The Migrant As Pawn

For decades city mayors and state governors, mostly Democrat, have chosen to ignore federal immigration laws by defiantly declaring themselves  a"sanctuary" in the name of compassion. However, all isn't so well in the liberal world of "Bolshevia'. The problem is that they're running out of taxpayer money. 

I suppose all is well so long as the "gravy train" continues to run.  But for that to happen, ordinary working men and women must work longer and harder to stoke the economic engine with more of their hard earned money while leaving ever less money to pay their own bills, put food on the table and put a roof over their heads. Data shows a virtually non-existent middle class compared to just as few generations ago while poverty and homelessness (especially among veterans) grows to unsustainable levels.

To make matters worse for these mayors and governors of Utopia is that other elected representatives and their constituents in other states and towns don't want to play the "kick-the-can-down-the-road" game any longer. Someone, after all, has to be the grown up.

As a result, they've started sending these migrants to all those sanctuary locations with one way bus tickets and a meal card. It's certainly cheaper than forcing their citizens to pay millions just to support the grand ideals of others. If sanctuary cities and states want them, then they can have them along with the responsibility that comes with their words.

But now sanctuary cities and states are rapidly  running out of money. They've already had to cut back on public programs which were available for and paid by their citizens. They've started allowing the homeless to live in public parks, doorways, or wherever else they want. They can use public sidewalks as their personal toilets. Local businesses can't keep them out of their stores or from using their restrooms to clean up in. Businesses are even prohibited from detaining shoplifters, thus crime and everything associated with it becomes rampant.

The result is that tax generating businesses are leaving and taking revenue generating jobs with them. So, local mayors and state governors are demanding that the federal government in Washington turn up the money faucet in order to help them continue to defy federal immigration laws and reinstate public programs. How's that for having chutzpah? 

No one is quite sure about how many illegal immigrants have been shipped around the country, but it's  at least around 100,000 if not more. Of course, you have to feel sorry for these individuals---the men, women, and children---for being moved here and there like some pawn on a chess board, to be used and discarded. After all, most are simply coming here for work and hopefully a better life.

But nevertheless, it's fair to assume that they are aware of the risk and what they were attempting to do was illegal. Breaking U.S. immigration laws was little different from breaking immigration law in their native homeland, except that the repercussions were almost always far more severe.

We can only assume that these individuals have been convinced themselves that they were different. That they could evade authorities and slip across the border undetected. Perhaps long the way one of those church organizations who help individuals break the law could help them. Maybe too they could help shield from the border patrol, ICE, and others. All they need to do was make their way undetected to one of those sanctuary states or cities.  

Hopefully someday, down the road, they can stop looking over their shoulder, stop running and hiding, and just settle down. Perhaps, if they're lucky, some U.S. President, while trying to curry support from certain voters, will grant them amnesty like President Reagan or President Obama did.  Until then, they remain political pawns and will continue to live their life like anyone else on the run. But until then, that's a lot of hoping, wishing, and stress to go along with those "maybes" and "perhaps".

We've all seen those signs which read "No Human is illegal". It seems they're always at every pro-amnesty or pro-migration protest. While it's true that "no person is illegal", on occasion their actions are. That's why we have laws and a judicial system to enforce those laws.

The countries from where many of these migrants embark from, be they in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East, all have similar immigration laws. just like the United States does. The main difference is that the punishment for breaking their migration laws often far more severe than ours, and yet why does no one complains or speaks out against those?

Nations have defined borders and the right to regulate who crosses those borders. It's one of the cornerstones to national sovereignty which have existed for over five millennia, but today there are those who would deny us that right.  Why should we not have that same right of national sovereignty as any other country? Why should other nations be allow to have borders and laws to enforce those borders but America's be porous?

Europe is prime example of what happens when countries fail to secure their border. The EU has a "open border" policy which allows anyone from anywhere in enter their country regardless of any other factor. As a result, they are being overwhelmed by migrants from the Middle East and Africa. Most are young, male, poorly educated, and Muslim. The result has been a serious clash of cultures.

Many of these individuals are under the false impression that they are "entitled" to practically everything; that the state has to provide them with whatever they want. As a result many have become a serious drain on the nation's safety net. There have been numerous clashes over culture traditions, and values which has its basis in Christianity and the Enlightenment. Crime has also become as serious matter with assaults, rapes, and robberies leading the way.

Meanwhile, oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait  have seen virtually none of these migrants despite sharing similar traditions, values, culture, and language as many of these migrants. They even share the same faith--- Islam.

Saudi Arabia alone has enough tents with air condition to house and support three million migrants, and yet they remain empty. So, why aren't these millions of migrants from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Africa not going there?

For one, these Arab nations have strong border security. Anyone illegally crossing their borders are dealt with severely. They also have very restrictive immigration laws. While they do allow individuals to apply to come and work there, long term settlement is very rare.

