians had to walk a narrow line, keeping any unsavory activities from coming to the attention of the media.
But the times, as they say, have changed. Today’s media is mostly part of the progressive-liberal movement, pushing our nation’s politics more and more into socialism and a one-world government.
As such, they’ve become the de facto propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, even if they aren’t listed as the propaganda arm de jure.
Mainstream Media and the Progressives
The mainstream media sees it as their job to help progressives accomplish their agenda. As such, they are probably the group most responsible for dividing the nation. Rather than being the conveyors of truth and information that they used to be, they have redefined “truth” to mean the liberal agenda and anything that doesn’t agree with it as being “fake news.”
They’ve done this on climate change, they did it during Obama’s presidency, they did it during the 2016 elections and now they’re working overtime to do it in Trump’s presidency.
There are two ways in which the mainstream media lies to us. The first is by telling us an untruth; something they have made up or which they are party to someone else making up. Such has been the case of their reporting of mass shootings. Every time there is a mass shooting, they immediately begin the narrative of how some nut-job conservative went nuts again. Yet once the facts come out, it is found that it was a liberal who pulled the trigger.
Of course, this goes far beyond gun control, hitting every area that affects our nation. One of their favorite weapons is the classic liberal weapon of name calling.
Throughout the presidential campaign, they characterized Donald Trump as a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe who was going to take the rights away from women, minorities and the LGBT community.
The other way they lie to us is by concealing the truth. They focus huge amounts of airtime on outrageous stories that really don’t matter, in order to hide what’s really going on. During Obama’s tenure, this would most likely be hiding something bad that Obama was doing, in which case they were protecting Obama.
Now that Trump is in office, they are making sure not to report anything good that is happening, so that they can avoid having anything to do with making Trump look good.
So now we have the latest chapter in the story of media misreporting. On one side, they’ve been hammering the fake news story of Trump’s supposed ties to Russia, while ignoring Hillary Clinton’s very clear ties to them.
The Russian Story
The whole Russian story started out of two things. Trump made a joking comment in one of his campaign speeches, asking the Russians to release Hillary’s 30,000 missing e-mails, if they had them. Shortly thereafter, Wikileaks started posting Hillary’s e-mails, as well as those of her campaign manager and top Democrat Party officials.
Those e-mails gave us a true and accurate picture of the inner workings of the Democrat Party, showing the corruption that is a daily part of Democrat political life. Yet somehow, that story never really broke. The e-mails are still sitting there, but nobody is really talking about them. In this case, nobody includes the main conservative news sites too.
The second root goes back to the Cold War. For decades, starting just after the end of World War II, the Russians were the bogeymen of the world. Countless books and movies portrayed them as the bad guys.
While that image has faded some, Vladimir Putin’s charming way of threatening his neighbors, such as attacking Ukraine and taking back the Crimea, has brought the bogeyman image back out of the closet. Coupled with Trump’s statement about the Russians, the media had their story and they ran with it.
For almost a year now, we’ve been being told by the mainstream media that Trump was in collusion with the Russian bogeyman. That escalated with the various Wikileaks dumps, increased as the campaign drew near and went right over the top with Trump’s win.
Since the election, the progressive-liberal left, along with their media lapdogs, have been pushing the narrative that the Russians hacked the election, all to spoil Hillary’s campaign and allow their best friend, Donald Trump, to win the election.
Let’s get a couple of things straight here.
First of all, Trump isn’t best buddies with Putin. About the closest thing he’s said that even sounds anything like that was that he wanted to work together with Russia for world peace. That’s something he should have said. Two of the world’s most powerful countries should work together for peace, as well as for defeating terrorism. As president, if he refused to speak with them, he would be remiss in his duties.
Secondly, Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, has come out clearly stating that the e-mails that were posted on his organization’s website didn’t come from the Russians, but rather from leaks in the Clinton campaign office and the offices of the Democrat Party.
So, it’s clear that what the Democrats are claiming didn’t happen. Even so, Democrats are sticking to their story, refusing to accept that Trump won the election honestly.
But the narrative that Democrats are pushing is much more sinister than the reality would be, even if the reality they claim were true. By saying that the Russian’s “hacked the election,” they’re clearly implying that the Russians somehow changed the outcome of the elections by getting into the election computers. In other words, the implication they are pushing is that the Russians committed voter fraud, even though they didn’t.
This is a tricky bit of misinformation that the Democrats and their medial allies are pushing. Their only factual point of reference is the e-mails that were given to Wikileaks. So the claim is that Russia hacked into the necessary computers to gain access to those e-mails and then turned them over to Wikileaks.
The way they are stating the story makes it out to be a much bigger and more nefarious Russian involvement than that.
Even if the Russians did what the Democrats claim they did, all they would be doing is exposing the Democrat’s own words. Why should they be bothered by that? They love to jump on Republican words and twist them out of recognition in an effort to make the speaker out to be bad.
But nobody has changed one word of their own e-mails, just laid them out for all to see.
Everything Changed on March 4th
On March 4th Trump tweeted that Obama had wiretapped his phone lines. No longer could the media run around slandering Donald Trump, they had to circle their wagons and protect Obama. Their fair-haired boy was in trouble and so they rushed to his defense.
Video first seen on New York Daily News.
I’ll have to say, this was a masterful tweet by Trump. In one short message, he changed the entire narrative, putting his enemies on the defense. If one was writing a book on warfare, this could serve as a prime example of taking the initiative away from the enemy.
Obama’s spokesperson quickly came out with a response, saying that Obama didn’t wiretap Trump’s phone lines, nor did anyone else in the White House. It was the standard denial one would expect, but masterfully written nonetheless. Without denying that the event had happened, he declared before America and the world, that Trump was lying. It was the classic effective lie, one with just enough truth in it, so as to seem truthful.
But while Obama and the White House didn’t actually attach wires to Trump’s phone lines, it’s clear that someone had been listening in on Trump’s team, specifically listening in on conversations between Trump team members and people who were in the employ of the Russians.
Herein is something else I need to clarify. The term “wiretapping” has changed through the years. Originally, it referred to physical wires, attached to physical phone lines, allowing others to listen in on what were supposed to be private conversations.
But things have changed. Our technology has increased by several orders of magnitude since that time. So today, wiretapping doesn’t mean the same thing that it did back then. Today, if the FBI or some other law-enforcement agency wants to listen in on those conversations, and can get a warrant allowing them to do so, it’s all handled at the phone company.
