Could it be that Presidents Trump and Jinping have already agreed on a military solution in the event that Kim Jung-un continues his reckless behavior? Are we looking at the possibility of a joint strike on North Korea?
If so, this must surely be Pyongyang’s worst nightmare. The fear of Chinese intervention has long been a serious deterrent to taking military action against North Korea as far as the US is concerned; with this threat removed—indeed, with potential assistance from the Chinese—the matter becomes far different.
Read the full article at Natural News.com: http://www.naturalnewsblogs.com/will-us-china-strike-north-korea-jointly/
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Trump, Syria, and the March toward World War III
After campaigning on a non-interventionist foreign policy and articulating why the Clinton-Bush-Obama era policies were fundamentally flawed and counterproductive, Donald Trump has taken the unexpected step of launching cruise missiles at the Assad government in retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians.
Given the fact that the Syrian chemical weapons attack in 2013 (Obama's infamous "red line" incident) was perpetrated by the Syrian opposition,
We should have taken the time to conduct a more thorough investigation before retaliating. As it is, we are now, in the words of the Russian prime minister, "one step" from direct military confrontation with Russia and the threat of world/nuclear war. We are on the brink of the ultimate disaster. Are you ready?
We should have taken the time to conduct a more thorough investigation before retaliating. As it is, we are now, in the words of the Russian prime minister, "one step" from direct military confrontation with Russia and the threat of world/nuclear war. We are on the brink of the ultimate disaster. Are you ready?
Monday, March 20, 2017
Preppers - Protect Your How-to Docs! / Also - More Needed on Long-term Post-Nuclear Event Survival
Whether you've been into prepping for awhile or you're just getting started, act as soon as possible to begin protecting all of those great how-to resources you've found online. Also: Attention Experts - We really need more info on long-term, post-nuclear event survival considerations. There is a wealth of short-term nuke event survival online but precious little beyond living through the first month or so.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Weaponizing the Masses: A Warning to the Left
Do you love the smell of a burning, inner-city neighborhood in the morning? Do you like seeing stores looted, vehicles damaged, innocent bystanders beaten bloody, and cops shot dead when a trial verdict doesn't go your way or a politician you don't like wins an election? Is someone saying something you don't like sufficient reason to terrorize them? Do you like staging violence to smear public figures?
If so, well, this video is for you. Or if you know someone who needs it, gift-wrap it and send it to them with my compliments.
If so, well, this video is for you. Or if you know someone who needs it, gift-wrap it and send it to them with my compliments.
On Trump, Racism, and Immigration
Those opposed to Donald Trump's stance on illegal immigration maintain that his policies are based in racism, and I'm seeing a lot of comments about this on social media. Some are fearful that Trump will kick them out of the country simply because of the color of their skin, and I believe that this impression is due to a concerted media campaign to smear Trump.
In this video, I examine Trump's position on immigration and ask whether there might not be compelling reasons to seal the border with Mexico and place limits on immigration by certain groups. The following issues are considered:
1) For those who believe that Trump's policies are racist, where are you getting your information? From his opponents in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media? Have you actually listened to any of Trump's interviews and speeches? Have you heard him out? Would you want someone to evaluate you based on what your enemies say about you?
2) There are numerous valid reasons to seal the border and scrutinize those who enter the country, including: a) gun-running, b) drug-smuggling, c) other types of criminal activity, d) the possible introduction of diseases, and e) the threat of terrorism, particularly if terrorists are successful in smuggling in weapons of mass destruction - why make ourselves an easy target by giving them an open door?
3) Where Islamic immigration is concerned, several issues need to be addressed:
- Yes, it's true that not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims. Islam has a violence problem that desperately needs to be addressed. There is nothing racist about admitting the problem, and hiding from the problem is self-defeating.
- American Muslims who are concerned about being perceived as a threat need to do more to separate themselves from the jihadists. Muslim leaders in every community need to publicly reject jihad. Yet, many are afraid to do so because they realize how radical some of their brethren are, and they fear for their lives. Others, while not active in jihad themselves, may well be sympathetic to it, as has been the case in Great Britain.
- In Islam, it is perfectly acceptable to lie to an infidel in order to advance the cause of Allah. We need a strong vetting system to weed out the troublemakers, and this makes the issue that much more problematic.
- America's culture did not spring into existence overnight; it's a product of thousands of years of western civilization. If we want to have a country in the future, and keep America a bastion of freedom, we must ensure that we bring in only those people who love our land, agree with our ideals, and want to be a part of who we are. We do ourselves no favors by turning America into Afghanistan simply to look nice.
- Globalists deliberately want to destroy our culture by bringing in large groups of immigrants who have nothing in common with us. They call it 'diversity,' but it is really a means of trying to remake the world, of trying to create a global citizenry that will accept a global government (which they intend to lead, naturally).
In this video, I examine Trump's position on immigration and ask whether there might not be compelling reasons to seal the border with Mexico and place limits on immigration by certain groups. The following issues are considered:
1) For those who believe that Trump's policies are racist, where are you getting your information? From his opponents in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media? Have you actually listened to any of Trump's interviews and speeches? Have you heard him out? Would you want someone to evaluate you based on what your enemies say about you?