In addition, these countries are highly selective in who they award temporary work permits to, preferring individuals with good educations and no criminal records, and while they have a very liberal social safety net, they actually expect people to follow the law and work. Imagine that!  As a result, Europe is getting the dregs I suppose.

The U.S. may be facing a similar situation. Very few of those seeking to come illegally aren't well education. The overwhelming majority have a minimum education. Many have little about a basic level. In addition, most of these individuals are low skilled or unskilled. They're coming for any low level job they can find, which is unfortunate since it perpetuates the poverty they're trying to get away from.

In today's high tech world where companies (and employees) compete on a global basis, what the United States desperately needs are doctors and nurses, engineers, data scientists, software developers, and AI specialists. There is, however, a demand for skilled and licensed electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC specialists, data systems service technicians, and carpenters thanks to the closure of trade and technical schools several years ago.  

So, what does that mean for us? While most of the illegal immigration is coming from Latin America, there are strong indications that we're beginning to see more coming from Asia (especially China and North Korea), India and Ski Lanka, the poorest of the African nations such as Somalia, the Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone, as well as the Middle East, particularly Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

Among this latter group, there has been several arrest by Mexican authorities of individuals with connections to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and ISIS. These individuals were caught while trying to blend in with the migrant caravans. While there's no doubt that there are likely terrorist cells already here, what we don't need are more.

Presidents, Congress, and others of both parties have been promising the American taxpayer for decades that they will "do something" to secure our borders, especially our southern border which is a porous as Swiss cheese.  Thus far, whether you like him or not, only one--- Donald Trump----actually made a serious effort, and he meet with unbridled resistance from both political parties, the media, and financed special interest groups with a vested interest in keeping the border open.

We cannot continue to allow our borders to remain open. Not only are these serious national security issues, they represent a serious threat in the form of diseases we're no longer vaccinated again and viruses like COVID, while the influx also puts as serious strain on our national safety net just as in Europe. And while we need to fill low level jobs, what we seriously need are engineers, doctors, and high tech specialists. Anything less, will only continue hasten America's decline as a world leader.  

Finally, no more "anchor babies". To many women have used their pregnancies and the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment as a way to circumvent immigration laws to remain in the United States. The 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was never intended to be use in that way. It was intended to confer citizenship on all former slaves. Currently, any child born on U.S. soil automatically gains birthright citizenship. That right extends to the child's parents as well.  

In the interim, the United States needs to accept responsibility for its part in creating the situation in the first place.  We need to stop trying to remake other nations over in our own image. Not everybody wants to be America when it grows up. Hell, given our broken political system, even we don't even want to be America anymore!

 We need to stop throwing our political, economic, and military weight around and intervening in other countries elections. That also includes imposing sanctions and embargoes. If they want to freely elect a socialist, republican, or whatever form of government, that's their business not ours (as an aside, let's stop installing Far Right wing military juntas too okay?). Why don't we act like a world leader and come to a civil solution?

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

A few countries take responsibility for most of the world's refugees

US to reopen border crossings as illegal immigration drops

 

Migrant crisis explained: What's behind the border surge

CFR: Ten Graphics That Explain the U.S. Struggle WithMigrant Flows in 2022

Anchor Babies

What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why do they Exist?

Saudi Arabia Has Enough Tents With AC To House 3 MillionPeople, And Yet Has Taken In ZERO Refugees

Where Did Christmas Come From? Constantine and the Origins of Christmas

 December 25th...Christmas! The day boys and girls the world over most look forward to. It's a time of celebration, of gatherings, of specially prepared foods, decorated trees, and, of course, of presents! There are often special events like parades, the occasional carolers, theme related plays, movies, and television programs (and let's not forget football games too!). 

Of course, it's also the day when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, the centerpiece of their religion and immovable cornerstone of their faith. But did you know that December 25th was more or less randomly chosen?

Although its core was centered in Roman occupied Judea and the Galilee (today's Israel), it's primary areas of growth were the far reaches of the Roman Empire, thanks primarily to the missionary efforts of Paul of Tarsus, along with others, who operated principally in Greece, Western Turkey, Syria, and, of course, Rome itself.

The early Christian movement was essentially a messianic Jewish sect, one of many at the time, and came about during a particularly tremulous period of simmering political and social tension as conquered peoples throughout the empire struggled under the yoke of Roman occupation.

Christianity, thus, incorporated fragments of other religions and philosophies; most notably Greco-Roman, which was dominate at the time, as were the teachings of the Jewish sage, Hillel. As such, it shares similarities with other sects like the cult of the Egyptian goddess Isis and the cult of Mithras, which was especially popular among the military class, as was the cult of the sun --- Sol Invictus, also associated with Mithras (collectively these were known as "mystery cults).