Of course, they could just go to the NSA, who records every bit of electronic communications in the world. But for some reason, the FBI doesn’t do that. Instead, they go to the FISA court for a warrant and then do the wiretap themselves, probably with the aid of the local phone company.
That’s what happened in Trump Tower. The FBI first went to the FISA Court for a warrant, naming four members of Trump’s team. That warrant was rightly denied. So they went back with a fresh request, leaving the names of Trump’s team members off the request. That time the court granted them the warrant, as there was no reason not to do so.
So, the electronic surveillance in Trump towers was at least marginally legal. The pretext involved a Russian bank, which had offices in the tower. Whether or not their lines were actually wiretapped is irrelevant, it seems that they weren’t the real target anyway. The target was team Trump.
Up to this point, everything the FBI did was legal. They were following orders given to them by superior authority. They got the warrant they needed, to make their actions legal. It’s what happened after that which became illegal.
Video first seen on ANN Portal.
On January 12th, Obama issued Executive Order 12333, which amongst other things, changed the dissemination of intelligence information containing the names of American citizens. Before that, the names of Americans had to be eliminated in intelligence information, before it was disseminated.
The new E.O. which came out the month before Obama’s term ended, allows dissemination of American names picked up in electronic surveillance to be shared with all 16 intelligence agencies.
What that means is that if we assume that the FBI followed the law and only wiretapped the Russian bank that they got the warrant to surveil, picking up the names or the voices of Trump team members was merely incidental. In other words, it wasn’t part of their investigation. Yet that information, which could be highly damaging to the Americans in question, was widely disseminated throughout our nation’s intelligence agencies.
Chances are extremely high that the information made its way into the hands of at least a few Obama supporters; either people who were his political appointees or simply Democrats who voted for him. Either way, it made it into the hands of people who had the ability and the opportunity to use it for political purposes, rather than what it was supposed to be for.
And so, information about conversations between Trump team members and Russians made it into the hands of the Democrat’s lapdogs, the mainstream media. They reported gleefully about Trump’s ties to Russia and more specifically about his National Security Advisor, General Flynn, having lied to Congress about his contacts with Russians. Their source for all these accusations? An anonymous source. Not exactly the most reliable source to use, I’d say.
Of course, the media is now denying that they got any classified information from the intelligence community, even though they themselves reported that they did, just a few months ago. Not only that, but they reported that they knew that Obama’s administration had spied on Trump. They themselves made the case to back up what Trump said in his Twitter post of March 4th.
Here is where we find the true scandal. Whoever gave that information to the media, broke the law. While we can’t at this time say that they did so at the orders of the former president, they certainly did so to please him.
Whether Obama himself knew that it was done or whether he said it should be done is something we will probably never know. But it was clearly done for his benefit, not for Trump’s.
For that matter, it wasn’t done for the benefit of the country. If anything, it was done to harm the country, more than just to harm Trump and his team. At a minimum, that borders on treason, if it can’t be proven to truly be a treasonous act.
If we ever needed proof of the corruption in the Democrat Party and in Obama’s Administration, we now have it. The question is, what is going to be done about it?
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
The liberal left loves to act as if they own the moral high ground. They regularly look down their noses at those of us who call ourselves conservative, even doing the same for those who might be considered moderate.
In the left’s way of looking at things, you’re only a “good person” if you say everything they say you should say, believe everything that they say you should believe and support all the causes they say you should support.
This is somewhat humorous in its way, as it comes from the same group that suggests that there is no God, as the source of morality and moral judgment. In my personal opinion, without God, any god, there is no ultimate arbitrator of what is good and evil; but rather, society decides for itself what is good and what is evil.
This means that morality is fluid and changes with every passing fad. Whatever society decides is moral, is moral, and whatever society decides is immoral, becomes immoral. The danger in that, is that society can change its fickle mind at any time, taking what is good and deciding it is bad, while declaring that the bad has become good.
This happened in Germany, during the last century. Adolph Hitler decided that a number of people were so morally reprehensible, that they should be destroyed. He specifically went after the Jews, but his bloodthirstiness didn’t end there. He also went after blacks, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally retarded and anyone with any sort of physical defect. Basically, he decided to kill off everyone who didn’t match his image of the perfect Aryan man.
In this, we see a perfect example of what happens when there is no firm basis for morality. While it is supposedly society who decides what is moral in such a case, the reality is that a very small group of “elites” makes that decision, while the rest of society is forced to go along with it.
How do they force people to go along with their definition of morality? Mostly by bullying them in the media. The left has developed the art of name calling to the point where they can get just about anyone to dance to their tune, but it works best with politicians and other high-profile people.
In our society, the elite who are making such decisions are the PC police. This group, which consists of the left-leaning mainstream media, academia, liberal politicians and Hollywood, has taken it upon themselves to be the ultimate arbitrators of what is right and wrong, declaring their decisions with all the authority of Moses, descending the mount with the tablets of stone.
Yet, their pronouncements aren’t carved on stone, nor were they written by the hand of God. Rather, they are blasted forth on television and in the print media. This actually serves their needs considerably better, as stone is just too permanent for their liking. They’d rather have something that they can conveniently forget, when they decide that what they had already said, just isn’t going to work today.
Where Comes the Morality From?
It actually has a number of roots, prime amongst them is a feeling of guilt. The attempt to eliminate the need for forgiveness, by eliminating God, is shown to be a failure by every action that they take.
It is easy for people who feel constant guilt to see a need to expunge themselves of that guilt. Since they refuse to accept their guilt, even while recognizing the feeling of guilt, they have collectively decided that it must be the society that spawned them which is at guilt, hence their hatred for America and all things associated with America’s greatness.
The list of things that the progressive liberal left hates is long. Let it suffice to mention a few key ones:
- First of all, they hate financial and material prosperity, while wanting it all the time. Yet it is worthy of hate, because there is nothing that defines America as well as our wealth. It is American wealth which is helping to lift other countries out of poverty.
- Then there is God Himself and those who represent Him. They hate those, because they stand as constant reminders that the liberal elite aren’t the gods they make themselves out to be; nor is their “morality” a true morality.
- I’d also say that they hate American history, as it is the story of success. When they look at the rest of the world, and see that not everyone has succeeded, they feel a sense of shame; shame brought about by being better off than others.
- Hating anyone who is white, especially men and even more especially conservatives goes hand in hand with hating American history, for no other reason that it has been the Caucasians in the world, both in Europe and in the West, who have made the most of the progress in the sciences, invention, and free market capitalism.
- Finally, I’d say that they hate the military, because of a warped idea that our military prevents the rest of the world from being as successful as we are. The left loves to talk about America’s imperial ambitions, even though America is the only country in history, who has given freedom back to people who we have conquered.
