This is a placeholder text
Group text
by GSD Admin on 24 June 2016 - 06:06
by joanro on 24 June 2016 - 12:06
In the words of Nigel Farage, leader of the the UKIP and top proponent for the United Kingdom to leave the European, the Brexit vote was Britain’s “Independence Day.”
June 23rd will be the day that the British people filed their papers to divorce a global bureaucracy that buried national sovereignty in bureaucratic red tape. After constant failures that left many Brits without jobs and living in a nation being colonized by migrants with no attachment to British culture, enough was enough.
After almost three decades of rule, globalism was witnessing a Judgment Day and Brexit represents a nationalistic movement that has laid in wait for two decades; a movement that is jumping the pond to the United States and finding a home with Donald Trump’s “America First” campaign.
But how did globalism get here? How was the vision of the international bourgeois was rebuked and rejected in such a short order?
Much to the chagrin of the “Remain” crowd, the answer is not rooted in boorish patriotism. Rather, it is rooted in an understanding that global governing at the expense of national sovereignty never works. People will not die for bureaucracies, but they will die, sacrifice and share for their country.
Many people fought to avert globalism in the aftermath of the Cold War, but its siren song proved irresistible. And when President George H. W. Bush decided to intervene in the Iraq/Kuwait conflict in 1990, he made it known that his intervention was spurred by global, not necessarily American, interests.
“Out of these troubled times … a new world order can emerge,” Bush told a joint session of Congress in September 1990. And Bush readily admitted such an order would be “a world quite different from the one we’ve known.”
It was in the midst of the Gulf War that Bush 41 set in motion his post-Cold War vision of America. Rather than dismantle the global apparatus the United States needed to contain communism, Bush and his newly empowered neoconservatives sought to use the existing apparatus to fuse globalism with American hegemony.
This NWO placed global bureaucracy over love of nation. It prioritized international cooperation at the expense of national will. And it was one in which the West, largely United States, would use its bounty to underwrite and meddle in the affairs of the world.
It was a time to recognize, in Bush’s words, a “world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice.” No longer was intervention limited to a nation’s vital interests; intervention was now warranted when the collective conscience of the globe was impugned.
The only problem? The shared responsibility was not shared. European nations and Asian-Pacific nations pushed their security costs off onto a United States willing to go in the financial red to maintain its role as sole global super power.
From Kosovo to Afghanistan to Iraq II to the China Sea, the United States serves as the military muscle of a NWO that wants the West to foot the bill. But the NWO is not just about military strength.
advertisement
Racked with guilt, the NWO now requires Western nations to open their doors to foreign migrants with no ties to its culture and to embrace trade deals that export its jobs. In the eyes of the NWO’s elites, it is right and proper that today’s Westerners pay for the sins that their ancestors supposedly inflicted on developing countries.
But the global euphoria is gone, a hangover remains, and the Brits have rejected the false promises of globalism.
Once the most powerful nation on the planet, Britain is a pawn in a global game in which the shots are called by Brussels, not London. The EU has not just emasculated the empire on which the sun never set; it has caused Britain to import third world migrants who are remaking the British identity to be anything but British.
London has a Muslim mayor and Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, has called Donald Trump’s plan to place a moratorium on Muslim migration “stupid.” It is clear London has fallen.
And as Britons reject the migration invasion, Cameron doubles down proclaiming Britain is “the most successful multi-racial multi-faith multi-ethnic [country] in the world.”
But Brits don’t want to be multi-cultural, they want to be the same Brits that changed the world from an island off the coast of France. They want to be the Brits who had the confidence to lead the world for the better. They want to be the Brits who were respected, not pitied.
advertisement
Whether the protectors of the NWO admit it or not, the world is changing. Brexit won, the Scots – though defeated – will be rejuvenated in their quest for independence, Venice wants to break away from Italy, and Catalonia is giddy to secede from Spain. The old tribes of the West are getting together for a reunion.
And, yes, America has Trump.
Just last week Trump became the first major presidential candidate in decades to reject the NWO. Quoting Lincoln on tariffs and declaring he will place “America First”, Trump is making it known that under his watch America will be first, second, and third; NWO be damned.