2) There are numerous valid reasons to seal the border and scrutinize those who enter the country, including: a) gun-running, b) drug-smuggling, c) other types of criminal activity, d) the possible introduction of diseases, and e) the threat of terrorism, particularly if terrorists are successful in smuggling in weapons of mass destruction - why make ourselves an easy target by giving them an open door?
3) Where Islamic immigration is concerned, several issues need to be addressed:
- Yes, it's true that not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims. Islam has a violence problem that desperately needs to be addressed. There is nothing racist about admitting the problem, and hiding from the problem is self-defeating.
- American Muslims who are concerned about being perceived as a threat need to do more to separate themselves from the jihadists. Muslim leaders in every community need to publicly reject jihad. Yet, many are afraid to do so because they realize how radical some of their brethren are, and they fear for their lives. Others, while not active in jihad themselves, may well be sympathetic to it, as has been the case in Great Britain.
- In Islam, it is perfectly acceptable to lie to an infidel in order to advance the cause of Allah. We need a strong vetting system to weed out the troublemakers, and this makes the issue that much more problematic.
- America's culture did not spring into existence overnight; it's a product of thousands of years of western civilization. If we want to have a country in the future, and keep America a bastion of freedom, we must ensure that we bring in only those people who love our land, agree with our ideals, and want to be a part of who we are. We do ourselves no favors by turning America into Afghanistan simply to look nice.
- Globalists deliberately want to destroy our culture by bringing in large groups of immigrants who have nothing in common with us. They call it 'diversity,' but it is really a means of trying to remake the world, of trying to create a global citizenry that will accept a global government (which they intend to lead, naturally).
Trump, Clinton, and the Constitution Debate
In the final presidential debate for 2016, moderator Chris Wallace asked Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for their view of the Constitution: should it be interpreted according to what the Founders originally intended, or is it a "living" and "flexible" document that can be accommodated to the times.
Trump has pledged to appoint justices that will uphold original intent, whereas Clinton has pledged to support a court that will uphold certain political agendas. The two candidates could not be more different on this issue, and this fact should be a major consideration in who we choose to support for president this year.
In this video, I offer commentary on the candidates' responses, the purpose of the Supreme Court, and the nature of the Constitution.
Trump has pledged to appoint justices that will uphold original intent, whereas Clinton has pledged to support a court that will uphold certain political agendas. The two candidates could not be more different on this issue, and this fact should be a major consideration in who we choose to support for president this year.
In this video, I offer commentary on the candidates' responses, the purpose of the Supreme Court, and the nature of the Constitution.
Monday, October 17, 2016
The Aleppo Crisis - Reality versus Propaganda
The war hawks in Washington are anxious for America to directly intervene in the Syrian civil war, and are alleging that Syrian president Assad and his Russian allies are deliberately targeting civilians in the besieged city of Aleppo. They point to a "humanitarian crisis" and insist that something must be done. Some points need to be made here:
1) Washington has been arming, funding, and training the Syrian opposition to Assad for several years now. So the truth is that we have already intervened, and that intervention has arguably lengthened the war and intensified the crisis. Washington thus bears part of the blame for the situation as it currently exists.
2) Washington alleges that Assad and his Russian allies are deliberately targeting civilians in Aleppo; however, to date I have not seen any evidence of this. They are attacking Aleppo because that is where the opposition forces (and the barbarians of ISIS) have entrenched themselves. If they want to fight these groups, they must engage them where they are - and they are in Aleppo. If they left Aleppo alone, these groups would entrench themselves further and have a secure base from which to launch attacks at their leisure.
3) The only way for Washington to intervene would be to directly engage with the military forces of Syria and Russia, thus virtually ensuring World War III. Do the hawks seriously think that we would gain anything by turning the whole world into a giant Aleppo? Are we really prepared to kill tens of millions to (supposedly) alleviate a problem affecting thousands?
4) Washington's past interventions do not create much of a basis for hope. We have ruined Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lybia, and we have no apparent plan to do anything much different in Syria. The so-called "moderate opposition" to Assad is not so very moderate after all. We invite yet another disaster by turning the country over to it.
1) Washington has been arming, funding, and training the Syrian opposition to Assad for several years now. So the truth is that we have already intervened, and that intervention has arguably lengthened the war and intensified the crisis. Washington thus bears part of the blame for the situation as it currently exists.
2) Washington alleges that Assad and his Russian allies are deliberately targeting civilians in Aleppo; however, to date I have not seen any evidence of this. They are attacking Aleppo because that is where the opposition forces (and the barbarians of ISIS) have entrenched themselves. If they want to fight these groups, they must engage them where they are - and they are in Aleppo. If they left Aleppo alone, these groups would entrench themselves further and have a secure base from which to launch attacks at their leisure.
3) The only way for Washington to intervene would be to directly engage with the military forces of Syria and Russia, thus virtually ensuring World War III. Do the hawks seriously think that we would gain anything by turning the whole world into a giant Aleppo? Are we really prepared to kill tens of millions to (supposedly) alleviate a problem affecting thousands?
4) Washington's past interventions do not create much of a basis for hope. We have ruined Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lybia, and we have no apparent plan to do anything much different in Syria. The so-called "moderate opposition" to Assad is not so very moderate after all. We invite yet another disaster by turning the country over to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)