When we understand this, it’s easy to see why they have such a strong desire to “make things right” for those who don’t fully share the advantages of being American.
Of course, while the left has decided that they need to help these people in order to expunge their feelings of guilt, they don’t feel so guilty as to be willing to sacrifice themselves. Rather, they seek ways of taking from others, in order to do so. After all, they’re the elite, they shouldn’t have to make that sort of sacrifice themselves.
Hence, the liberal idea that they have a “right” to control politics and the government. It is only through the legality of using the government, that they can steal from the productive in our society, and use that money as an offering to those who have been selected as the objects of their largess.
In turn, this requires keeping the disadvantaged in their place. They can’t allow the disadvantaged to become independent, or they will lose the salve for their bruised and guilty consciences. So they work to maintain racial and class warfare, perpetuating discrimination of all kinds.
As you can see, this is all a fragile house of cards. All it would take is the slightest puff of wind, and it would all come crashing down. Which explains why the left tries so hard to prevent anyone else from having a voice.
If they can chant and yell loud enough to drown out the voices from the right, it makes it easier for their people to maintain the faith. That’s not so much for the leaders, but for the masses that they have following them.
One of the advantages to the left’s system of governing is that they end up with a lot of people beholden to them. Those people become followers, if for no other reason than to keep getting free handouts. It is those people, whose faith the left has to hold onto, simply because they are the ones who vote the left’s candidates into office.
The former president and his party blew it on that one. They were so sure that the people on the left would stay there, following his politics of hate and division, that they didn’t pay attention to what was happening. They forgot that they had to keep paying the piper, for the piper to keep playing.
At the same time, the silent majority rose up, mostly in response to the oppression of the PC police. The end was predictable, although few predicted it. Donald Trump, the long-shot candidate in the outside lane, ran the race and came in first, winning the prize.
Video first seen on DONALD TRUMP SPEECHES & PRESS CONFERENCE.
So, who owns the moral high ground now? Sadly, the left still thinks they do. They haven’t read the tea leaves and seen that things have changed. They don’t recognize that America has turned the corner and that they have lost both their power and their supposed moral high ground.
They’re living in an echo chamber, telling each other that they won, and they are afraid to look at reality.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Hi FerFAL, thanks for the great advice. I am a regular visitor to your site. Regarding point number 6, I don’t think it is fair to say that when terrorist attacks occur there’s always a “religion of peace” representative involved. Just look at the recent terrorist acts carried out by Anders Breivik in Norway or Thomas Mair in the UK. Extremists of all persuasions are a threat to us all and so we always have to be on guard. Also, I am from the UK and I know from experience that the majority of Muslims abhor such acts carried out in the name of their religion and would inform the authorities immediately if they were able to prevent a terrorist act and bring terrorists to justice. We even have a Muslim mayor in London doing so right now. The mainstream media may portray a particular group as our enemy when in actual fact they may be people we should work with for the greater good. Terrorists have no religion or morals as far as I am concerned and represent no one but themselves. I think that as survivalists we should always think outside the box in these matters
Hello Ssmith, thanks for your comment.
You’re right. As survivalists we should look at potential threats objectively even if there are certain red flags to look for. And its true we’ve seen mass shootings or terror attacks by people of all religions and extreme political views.
In the case of Muslims you are right about the great majority of them not being evil, terrorists, etc. They do hold I must say, certain values that are essentially different compared to western ones. I do my best not to judge, especially since as an immigrant myself I’ve been in that place before and do not appreciate it. The differences though, they are real. I’m not going by what the mainstream media is telling me, I’m saying this based on numerous personal, first hand observations. In general, and even for the young, more open minded Muslims, their treatment of women is just deplorable. Even in the hottest days of summer when walking along the beach women aren’t allowed to uncover their heads, their arms and legs are covered down to their hands and feet, including ankles and wrists. All while their husbands or boyfriends walk right next to them shamelessly staring at topless or bikini wearing women. Even the younger, more westernized Muslims treat women like scum. Their idea of being “romantic” is treating women like animals, controlling them as if they had no rights as a person, telling them how they can or cannot dress and who they can go out with. Even hitting women is pretty much accepted, or at the very least being physical and roughing them up a bit if they don’t do as they are told. Again, things I’ve seen myself, nothing more, nothing less. This is just the complete opposite from the culture I was brought up in, where treating women like this isn’t just illegal, it’s the kind of thing that probably gets you beaten up pretty bad too.
I’m sure there are people that aren’t like that, and I at least measure people individually, no matter their skin color, religion, even their politics, but those have been my observations so far.
Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”.
Saw this short 8minute documentary on socialist utopia Venezuela.
Think this is a must see for anyone who thinks socialism is the
Thanks for your email Beth.
Venezuela is a mess. Caracas is the murder capital of the world. That people end up starving to death in a large, oil-rich country packed full of fertile land in a tropical climate speaks volumes of the disaster caused by dictators Chavez and Maduro. With such outstanding natural resources the people of Venezuela shouldn’t be starving, they should be thriving beyond their wildest dreams.
Infowars talks about socialism but that’s not it. (and no, I’m no socialist, I believe in having a small, efficient government, which should mix as little as possible with the private sector)
Cristina Kirchner also managed to finish the job started by her husband in their lefty utopia, bringing a large, low population and resource packed country to its knees. Her motto was “national and popular” and with that BS she bankrupted the country. Even worse than that and not being satisfied with stealing alone, she destroyed our once strong education system, which was admired by our neighbouring countries not that long ago. Without education, a country has no future, and when an entire generation grows up having no pride in their education, no respect for work, then you need to double the effort to fix it, and you will only do that when a new generation grows up with a different set of core values. This is like someone breaking into your home and not only stealing all your stuff, but burning it down right before leaving with all your belongings. They don’t gain anything from it, they are just evil.
But what Cristina Kirchner, Chavez and Maduro, or even right wing or conservatives like Carlos Menem or Alberto Fujimori all have in common isn’t socialism. It’s corruption. Nordic countries tend to lean heavily towards socialism, and as much as some of us may not appreciate the way in which such politics interfere with freedom and personal liberties I must admit that Venezuela and Norway stand perfectly in opposite ends of the quality of life spectrum. One can argue that Venezuela is more of an authoritarian regime indifferently of any specific political model and that Nordic countries follow a social democratic model that focuses more on having a large safety net and ensuring basic rights, yet allowing capital to develop. Still, analysing different forms of government in different parts of the world and different periods of time what I always go back to as a common denominator for social disaster is the same: It’s corruption. They can claim to be left or right, liberal or conservative, but if they are corrupt they will only bring misery to the people they represent. Societies should learn to have zero tolerance when it comes to it.