What does that mean? 2016 is the year the NWO comes crashing down.
by GSD Admin on 24 June 2016 - 14:06
Along with trillions lost across the globe. Oh well. I just read an article that the place that has predicted a lot of American elections is saying the democrats win in a landslide. Thank you Dump. You're fired. http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner/
I wrote about one of Ronald Reagan’s children earlier this month. Michael Reagan was asked about how his dad would have voted in this election. He tweeted:
Michael Reagan @ReaganWorld
This most likely would be the 1st time if my father was alive that he would not support the nominee of the GOP @Reince @newsmax
He had this to say about other issues we are facing:
“But really, the GOP these days is no longer a legitimate political party. They’re not interested in governing anymore. My father certainly was. The idea of shutting down the government because you’re peeved about Planned Parenthood, that’s not a thought that ever would have crossed his mind. The idea of a few million dollars going to an organization like that that does a lot of good work for people should be a pretext to shut down the government would just be unthinkable to him.”
Ronald Reagan, Jr., is an outspoken atheist and contributor to MSNBC. He was talking about the report that the Federal Election Commission released this week. Donald Trump’s campaign is broke, which is absolutely wonderful.
He suggests that the media should stop talking about the Trump campaign “as if it were normal.” He thinks the media should talk about:
“…The recognition that Donald Trump is a charlatan who is running a scam and is in no way fit for office, and the Republican party has become a dysfunctional, wheels-off-the-bus-sort-of organization. That is the reality that we start with here.”
When asked about whether Bernie Sanders supporters would go to Trump, he said:
“…Any intelligent Bernie Sanders supporter is not going to naturally gravitate toward Donald Trump out of a fit of pique over his person not beating Hillary Clinton.”
This is what Reagan, Jr., had to say about people who compare Donald Trump to his father:
“I can’t think of two people who are more diametrically opposed. This egotistical, narcissistic guy with the weird comb over swanning in his private plane. … I mean, look in the mirror, fat boy. Look at that hair, you’re ridiculous! Where do you get off talking on anybody’s appearance? It’s just so unchivalrous. My father would recoil at that sort of thing.”
by GSD Admin on 25 June 2016 - 00:06
by beetree on 25 June 2016 - 00:06
Maybe they should give those funds to offset hunger, or provide scholarships to minorities?
Make the media do it all for free.... Trump has that idea, down pat.......
I don't know if anyone enjoys listening to a Hillary speech. Seeing what they actually get to hear when they pay for one, I would like to know. Mindhunt might have a perspective on this!
I would like to believe Hillary spiels, but my prejudice against her is usually borne out with life acts.
by joanro on 25 June 2016 - 01:06
'In what may be the pinnacle of hypocrisy, moments ago Hillary Clinton, while speaking live on national security and addressing the Orlando shooting took some time from her constant bashing of the Second Amendment and calling for a ban on assault rifles, to say some less than kind words about Saudi Arabia whom it accused of supporting radical organizations.
This is what she said:
'The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe. For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism. We also have to use all our capabilities to counter jihadist propaganda online. This is something that I spend a lot of time on at the State Department.'
There is nothing wrong with that statement, as it is the whole truth - Saudi Arabia's involvement in supporting terrorism stretches from Sept 11 all the way through to ISIS - however, where there is a big, and potentially law-breaking, problem is what Jordan's official news agency, Petra News Agency, reported on Sunday citing the Saudi crown price, namely that Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States. As MEE notes, the Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate's campaign.
by GSD Admin on 25 June 2016 - 01:06
by Noitsyou on 25 June 2016 - 01:06
GWB kissed a Saudi on the mouth and held hands.
And Britain is multicultural. Scots, Irish, Welsh? Ancient Romans? Anglos, Saxons and Jutes? Vikings? Normans? 60% of English words are of Latin and/or French origin.
by joanro on 25 June 2016 - 02:06
Trump's business and Hillary's presidential campaign are two different things, sort of,I think, maybe....she's corrupt.
she is big on gun control except when it comes to selling to foreign governments...
Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals — and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton’s State Department did a whole lot of approving. While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
I'm sure there's more recent available.
by GSD Admin on 25 June 2016 - 03:06
LMFAO.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top