George Soros (or as Glenn Beck calls him, the ‘spooky dude’) openly admits ‘national borders are the enemy’.
If he would a libertarian, I might believe he has an open, free-market agenda.
BUT, he IS George Soros…
(From The Natural News, in part:)
Following Orban’s statement, Soros sent an email to Bloomberg Business, in which he claimed that his foundations actually help “uphold European values,” while Orban’s actions in bolstering the Hungarian border and thus impeding a huge influx of migrants “undermine those values.”
“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” Soros added. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
In October, Orban accused pro-immigration non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of “drawing a living from the immigration crisis.” He singled out those funded by Soros, who is a strong supporter of transnational bodies like the European Union and the United Nations. Also, his Open Society Foundation (OSF) provides assistance for pro-immigration activists, and he is well-known in the U.S. and internationally for supporting “progressive” (read far-Left) causes like the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation and the Center for American Progress.
In fact, the OSF website notes: “We believe that migration and asylum policy should be grounded in economic and demographic realities, not driven by temporary political considerations or popular misconceptions.
“In Europe, many of our civil society partners are raising their voices demanding a common European approach in line with international human rights commitments.”
In a recent interview, Orban said that immigration and multiculturalism were working in tandem to change the face and traditions of Europe, it’s “Christian roots” in particular, all while creating “parallel societies” (just like mass immigration in the U.S. – and isn’t it peculiar that President Obama and Lefty Soros have the same view on mass immigration?).
So sayeth the ‘spooky dude’.
Do you think they are looking to destabilize existing governments by taxing the system until it breaks? Just as Cloward and Piven suggest?
Naw, just a coincidence…
Pay no attention to the spooky dude behind the curtain.
Or in the White House.
Tomi (known to long-time blog readers here) recently posted her response to the Paris terrorist attacks on her blog.
To be fair, I was a bit surprised. After all, she is an admitted social democrat, who tends to lean left in her views on many things.
Here is her post, in full:
I have often felt like a voice crying in the wilderness, since September 11, 2001. I keep insisting that the “War on Terror” is a sham. You can’t wage “war” on religious fanatics who wear suicide bomb vests and shoot people at restaurants. Terrorism is a series of criminal acts done by those that have nothing to lose in this life, and everything to gain in the hereafter.
After nearly fifteen years of listening to this ridiculousness, and watching the US commit its worst crimes since the Native American genocide, I am ready to throw in the towel….kind of.
If we’re going to fight a “war” let’s make it a real one: State to State.
We KNOW where these terrorists get their money from: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. They are, and always have been, the funders of Al-Qaeda, ISIS (ISIL, the IS, or whatever you want to call it) and all of their offshoots.
I am not saying anything we all already don’t know.
It is long past time to keep pretending these States are our allies. They are not and never have been.
Seize their financial assets. All of them. Tell them they will get their money back if and when all of their sponsored terrorism ceases.
It is time to stop all this double-dealing. They are not our friends or allies. They are our enemies, by any reasonable definition of the word.
These proxy wars have got to stop. If we’re going to expend blood and treasure, let’s at least do it honestly.
Of course, no one wants war (except, perhaps war profiteers and fanatics). But I understand her argument. The fact we both fight and simultaneously support so many of these nations smacks of that military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about!
Let us not remain mired in brush-fire wars that have been plaguing us since Vietnam.
As Todd Beamer said on Flight 93, “Let’s roll!”
Yesterday, November 16, would have been my Father’s 100th birthday. Instead, he passed at age 61.
There were so many life lessons he was unable to impart to me.
Calm reflection (he was an angry rage kind of guy); Moderation (he was an alcoholic and a compulsive overeater); Mechanical ability (I once saw him attempt to repair a leaky radiator hose with Scotch tape(!) I was a kid, and even I knew that wouldn’t work).
But I knew he loved me.
After all, when I was born prematurely (and my twin brother didn’t make it) he hurriedly ran to the nearest church to pray for my survival.
He tried to make me an athlete, as he had been. Alas, my developing a physical disability @ age 12 stopped those attempts in it’s tracks. And from that point forward, he was unclear how to relate to me.
I only saw him cry once. When he told me how proud he was of my graduating the Eighth Grade, and that I never asked him for money. To be fair, I didn’t know I was allowed to! When my Mother passed, he kept his grief private.
I’m certain his childhood was horrific. A stern father who had been a Marine and railroad policeman, and his having grown up poor during the Depression.