As for survival in a place like Venezuela, it’s in many ways similar to what I’ve written about for years regarding survival in Argentina. Argentina, Venezuela, Ex Soviet Union, all countries that go down and experience a socioeconomic collapse have numerous similarities and most of the tactics and strategies to get by are the same. But when a country falls as bad as Venezuela they reach rock bottom and the only viable strategy is to leave as soon as you can. it’s like surviving 100 feet under the sea. There’s no life in such a place, you just get the hell out of there as soon as possible.
Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”.
Communist Attack on Self Reliance Host: James Walton “Visit I Am Liberty” Audio in player below! Can we get a little historic? Can we look at some of the early communist teachings? Not in the black board and chalk method ‘a la Glen Beck’ but from the prepper stand point. As an American its pretty … Continue reading Communist Attack on Self Reliance!
“Hello…We’re the Preppers…” The “Prepper” movement has grown exponentially in the last few years, thanks to reality TV shows such as “Doomsday Preppers” (aka DDP), and all the knockoff shows and repeats on many other networks, as well as online TV show services like Hulu and NetFlix. Mainstream print and online media is following in […]
There was a joke that ran around the internet a couple of times about an old man who went up to the White House after inauguration day and asked the Marine on guard duty to see President Obama.
The Marine answered truthfully that Obama wasn’t in the White House any more and the old man moved on. But he returned the next day and the one after, making the same request and receiving the same reply.
Finally, in exasperation, the Marine asked why the old man kept asking the same question, to which he responded, saying that he enjoyed hearing the answer.
Well, I seriously doubt that happened January 21st, but there are a lot of people who are glad to see that Obama is no longer in the White House. There are also those who are not glad to see Trump in there. Both groups have a right to their opinions, but regardless of what anyone’s opinion is, Trump won the elections and he’s the president.
Sadly, few Democrats are willing to accept this, rather running around saying how Trump isn’t their president. Obviously they failed Civics 101, or they’d know that Trump is, in fact, their president, whether they like it or not.
I’m sure that those same people would rather see Obama still seated in the Oval Office, or if not him, then his surrogate, Hillary Clinton. But Hillary didn’t win, regardless of how many liberal pundits proclaimed her president even before the elections. On January 20th, Obama and his family moved out the White House to make room for the new First Family.
A Busy Retirement
Unlike other former presidents, Obama didn’t move very far away. When President Bush retired from the presidency, he went back to his home in Texas. But Obama moved just two miles down the road, into a mansion he bought during his last year in office.
That was suspicious in and of itself; as if Obama wanted to keep his fingers in politics, using whatever influence he had as a former president to try and preserve and protect his legacy.
Many Democrats still respect the former president and would gladly do whatever he asked of them, especially considering the polarization that currently exists in Congress and the nation.
Obama made it fairly clear, on a number of occasions, that he wasn’t just going to enter into quiet retirement. His first statement on that was to claim that he would be quiet, unless his successor did something that went against “American values.” Of course, just about everything that Obama himself did went against true American values, as he was trying to redefine those values the eight years he was in office.
Then there was all the political litter he scattered around his last days in office, signing executive orders, implanting his own people into the bureaucracy and a host of other activities, which were intended to do nothing more than make the job of governing more difficult for Donald Trump and make him look incompetent to the American people.
Trump is a better manager than that, and while it is costing him time to deal with Obama’s political mess, he is taking it in stride and not allowing it to delay the implementation of his campaign promises.
A few whistleblowers have actually come forth to talk about the political landmines that Obama left behind. One Lieutenant Colonel in particular, who is retired from working in intelligence, said that Obama laid “tripwires” in the intelligence community, political appointees, who were converted to career intelligence officers, and who remain loyal to Obama. These officers are exploding well-planned political bombs to undercut Trump’s presidency.
According to this source, Tony Shaffer, the takedown of Trump’s National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, was one such operation. That was not some random act or failure on the part of Flynn, but rather a planned and coordinated attack, intended to deny Trump of one of his most important advisors.
It’s unknown how many of these undercover agents Obama left behind, but you can be sure there are plenty of them. It usually takes about a year for an incoming president to work his way through all the previous president’s political appointees, replacing them; but this is even worse.
Not only does Trump have to replace Obama’s appointees, but he’s also got to ferret out the ones who have been hidden in the ranks of the civil service. It is clear where their loyalty lies, and that’s with Obama. They are apparently willing to sacrifice their careers and even the country on the altar of politics.
Perhaps Obama has given them some guarantee of employment after losing their cushy government jobs; but for whatever reason, they are not afraid to use their positions to thwart the new President.
Obama is Calling the Shots
And his minions are answering. They are ignoring their legal responsibility to the new government and the new president, choosing rather to obey Obama over Trump. This puts them in the place of obstructing anything and everything that Trump has promised to do.
It has become clear in the last couple of weeks that Obama is constructing a shadow government, which he runs from his mansion, a mere two miles from the White House. Using those appointees as a base, he’s weaving a nationwide web of activists, under the cover of his non-profit organization – Organizing for Action.
This organization, which was originally created to support Obama’s bid for the White House, represents itself as non-partisan; but it’s agenda and politics are clearly allied with the Democrat Party. Even more importantly, it is allied with Barack Obama himself, giving Obama an army of over 30,000 activists, assigned to over 200 chapters, nationwide.
This is the organization which has been hiring paid activists to participate in the supposedly spontaneous grass-roots demonstrations against Trump. Started during the election and continuing ever since, my personal belief is, these demonstrations are intended to disrupt society and put pressure on Donald Trump to resign the presidency.
Of course, that’s foolish. Trump isn’t the type to buckle under when threatened, he’s the type to shoot back. Considering that he’s carried a concealed weapon for years, I think that shooting back can be taken both literally and figuratively. He hasn’t shot anyone yet, but…
What Trump is doing was made clear by his pick for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who has already directed the Department of Justice to prosecute rioters, charging them with the vandalism and damage they cause.
That’s a whole lot different than under Obama’s reign, when Black Lives Matter and other groups were not only forgiven for their actions but encouraged by the president himself to continue causing destruction and mayhem wherever they could.
With $40 million in donations sitting in the Organizing for Action war chest and a nationwide network of minions at his beck and call, it is clear that anything Obama said about retiring from politics was just one more lie, from a man who was used to spreading lies like a farmer spreads manure.
