cargo pilot III Flyin' Mayan
The Department of Homeland Security was created to "keep us safe" from Al Qaeda. Now that it's become widely known that Al Qaeda is our "friend" that we finance, arm and fully support, since we created them, can we do away with the Department of Homeland Security, or is the real enemy of the occupied central government much more local?
When discussing the NSA recording our every digital thought, such as all our phone calls, text messages, emails, social media and internet browsing, many Americans like to answer, "You have nothing to fear, unless you're doing something wrong".
How is that different from saying, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't need to have rights"?
Man-made global warming is so terrible that the polar ice cap is growing larger than it's been since we've been able to measure it in the 1950's. In 2007, we were told that summer ice will all be melted by 2013, but those darn satellite photos show it's the largest in recorded history, for this time of year.
Is record ice in the North Pole certain proof that we are responsible for global warming that can only be stopped by paying unrepresented carbon taxes to foreign bankers, to keep us safe?
Both Democrats and neocon Republicans are chomping at the bit to bomb Syria, so it appears both the neocon-faction of the GOP is exactly the same on war as the Democrat elite.
Do neocon Republicans and the Democratic elites both want to start another war against the Syrian people about the same?
- 6 AnswersPolitics7 years ago
Al Qaeda has been an enforcement of globalist interest since the CIA created it in about 1978. Publicly, we are told Al Qaeda is our enemy. Al Qaeda is so good at keeping us frightened, the central government needs to record our every thought and put their hands in our daughter's pants, to keep us safe. Without a doubt, Al Qaeda is definitely our go-to guys when we need to start a ruckus somewhere to serve the best interest of the central bankers.
Since the CIA created Al Qaeda 15 years ago, how money, war material and American lives has Al Qaeda cost us, and has our forced investment paid handsome dividends to our globalist masters?
Fox News devotees say you are an "isolationist", unless you support a scheduled globalist agenda of invasions, bombings and war on nations, in complete harmony with the Democrats. I know, because I was one of you guys for many years.
Just be sure I understand the Obama/McCain policy of foreign intervention correctly, people who want to follow the Constitution and not slaughter the people of other nations to gain resources for corporations and foreign central bankers, that always loan fiat notes of debt to both sides of any war, are full-on "isolationists" and the word non-interventionist doesn't apply. War is peace, right?
Where would we be today, if we had applied a Ron Paul-style foreign policy, instead of the Obama/McCain style?
Led by Senator John McCain, the neocon faction of the Republican party strongly agrees with President Obama in support of more war, for the globalists.The only argument now is which side gets to approve attacks first. On the matter of foreign policy, there is no difference between the neocon faction of the Republican party and the Democrat elites. I don't think regular Democrats want more war any more than the libertarian faction of the GOP does. Corporate media of "liberal" and "conservative" marketing divisions, both agree that the people just need a good false-flag and proper "news" coverage to make both sides clamor for more war, death and destruction, in the name of nation-building in the globalist design and the children, of course. War s Peace.
We know that most establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle, strongly favor swift aggression to any war, to ensure submission of all nations that offend the banking cabal, so there is scant difference between either party on foreign policy.
How is the Democrat/neocon Republican foreign policy working out, so far and how might things be different, if we adopted a Ron Paul-style foreign policy that obeyed the Constitution, in place of the Obama/McCain style foreign policy?
The law enforcement community that has a huge vested financial and political interest in The War on Drugs. As a huge profit center for the militarized police, corporate cities, private prisons,court system and the military industrial complex.
Today, police organizations are very powerful political lobbies, interested in increasing police power and control and according to this article, are freaked out over the fear of losing this powerful tool to generate revenue and convicts. Their main argument aganst legalizing marijuana is it will greatly increase crime.
How will legalizing marijuana increase crime? What examples do supporters of a police state control grid cite that bases their position that legal marijuana will increase crime?
Is war now openly "peace:?2 AnswersPolitics7 years ago
Since the CIA Corporation created Al Qaeda in 1978 to give the Soviet Union fits in Afghanistan, our Al Qaeda forces were publicly held up as the bad guys and our "enemy". to justify war and the construction of a police state that would shock Orson Wells.
At some point, the occupied central government started transitioning CIA Corporation's Al Qaeda into the "good guys". When did that marketing image campaign begin and how successful has Madison Avenue been in convincing the American people that the former bad guys are now the good guys and our friends. Why did the occupied central government decide to re-educate us on how to feel for our Al Qaeda partners?12 AnswersPolitics7 years ago
The CIA Corporation must be pretty upset with their Al Qaeda leadership for posting all those videos of our very own Al Qaeda forces launching the sarin gas and then openly taking credit for the attack. Clearly, this has set back the CIA mission to overthrow 7 countries in 5 years, which is already behind schedule. We were not supposed to know that our very own Al Qaeda did the attack, since the banker-written script required the chemical attack to look like Assad did it.
How can the overthrown US central government and CIA convince us that Assad did it, when our very own Al Qaeda keeps proudly posting videos of themselves
How can the CIA better control their Al Qaeda forces flow of information, to avoid these embarrassing problems of exposure in the future?5 AnswersPolitics7 years ago
ALL corporate media is really pushing us hard to call for war against the Syrian people, based on a false flag to frame Assad, by our Al Qaeda partners, yet most Americans are still resisting another war.
Why do most Americans defy what the 6 corporations that own 90% of all media and how can the ministers of propaganda more effectively make us want to bomb the Syrian people in another war?
Why does Obama say "my military" when the US military was overthrown by the banking cabal, years ago?
Shortly after 9/11, General Wesley Clark revealed that the foreign bankers ordered that 7 countries be overthrown in 5 years, by the NATO-occupied US military. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has already told Congress they are merely ceremonial.
Yesterday, Obama relented to overwhelming opposition to an unjust war against Syria, In spite of what corporate media is telling us to think, most Americans are still not begging for war. Yesterday, Obama discussed the use of "my military", as though the US military belonged to him. Why would Obama think the US military is his, when our military has been overthrown by the foreign central banking cabal years ago?
Unless you get all your thoughts from Fox News, CNN or any of the of the other state media outlets, you might suspect US-supported, Al Qaeda actually did the chemical attack that Doctors Without Borders says killed almost 400 people.
The media really needs to convince us that Assad did the attack as a reason to begin bombing the Syrian people, in spite of all the video, rebel admissions, timing of events and motive. How will the government-controlled media convince us to beg for more war against Syria?
A license is issued by government to applicants who meet qualifications and of course, pay a tax, to gain a strictly controlled privilege. Governmental licensing of marriage is a relatively new innovation, with a dark and racist past going back to the mid-1800's. The Constitution somehow omitted central government licensing for people to marry, probably because the Framers never imagined marriage as a privilege, requiring a license.
I'm not gay, so I have no dog in this hunt, but I see the liberal side fighting to gain a permission for something that should already be considered a right and the neocon faction of the GOP fighting to ensure the central government can dictate who marries whom. To the libertarian mind, both sides are fighting for a cause that shouldn't be a factor.
Why should the Federal government be in the marriage business, in the first place, unless it's for power, control and of course, taxation?