He had not been raised to be a hugger. I don’t remember him ever hugging me. A firm handshake was the order-of-the-day.
But, he did teach me a few important things. Loyalty (be true to your friends – he was to his); Honesty (your word IS your bond); and yes, Love.
He loved his wife (my mother) with all his heart. Watching her die @ age 41 of emphysema must have been horrible. (I was in the Second Grade, what did I know?) And in spite of the fact they were estranged, my (half)sister was his jewel. He was very protective of her, which probably in-part caused the estrangement. But she was another connection to his wife, which I don’t think she ever saw.
And he kept his heart disease hidden from me until it was too late.
He was flawed – he was human.
I love you and miss you, Dad. Happy Birthday!
(courtesy of ACTIVISTPOST, in part)
The UN Plans To Implement Universal Biometric Identification For All Of Humanity By 2030
Even after writing several articles about these new Global Goals, I still don’t think that most of my readers really grasp how insidious they actually are. This new agenda truly is a template for a “New World Order”, and if you dig into the sub-points for these new Global Goals you find some very alarming things.
For example, Goal 16.9 sets the following target…
By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.
The United Nations is already working hard toward the implementation of this goal – particularly among refugee populations. The UN has partnered with Accenture to implement a biometric identification system that reports information “back to a central database in Geneva.” The following is an excerpt from an article that was posted on findbiometrics.com…
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is moving forward with its plans to use biometric technology to identify and track refugees, and has selected a vendor for the project.Accenture, an international technology services provider, has won out in the competitive tendering process and will oversee the implementation of the technology in a three-year contract.
The UNHCR will use Accenture’s Biometric Identity Management System (BIMS) for the endeavor. BIMS can be used to collect facial, iris, and fingerprint biometric data, and will also be used to provide many refugees with their only form of official documentation. The system will work in conjunction with Accenture’s Unique Identity Service Platform (UISP) to send this information back to a central database in Geneva, allowing UNHCR offices all over the world to effectively coordinate with the central UNHCR authority in tracking refugees.
I don’t know about you, but that sure does sound creepy to me.
To me, as well, Mr. Snyder!
He further states:
If you aren’t using cash, that means that all of your economic activity is going through the banks where it can be watched, tracked, monitored and regulated.
Every time the elite propose something for our “good,” it somehow always results in them having more power and more control.
I hope that people will wake up and see what is happening. Major moves toward a one world system are taking place right in front of our eyes, and yet I hear very, very few people talking about any of this.
Of course, pile this upon other agenda items (like ‘universal disarmament’ of the civilian population) and we’re back to the (one-world) governmental wish list of CONTROL.
Supporters of the U.N. are fond of claiming critics are paranoid, and that the U.N. does so much good. Here is a corrupt organization, made up largely of despotic regimes and poorer nations (sometimes conflated) mostly financed by The United States, and largely ineffective in resolving world conflicts.
Remember The Korean War? It still continues! And most of the time, the U.S. pays for most of the aid given poorer nations.
I remember seeing signs by the side of the highway intoning ‘Get Us Out Of The U.N.!’ in the 50’s.
Maybe it’s time we left…
(remembering, this is opinion, not news – Guffaw)
The idea that law-abiding concealed carry permit holders could potentially stop mass shooters is nothing more than a “myth,” the New York Times editorial board proclaimed on Monday.
Citing a study from the anti-gun Violence Policy Center, the editorial board claimed “at least 763” concealed carry permit holders “have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense” since 2007.
More from the opinion column:More @ The Blaze
from the Government…
The Senate intends to pass a new warrantless surveillance bill granting government broad new authorities for collecting your personal information from private businesses, and it’s up to you and me to stop them.
On Wednesday the Senate may hold its first vote on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), S. 754.
Promoted as a “much-needed” “cybersecurity” bill, Congress devised a new way for intelligence agencies to collect your emails and sensitive data.
The bill “encourages” private companies like Google, Facebook, and Yahoo to monitor their networks and share “cyber threat indicators” broadly with agencies like the FBI, NSA, and CIA.
Worse yet, the bill allows the government to share and use your information for reasons completely unrelated to cybersecurity!
And on top of all that, this bill grants companies immunity to ensure they give the government as much information as possible…
Without having to make any effort to redact your sensitive information.
Let that sink in for a moment…
The same government that can’t protect its own data on 22.1 million federal employees, contractors, and their families and friends wants private businesses to share your personal information freely with them.
And if (more likely, when) your information is misused either by government agencies, private businesses, or both, you will be unable to hold anyone accountable.