Obama may have retired from government service, but he has definitely not retired from politics. Rather, he’s gone back to his old days of being a community organizer. Only now, he’s got a bigger community of rabble-rousers to use.
They’ve even got a training manual, where Obama tells his minions what is expected of them. Leaning heavily on the teachings of Obama’s mentor, Saul Alinsky, Obama created his own version of “Rules for Radicals,” in which he lays out in detail the plans he has to overthrow the government. The manual goes into great detail about how to disrupt Republican politicians and their events; using every opportunity possible to make them look bad in the eyes of the public.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the sort of tactics that the left has been using? Haven’t those tactics cost them over 1,000 legislative seats in the last six years? If so, then why do they want to continue using the same tactics? Are they trying to commit political suicide or are they just not getting the fact that their tactics aren’t working?
It is clear, from what we’re seeing, Obama himself is the center of all Trump’s opposition. While Hollywood celebrities and the mainstream news media both have their part, the conductor of the orchestra is none other than the former occupant of the White House, Obama himself. He has pitted himself against the sitting president and obviously feels that he can cause Trump to topple by e volume of his noise.
Video first seen on CNN.
So while Trump is calling for unity across the aisle, Obama is still beating the drum of division. Not only that, but he’s enticed a whole bunch of other people to beat the same drum.
As long as that’s going on, we’re not going to see unity, no matter what Trump does. We’re going to see the division that Obama created continue, while Obama is busy blaming everyone else for it. At this point, there is no way of telling exactly what Obama’s end game is; but I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t a complete overthrow of the current government, with him returning to the White House as a conquering savior.
Of course, the law doesn’t allow for that. If he keeps going the way he is going, there will come a point where he crosses the line and his actions are clearly illegal. At that point, Trump’s administration may be forced to arrest him, and suffer the consequences of such an action.
Arrested, Obama becomes a martyr to his own cause, allowing him to unify even more people against the current administration. That’s not something we want to see.
Someone on the left has to wake up to how destructive their tactics are to their own agenda, and it has to be someone who the rest of the Democrat Party will listen to. Right now, there are no clear leaders and there is no clear message.
All we have is the obstructionist message from Obama, being repeated by many others. If that’s the best they can do, the Democrat party isn’t going to survive.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
Fake News, Real News & Soaring Eagle! Host: James Walton “I Am Liberty” Audio in player below! There has been so much talk about fake news lately that its been a bit overwhelming. On this show I would really like to explore the idea of fake news. You see fake news in and of itself … Continue reading Fake News, Real News & Soaring Eagle!
Now this is disturbing news.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, which was passed in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. It cited a 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which said that weapons “most useful in military service” are not covered by the Constitution.
This shows a concerning level of ignorance regarding the basic principle of the Second Amendment were clearly the “security of a free State” involves warfare against tyrants or foreign invaders, meaning yes, using precisely weapons of war. If anything it’s sporting firearms that have a limited or nil combat application therefore aren’t strictly “necessary to the security of a free State”.
This serves as a reminder that gun rights should never be taken for granted and that there’s people always operating to take them away from us. The minute you relax, the minute they take a bite. Relax too much and one day you have nothing left.
Take care folks,
Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre is the author of “The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse” and “Bugging Out and Relocating: When Staying is not an Option”.
There was a time when writing about the threats we face as a nation was little more than conjecture. Many long-winded articles often injected fear into the reader based merely
The post 3 Major Threats Facing the U.S. By the End Of 2017 appeared first on Ask a Prepper.
Almost 250 years ago, a band of brave men and women stood up to a tyrannical government and entered into open rebellion against it.
These rebels were motivated by a desire for liberty, not wanting their lives to be controlled by a distant government which had no idea of who they were or what their lives were like. Their rebellion became a war, which they ultimately won, creating the United States of America.
The battle cry which brought those Founding Fathers to open warfare was “taxation without representation.” They were offended by the need to pay taxes to a distant government which didn’t look after their needs.
But even worse than that, they were taxed without being allowed any representation in the parliament of that country. To them, taxation without representation was tyranny, and they rose up against it.
The opening move in that rebellion was one of controlled violence. A band of rebels, disguised as American Indians, boarded three American owned and built ships tied up to Griffin’s Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts. There, they bound the guards, and proceeded to throw the contents of 342 crates of tea, belonging to the British East Indian Company.
Why would they do such a thing? More directly, why would my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, Silas Hubble (that’s five “greats”), a law-abiding subject of England, choose to partake in such an event? Because that tea carried a tax stamp. One more tax, levied by the English Crown, on colonists who were not represented in Parliament. That stamp became a symbol of the tyranny of England, calling for its destruction, along with the tea that bore it.
The Boston Tea Party became the spark which unified the colonies and started the war. Americans from all walks of life, gathered together to form an army, an army with one purpose – only that of throwing off the tyrannical rule of Britain.
Interestingly enough, the men who participated in this raid were very concerned about not breaking the law or causing damage to the owners of those ships. They did no violence to the members of the crews guarding those ships, merely binding them. The only damage they inflicted on those ships was a broken padlock, holding shut the hatch to the hold. They had to remove it to gain access to the tea, so they bought another padlock and left it for the captain of that ship.
This is an interesting contrast to the protests and demonstrations we see today, which are marked not only by their violence, but by their wonton destruction as well. Demonstrators, or more likely the paid agitators in their midst, make a point of breaking windows, overturning police cars and setting buildings on fire. Silas Hubble and his compatriots would be horrified.
Another huge difference between that demonstration and the demonstrations of today was their purpose. The Founding Fathers fought for freedom, which to them, meant freedom from government interference. But today’s protesters and revolutionaries are bound by the common thread of wanting a more oppressive government, one that cares for them from cradle to grave.
These demonstrators commonly call for a socialist form of government, not really understanding what that means. To them, socialism is the government giving them freebies.
But they fail to realize that for the government to do that, they must take that money and the individual freedom of their fellow Americans. Few of them have been on the other side of the fence, watching their paycheck diminish as the government took more and more away in the form of taxes.
Breaking from Tyranny
The American Revolution was against tyranny and those who joined in had a clear understanding of what that tyranny looked like. An overbearing government, far removed from their daily lives, was stealing from them in the form of taxes, while not giving them anything in return. That was tyranny.
So they went to war, an upstart collection of colonies against the mightiest army and navy in the world. That, in and of itself was remarkable. To think that untrained farmers and craftsmen would stand up against the might of the British government was truly amazing.
But to see them win and cast off the yoke of tyranny was even more amazing. They accomplished what nobody else thought was possible and so founded the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.
Having just broken the bonds of tyranny, the Continental Congress wanted to protect their fledgling nation from it ever occurring again. Through much hard work and thought, hammering out the details in endless debates, they crafted one of the greatest political documents of history – the United States Constitution.
The purpose of the Constitution was to define and establish the government of this new nation. It was written with certain goals in mind, amongst which was minimal central government, creating a balance of power between the central government and the states, and splitting the government’s power between three separate, but equal branches, so that power could not be consolidated in one branch or in the hands of one individual.
That is not to say that all of the Founding Fathers were comfortable with the restraints that the Constitution placed upon the government. Some wanted a strong central government, with limited state powers. But that group ultimately lost out to those who wanted a small federal government.
Another disagreement led to the writing of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Some felt that the Constitution, as drafted, guaranteed those rights. But others did not feel so, as they were not specifically enumerated.
Ultimately, this latter group won out, and the Bill of Rights was created. Once again, its purpose was to limit government power, not to give the government power.
Remember that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects peoples’ right to keep and bear arms for purposes that include self-defense. The Second Amendment was written so you can defend yourself!
Yet when we look at Washington today, we see a massive bureaucracy, which tries to meddle in every area of our lives. The Founding Fathers would be horrified by this, as it is the last thing they ever wanted. If anything, the Constitution and Bill of Rights give more power to the “several states” rather than to the central government. Yet the central government has stolen that power.
There is nothing which demonstrates more clearly than the Civil War how state power has been stolen.
While the main motivating factor in Southern cessation was slavery, the fact that the federal government didn’t allow them to secede, but rather went to war over it, was a massive theft of state powers by the federal government. In it, the several states lost their right to determine whether they would freely associate with the rest of the nation, or not.
Were the Founding Fathers to resurrect today, the first thing they would do is scale the federal government back. The Old Executive Office Building, originally built in 1871, was erected to be the home of the Departments of State, War (Army) and Navy. Yet today, it houses none of these functions, merely acting as an annex to the White House and holding additional staff members to the President.
To those Founding Fathers, several of the departments of the Executive Branch would be baffling, seen as unnecessary or as treasonous to the American people. They had fought for liberty and to find departments of the government which were meddling in the affairs of the citizens would bother them greatly. To them, the federal government we have today, would be even worse than the government they broke away from in the Revolutionary War.
Giving our government the benefit of the doubt (something I’m not normally wont to do), I believe that some of those departments would be accepted and understood by the Founding Fathers, after explanation and reflection. But not many.
Overall, they would see them as unnecessary meddling in the lives and businesses of the American people. In the cases of things that are necessary governmental services, such as education, they would ask why that wasn’t left at the state or even local level, as it was during their time.
But no governmental department would bother them more than the infernal IRS. Considering that they had just fought a war to get out from under the yoke of unreasonable taxation, the very idea that the American people would tolerate the existence of such an organization would be baffling. It would not surprise me if they were to rush it en masse, burning the building to the ground, as soon as they were made aware of its presence.
The original Continental Congress, which published the Declaration of Independence wasn’t made up of professional politicians. Rather, it was made of farmers and businessmen, who left their homes to go to Boston and returned back home after the government’s business was concluded.
Alexander Hamilton, who presided over that Congress, was a ship’s captain, who returned to his ship and set sail, once the Congress was dismissed.
Video first seen on Scott Bacher.
In creating the United States of America, the Founding Fathers were breaking away from the aristocratic rule of European countries. There would be no hereditary royalty who ruled the people, but rather representatives who were elected from the communities they represented.
There was to be no permanent political class either. Representatives would be farmers, craftsmen and business owners who had earned the trust of their neighbors. They would serve in government part time, returning to their communities to run their farms and businesses.
Yet today we have a permanent political class, where most of our politicians at the federal level have spent their entire professional lives as politicians. Few of them have any other skills or know any other profession than that of governing, and because of that, they are largely disconnected from the people that they represent.
I can clearly imagine any one of the Founding Fathers facing off against Congress and using Donald Trump’s famous line, “You’re fired!” They would see the permanent political class as nothing more than the permanent ruling class in England, something that they tried to eradicate on these shores.
Balance of Power
As the Founding Fathers looked closer, they would quickly see how the balance of power between the three branches of government has been corrupted. Through the years, both the Executive and Judicial branch have stolen power from the Legislative branch, reducing the influence of Congress, while increasing their own.
The idea of governing by executive fiat was never a part of the original plan, although power for executive orders are written in the Constitution. But that was only intended to give the president power to execute laws that were already in existence; not create his own or eliminate those he didn’t like.
Likewise, the judicial branch was never given power to create their own laws by the decisions handed down from the bench. Their function was limited to determining whether the laws created by Congress had been broken or not.
Decisions such as Roe vs. Wade and the supposed right of homosexuals to marry in same sex marriages would horrify them; not just for the lack of morality behind those decisions, but because the Supreme Court was adding “rights” to the Constitution which didn’t exist.
Morality & Religion
Speaking of morality, we must remember that of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, 53 of them were Christians. Twenty-seven of them had attended seminary. This nation was founded as a Christian nation; the only one in the history of the world.
Yet, Barack Obama’s declaration that this is no longer a Christian nation is much closer to the truth than many of us would care to face. Christianity is on the decline, rapidly being replaced by Secular Humanism, Islam, the New Age movement and outright atheism.
Many of the original settlers on these shores came here for religious liberty. At that time, the phrase “religious liberty” referred to the expression of the Christian religion, not Islam, secular humanism or any of the other religions which are seeking to take over society. They were concerned about a government sponsored church forcing everyone to accept the “official” version of Christianity, as the Church of England imposed upon their society. Hence the First Amendment gives us the right to freedom of religion.
Nevertheless, the morals of today, or more correctly the lack of morals in our modern society, would be shocking to the Founding Fathers. They created this country to be a Christian country, expressing Christian values and living in accordance with the commandments of the Bible. What it has become today would be both shocking and repugnant to them.
Helping the Poor
The poor have always existed. The most ancient evidence that exists shows poor people populating the world. In fact, the vast majority of people have been poor, throughout the majority of history. Helping the poor was seen as a work for churches, religious societies and other “do-gooder organizations” (non-profit corporations).
Some of the poor were poor due to circumstances beyond their control. These are often referred to as the “widows and orphans” of history. The Christian Bible even makes reference to them, admonishing Christians to help them out.