Guffaw, you and I can both see this isn’t going to end well.
CISA is justified as necessary to stop hackers…
But sharing your Google searches and emails with Homeland Security will not stop hackers.
In fact, nothing in this bill would stop any of the cyber-attacks publicized in the press this year.
When it comes down to it, this is nothing more than a new warrantless surveillance bill.
Congress should be rolling back intelligence agencies’ surveillance powers, not granting new ones.
Recently, the President of the American Library Association, Sari Feldman, spoke out against the bill saying,
“When librarians oppose a bill with ‘information sharing’ in its name you can be sure that the bill is decidedly more than advertised.”
Businesses like Twitter, Yelp, Facebook, and Google all oppose this bill.
You only need to look at who is sponsoring this bill to realize it isn’t for your benefit or mine.
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Richard Burr (R-NC), two of the biggest surveillance state proponents in the Senate, are working diligently to ram this legislation through.
And that makes the first potential vote on Wednesday crucial.
Per standing Senate rules, the Senate needs 60 votes to proceed on the bill.
Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), have all vocally opposed this legislation.
But it’s going to take an outpouring of opposition from grassroots Americans like you to stop this warrantless surveillance bill from passing the Senate.
These petitions let your senators know you see right through the thin façade of “cybersecurity” and recognize this bill for what it is – a new warrantless surveillance bill.
At a time when Congress needs to do more to rein in the intelligence agencies to protect your privacy, many senators are trying to expand the surveillance state.
Let them know you’ll have nothing of it.
Please take action today, then forward this email to your friends and family and ask them to sign their emergency “Stop the Surveillance State!” Fax Petitions as well.
Public pressure matters. And if you remain silent, don’t look to blame others later for your lost liberties.
It’s time the American people stand up and say, “Enough is enough!”
Director of Legislation
P.S. After you’ve signed your emergency “Stop the Surveillance State!” Fax Petitions, please consider making a generous contribution to Campaign for Liberty to help defray the cost of this program to fight back against this new warrantless surveillance bill.
Because of Campaign For Liberty’s tax-exempt status under IRC Sec. 501(C)(4) and its state and federal legislative activities, contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions (IRC § 170) or as business deductions (IRC § 162(e)(1)).www.CampaignForLiberty.org
This came my way, and I thought it worth sharing! – Guffaw
…or, rather, a dis-member! :-)
(from Joel, in part)
In a year when Donald Trump is the GOP frontrunner, you have to dig deep to find political news that’s considered weird. But leave it to the intrepid Libertarians to fill that void…
Adrian Wyllie, chairman of Florida’s Libertarian Party, resigned his post Thursday to protest the party’s U.S. Senate candidate, accusing the rival of supporting eugenics and for being expelled from a cult group for “sadistically dismembering a goat in a ritualistic sacrifice.”
The dispute between the two has brewed for months, but finally came to a head after Wyllie was unable to persuade the Libertarian Party of Florida’s executive committee to publicly disavow Invictus, an adopted name that means something like “Invincible Sun Emperor.”
In other news, spokesmyn(sp) for the National Libertarian Party say they simply don’t understand why nobody takes Libertarians seriously.
And people ask me why I’ve never joined (aka filled-out-forms and sent money to) the National Libertarian Party?
For whom have I voted? My standard answer is, “The Australian Secret Ballot is one of our most cherished possessions!”
And I’m certain even MORE ridiculousness is evident in the skeleton closets of the two major parties!
Full disclosure – I have stumped for some of their candidates (especially back in the 70’s), but I have never dismembered a goat (even to make tacos)!
Long time readers of my drivel know that one of my go-to sources for life hacks is The Art of Manliness.
When it comes to stuff my father didn’t teach me (because he didn’t make the time, or didn’t know – he wasn’t malicious in his errors) TAoM covers many of the bases.
Everything from how to shave to how to escape quicksand (and more) are covered!
Sometimes, the subject matter in basic, i.e. how to balance a checkbook. Other times it’s more philosophical…
Surely a delicate and difficult issue for most of us.
There are people in my own history whom I have offended, and to whom I’ve made amends. Some have returned as friends, others have not.
The important thing is to not remain in toxic relationships, lest they damage your own psyche!
Sweden: ‘No Apartments, No Jobs, No Shopping Without a Gun’Via David
- The Swedes see the welfare systems failing them. Swedes have had to get used to the government prioritizing refugees and migrants above native Swedes.