But there were others who were poor because of drunkenness, laziness and a lack of a good work ethic. While their numbers were much lower than those of today, they existed.
In the culture of the 1700s and 1800s such people were looked down upon. Their problems were seen as something of their own creation. As such, they earned no pity and were not supported by the community. Any handouts were reserved for those considered to be “legitimately poor,” the aforementioned widows and orphans.
The idea that the government would be in the business of redistributing wealth to help the poor was something totally foreign to them. They would not understand it.
While they were all good men, who probably would have reached out a hand to help a person in need, they would never think that their taxes would be spent in such a way. They especially wouldn’t think that entitlements would become the single largest part of government spending.
Yet that’s what we have today. I can see these men admonishing citizens and especially the church, to take up this burden and remove it from the government. They would probably be some of the first to give, in order to make this possible.
In reality, the America of today is vastly different from the America of our Founding Fathers. We have come so far down the road of change, that it’s doubtful that they would recognize the country as being the one they had founded. While some of that can be written off to changes in society and technology, even without those changes, they would not recognize the country we have become.
More than anything, they would be concerned about the size of our federal government, both in the amount of wealth it takes from our economy and the amount of regulatory burden it puts on people’s lives. While some of that is obviously necessary, they could not accept it as it is.
Were the Founding Fathers alive today, we could expect a second American Revolution, and they’d be the ones to start it.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
6 total views, 6 views today
[Total: 1 Average: 5/5]
As Mayor of our nation’s most corrupt city, Rahm Emanuel represents the ultimate politician. In a city that revels in political scandal, he’s the best of the worst. A partisan hack who toes the liberal line with the ruthlessness of a pit bull. His political “coaching tree” is a who’s who of ne’er-do-wells, miscreants and convicts. He rose to prominence by winning Rod Blagojevich’s House seat, served in the Obama White House, and replaced Richard Daley as Mayor of Chicago.
By Professor Liberty Mize, a contributing author of SHTFBlog
In a telling article in the Chicago Tribune, Emanuel speaks openly about his plan to return the Democrats to power. He does so by openly addressing the donkey in the room—that his only hope is the failure of Republicans. You get power when you earn it, or your opponents fail. He cares little about the former and is laser-focused on the latter.
“Wherever there’s a disagreement among Republicans, I’m for one of those disagreements,” he said. “I’m all for it. The president’s with Russia? I’m with John McCain and Lindsey Graham, I’m for NATO! Why? (It’s a) wedge. Wedges have to be schisms, schisms have to be divides.”
His goal isn’t to win, rather to destroy his enemies and collect the spoils. His tactics are so bad that even the left-loving publication Salon has termed him “a national disgrace”.
Why do we care? Because he’s the only Democrat who is honest about his approach. If we can learn from the Grand Poobah, we gain insight into the rest who think the same but keep their cards closer to the vest. The so-called “party of no” is back, they’ve just changed jerseys. Emanuel is the tip of the spear for a new breed of Democrat, one who only sees the outcome of the actions and is unconcerned with what it takes to get there.
So what can Republicans do to thwart Emanuel and his cronies?
Tip #1- Show Unity in Public & Refuse to Engage
Smart Republicans should simply refuse to take the bait. Stay united in public and fight your battles in private. We have a President who is addicted to knee-jerk reactions and sharing his every opinion via twitter. That will never change. But when you add a liberal media specialized in whipping up a frenzy 140 characters at a time, you have a powder keg.
What can change is the Republican reaction. If they simply refuse to engage, they can stay clean. A full 90% of Trump tweets are simply the president cocking off with little strategy or a formulated plan. He works things out by engaging, backing away and discussing. Weighing in on every tweet is a fool’s errand.
Policy debates are for debating policy. If an executive order or a budget is produced, let’s talk about that. Tweets are the opposite of serious talkers. They merely work as a stirring of the pot in the public realm. Conservatives can certainly hold Trump accountable, but should resist the urge to grandstand and challenge him when there is no policy proposal on the table. Not that he’s above reproach, quite the contrary–but style and optics matter.
Tip #2- Prove You Are Better
The election of 2016 proved two things definitively. First, that people in general prefer Republican ideals. Second, that people hate politicians and prefer a president with zero public service record to the status quo. Said another way, people are sick of the BS.
On Obama’s watch we witnessed…
- A supreme court that re-writes legislation on the fly, inventing new rights rather than simply weighing in on constitutional muster
- A justice department that uses verbal gymnastics to punish administration enemies in the name of the fabricated social cause du jour
- A weaponized IRS that targets citizens based on their religious beliefs or political leanings
- Executive orders that circumvent the legislative process in an attempt to redefine foundational things like citizenship
- The rise of Federal Judges as penultimate arbiters
The challenge for Republicans in two words—be better. Rather than emulate their enemies by fighting fire with fire, abusing executive orders and politicizing the justice department they should govern how the founder’s envisioned it. The best revenge is clean living. That is what people want, not simply the other side using the same tactics to different ends. If Republicans can do that they’ll brand themselves above the fray and EARN the right to govern.
Tip #3- Accept the Fiscal Mandate
Of the many reasons Trump won the election, perhaps the most universally popular one is an embrace of fiscal conservatism. By taking serious action on fiscal issues, President Trump can not only easily win reelection, he’ll set our financial table well into the future.
Read Also: Dire Straits
While regulatory reform is a part of this, the nation’s growing debt and astronomical projected entitlement spending must be addressed. Three things can help with this.
- An increase to the retirement age and means-tested Social Security
- A full repeal of Obamacare AS PROMISED to the American people
- A Scott Walker-style frontal assault on government pensions and the unions
The time to tackle this is early in a first term. While conservatives may scoff at my “means-tested” language, it is a regrettable but inevitable step on the road to solvency. The AARP and others will fight any reform, by giving in on means-testing we actually have a chance to make a change.
As far as Obamacare, repeal is a political winner of an issue, yet Republicans are already set to ignore it. This is poor public policy. No “replace”, no “reimagine”, full repeal and start from scratch. As for Scott Walker, his ability to go full frontal with labor unions in reforming collective bargaining and pensions was nothing short of miraculous. It also represents a federal roadmap to setting our fiscal house in order.
How can Republicans Make American Great Again? Not by emulating their enemies, but by proving that they are different, by staying united and shoring up our finances. Too many politicians campaign simply to win elections. To defeat the Rahm Emanuel’s of the world is not to become them. Conservatives must resist the urge and instead confront head-on the many challenges of this Constitutional Republic.
Visit Sponsors of SurvivalCache.com
President Trump is barely three weeks in office, but he’s already having problems with the government.
That’s not too surprising, when you consider that there are more liberal Democrats working in our country’s government than there are Republicans or conservatives. There’s just something about being able to push others around and tell them what to do, that seems to attract the liberal mindset.
As we all know, the Democrat party has been in meltdown since the elections, including Democrats working in the government. They can’t understand or accept how their candidate lost, so are constantly trying to find ways to “delegitimize” Trump’s victory. When they can’t do that, they’re trying to get in his way. As Elizabeth Warren put it, the Democrat Party has become “the party of opposition.”
This has been extremely clear in the way that Democrats have approached the confirmation hearings for Trump’s cabinet choices. Since they know they can’t stop any of them from being confirmed by the Republican majority, they have decided to make sure that the process is as slow as possible, wasting as much time as they can in the hearings and in debate on the Senate floor.
The Hissy Fit
Why waste time having a hissy fit, when it won’t do any good? If you’re going to have a temper tantrum, by any description, do it when you have a chance of gaining something; not just a chance of looking juvenile.
But the opposition to Trump’s cabinet picks are nothing compared to the opposition to his supposed “Muslim travel ban.” One of the executive orders that Trump signed, was an order to institute Title 8, USC 1182 in regards to seven Middle-eastern countries.
This law, which has been on the books since 1952, gives sweeping authority to the president to block visas for any group of people whose entry he deems would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States. The same statute places no time limits or other requirements on the president, allowing him full latitude in this regard.
That seems rather simple to me, as a law-abiding citizen. But apparently it’s not so simple to everyone, especially to those on the left. Sadly, some of them sit on our courts and have decided to use the power of their position to thwart Trump’s efforts to protect America and American interests.
Trump and the Supreme Court
The problem is that the courts have been changing over the last 45 years. Ever since Roe vs. Wade, in 1973, we’ve seen more and more legislating being done from the judicial bench. This is in direct contrast to the purpose of the judiciary, as stated in the Constitution. According to the separation of powers established by the Founding Fathers, the judiciary is only to interpret the law, not create the law.
But this inconvenient clause in the Constitution doesn’t fit the left’s agenda. They need some method of forcing their will upon the people, when they can’t get a law passed in Congress. They’ve chosen the courts as a means to do this. Hence, Democrats have developed the idea that the courts are supposed to “correct” mistakes made by the legislative branch. In other words, they are supposed to change the law to match their political ideology, rather than uphold the law as it is written.
This has been an extremely dangerous stance for the judiciary to take, and is the impetus behind the Supreme Court ruling last year that gays and lesbians have a right to marry, even in states which have passed laws disallowing same sex marriages. In that case, the Supreme Court clearly overstepped their bounds.
While it’s a moot point right now, this is one of the major reasons why it was so important that Donald Trump win the election last November. Had Hillary Clinton won, she would have put in a liberal justice to replace Antonin Scalia, tipping the balance in the Supreme Court to being clearly liberal.
With the high possibility of appointing another Supreme Court Justice over the next few years, the composition of the high court would have been strongly liberal for the next couple of decades; perhaps even longer.
The current case is just another instance of the left misusing the courts to get their way. Donald Trump signed a perfectly legal executive order, based upon existing law. He was not the first to use that law, but this is the first time it has been challenged. In fact, all six of his predecessors have used the same law, without challenge. Clearly, there’s something more to this challenge, than a belief that the law itself is unconstitutional.
So the left took him to court, winning a stay in the execution of his order. That was appealed, but the appeal went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco. That alone should tell us the kind of justices which populate that court; but in case you’re unsure, 87% of that court’s decisions which go to the Supreme Court are overturned.
Neither the original court order or the opinion written by the circuit court address the law which Trump’s executive order was based upon. Rather, they talk about such things as financial hardship to the people who wouldn’t be able to come to the U.S. and Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail.
Apparently, his saying that he wanted to keep unvetted Muslims out of the country until a better system of vetting could be developed, is enough for the justices on the Ninth Circuit Court to read his mind and decide that his executive order was racist.
That’s about as absurd as you can get. The seven countries that Trump wrote the travel ban for, are seven countries that Obama’s administration had determined were high-risk countries.
Trump was operating on intelligence created by Obama’s administration. The court said that the government didn’t sufficiently prove that there was any risk from those countries, but there have been over 60 immigrants arrested from those countries, who were involved in plotting terrorist activities. How much more proof do they need?
But then, I think this isn’t about upholding the law, it’s about fighting against Donald Trump. Apparently, Hillary Clinton isn’t the only one who thinks she’s above the law; but the law only applies to the little people and to Republicans, not to Dems.
I have to say, this is part of the very action that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to avoid. Their idea of separation of powers was developed with the idea of preventing tyranny in our country. Yet, what we are seeing come out of the courts now, especially in regards to modifying the law, rather than interpreting it, clearly meets the dictionary definition of tyranny: “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.” While it’s not cruel, it sure is unreasonable and arbitrary.
This is part of what Trump meant, when he started talking about draining the swamp. This type of misuse of power is what mainstream America is tired of. When government workers abuse their power, it is always the people who get hurt; and it really doesn’t matter if those government workers are bureaucrats, politicians, or justices of the law.
There is only one right answer for the Supreme Court to take, if they are going to follow the law. That’s to uphold Trump’s travel ban. If they don’t, they are saying that the Office of the President doesn’t have the power to regulate entry into the United States, even though there are laws on the books that say he does.
But this could go much farther than that. To declare that the president doesn’t have that power, would require that they vote against their earlier rulings during the Obama era. That would have to make every executive order or action that Obama took about immigration illegal. You can’t have it both ways.
Of course, the Democrats would like to have it both ways. In their minds, Obama’s actions were legal and Trumps’ aren’t. But that’s liberal logic; it changes with the winds, to accomplish anything they want. Fortunately, the whole country isn’t run by those liberals.
What’s In It for the American People
The ideal outcome, for the American people, would be for this case to become a catalyst for reigning in the power of the judiciary. But that would require the Supreme Court taking action that would limit their own power, something that they might not be willing to do. Perhaps after another couple of conservative justices are appointed to the high bench that can happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Nevertheless, cleaning up the judiciary, just like cleaning up Congress and the Executive Branch is necessary to clear the swamp.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a government that was truly for the people; not one that is for those who are governing.
It’s going to take a lot of work to get back to that point; and Trump is going to need every bit of support he can get.
This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.
0 total views, 0 views today
[Total: 0 Average: 0/5]