- “There are no apartments, no jobs, we don’t dare go shopping anymore [without a gun], but we’re supposed to think everything’s great. … Women and girls are raped by these non-European men, who come here claiming they are unaccompanied children, even though they are grown men. … You Cabinet Ministers live in your fancy residential neighborhoods, with only Swedish neighbors. It should be obligatory for all politicians to live for at least three months in an area consisting mostly of immigrants… [and] have to use public transport.” — Laila, to the Prime Minister.
- “Instead of torchlight processions against racism, we need a Prime Minister who speaks out against the violence… Unite everyone. … Do not make it a racism thing.” — Anders, to the Prime Minister.
- “In all honesty, I don’t even feel they [government ministers] see the problems… There is no one in those meetings who can tell them what real life looks like.” – Laila, on the response she received from the government.More @ Gatestone Institute
Last week, law professor and Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokh, exposed how the District Attorney’s Office in Nassau County, New York, was unconstitutionally prohibiting its prosecutors from possessing handguns, even in their homes. We registered our disapproval as well. On Wednesday, mere days after the story broke, Prof. Volokh reported that the policy had been rescinded. Well, mostly rescinded.
Prof. Volokh’s Wednesday post includes a copy of a memo issued by Albert Teichman, Chief Assistant District Attorney for Nassau County. The memo notes the policy was enacted in 2006, and predates the tenure of current Nassau County Acting District Attorney, Madeline Singas. Although the memo doesn’t say so, it would also mean the policy predated the Supreme Court’s pivotal holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Of course, those cases should be well-known to any lawyer, especially one working in law enforcement, so that does not excuse the fact that the policy persisted, even when it was clearly at odds with the high court’s statements on the Second Amendment.
The memo claims, unlike the explanation provided to Prof. Volokh when he inquired about the policy, that the restriction was enacted “to prevent friendly fire tragedies like those that have occurred in recent years in Nassau County and neighboring jurisdictions.” It then embarks on a litany of incidents occurring between 2006 and 2011 in which law enforcement officers were killed by other law enforcement officers in the New York City Metropolitan area. None of the incidents involved prosecutors or other officials who do not routinely carry as part of their law enforcement duties.
The memo concludes, “Upon review, the public safety interests served by the policy can be substantially effectuated though a less-restrictive means that does not preclude ADAs from owning handguns, but strictly prohibits work-related possession and use.” It goes on to recommend that assistant district attorneys be “strictly prohibited from carrying or possessing a weapon any time they are working … without the express written permission of the District Attorney or the District Attorney’s authorized designee.” Violations, it states, should be punishable by termination.
A follow-up memo, also dated Sept. 30, shows the policy being enacted “immediately” and superseding any previous policy. It also states, “Assistant District Attorneys are permitted to own and possess a legally registered handgun in their homes or for legally permitted activity unrelated to their employment and workplace.” Such employees are “encouraged” to take a firearm safety course. They are also required to provide copies of their “licensure and registration documentation to the DA’s office.”
We took Acting District Attorney Ringas strongly to task in our original remarks, as she is ultimately responsible for the policies of her office, whether she originally implemented them or not. We now credit her, however, with taking positive and expeditious steps to correct an obviously untenable situation. We certainly agree with her office’s recommendation that DAs who choose to own handguns take a firearm safety course, and NRA’s network of certified trainers – the finest in the nation – stand ready to assist in that regard. While we believe that any prosecutor lawfully able to do so should also have the option of remaining armed while operating their own private automobiles, we are glad to know that they will now be able to own and use handguns on their own time and for their own purposes.
More troubling is the office’s continued insistence that “[m]any neighboring jurisdictions impose handgun restrictions on Assistant District Attorneys.” We checked the hiring websites for the District Attorney’s Offices of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties. None of them mentioned any such requirements. Clearly, however, the use of public employment or civil service as a means of depriving individuals of their Second Amendment rights while they are at home or on their own time is a problem in any context. Public employees subjected to any such a blanket policy are encouraged to contact the NRA with their stories.
The original author of the Nassau County policy is former District Attorney and current U.S. Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY). Rice told the media through a spokesperson that assistant district attorneys “shouldn’t be walking around armed” when dealing with victims, witnesses, and defendants. Why she believed that necessitated banning prosecutors from owing handguns at home, however, is not explained. It suggests deficiencies not just in her grasp of the U.S. Constitution but in her legal drafting ability. Her NRA-PVFF-rating, meanwhile, indicates she takes a dim view of firearm ownership in general.