Not long after the execution of Jesus in around the Year 33, Judaism in all its forms underwent a profound change when Rome, tired of constant revolts and rebellion, sacked Jerusalem and leveled the Temple complex, and in doing so, destroyed the priestly caste.

This new messianic sect, however, survived thanks in part to their wide dispersal around the empire. However, their survival was a mixed blessing. While they avoided the fate of Sadducees and Pharisees (and perhaps the Essenes), their refusal to acknowledge the divine sovereignty of the emperor, made them a "enemy of the state" for which they would pay a very high price.

They were often harassed or persecuted. They paid additional taxes, they constantly faced possible arrest and imprisonment, or were sold as slaves. Some emperors went so far as to include them as part of the "entertainment" for the Coliseum games, which literally included "feeding them to the lions" (and the tigers and bears...oh my!).

Emperor Nero was known to have them tied to poles, doused with oil and lit them on fire, thus serving as human candles during his nightly parties. Nevertheless, the sect continued to grow, albeit in secret. Meetings were held in secret in people's homes, forests, or in caves and catacombs among the dead.

Finally, in 312 AD, there came Constantine (later known as "Constantine the Great)  and everything changed. Around October 28, 312, then General Constantine was engaged in a battle with Maxentius, the son of the dead Emperor Maximinus and heir apparent, over the control of the empire. It was another of Rome's infamous civil wars signifying a dying empire.  The battle was at the Milvian Bridge (now Ponte Milvio), which spanned the Tiber River, and it would decide the fate of Rome. 

While the troop strength was roughly equal, the odds seemed to favor Maxentius as some of the leading generals, such as Severus, the co-ruler of the empire, defected to Maxentius. Maxentius also had the support of the Rome's senate However, Constantine had the support of Galerius, the emperor of the eastern portion of the empire. So, what happened?

The story that's come down from history is almost assuredly exaggerated, if not just a myth. It says that on the evening before the decisive battle, Constantine, turned his attention to the heavens and begged for divine support (or at least a sign). Accordingly, it was said that he saw a celestial cross in the sky and heard a voice whisper to him "in this sign you shall conquer".

Other stories have this as a dream and still others say that he was looking at the setting sun the day before the battle and saw a cross (this is often called a "sun halo" or a "sun dog"). Also, instead of hearing a voice saying "in this sign....", the voice said "through this sign you shall conquer". Did any of it really happen? Maybe. He did, no doubt, know that many of his officers and soldiers were secretly Christian and he desperately needed their support. Thus, it was said that he ordered a cross to be painted on all the shields, and if he won, he would convert to this new religion.

It's worth noting too that the cross was not then commonly associated with Jesus or Christianity, nor was it a particularly good omen since crucifixion  was still in use.  The more commonly accepted symbol for Christians was the fish (or ichthus). It should be mentioned that at this time Constantine wasn't a Christian. He was a follower of the Sol Invictus---the Invincible Sun.

But regardless of what Constantine saw or heard, he was victorious. Most of Maxentius' men fled. Maxentius drowned in the Tiber River, brought down by his heavy armor as he fell off his horse and into the swift river trying to flee with his troops.  Assuming the sign as being responsible for his victory, all persecution of Christians stopped. Christianity now became the defacto official religion of Rome, which he made official with the signing of the Edict of Milan in 313, just one year after his victory.

The new emperor immediately set about instituting massive reforms throughout the empire. Everything was reorganizing the government, fiscal and other economic reforms, and changes in the military.  However, Constantine is perhaps best known for his organization and consolation of Christianity. 

In 314, Emperor Constantine summoned a council of key Christian leaders or "bishops" to Arles in Gaul (modern southern France). Technically, the meeting was to address the Donatists, a growing Christian sect based in Carthage (Rome's old enemy) and largely outside the control of Constantine. Their intent was to basically destroy this so-called "splinter" group before a irreparable schism could divide the emerging faith. However, the meeting was also to test Constantine's control over the bishops as well as establish precedent in dealing with other "heretical" sects (most notably the Arian and Gnostics).

A few years later, in 325, came the best known and most significant of the meetings, the Council of Nicaea.  This meeting set about formally hammering out Christian doctrine, the organization of the church (which was loosely modeled on the Roman military), deciding on which biblical texts were "canon" and which weren't (and what parts of various texts were to be deleted or changed).

As an aside, Constantine declared the Sabbath would no longer be Friday/Saturday. The Sabbath would now be Sunday in honor of Sol Invictus and would applied to all religions per his decree on March 7, 321.As Christianity grew in popularity, it eventually replaced the other religions and Sunday became its own.  

The Council of Nicaea also sought to clarify the nature of Jesus and establish whether he was divine, semi-divine, or simply an enlightened moral. They also dealt with other issues such as his birth (and thus Mary and her relationship vis-a-vis Jesus), his siblings, Joseph, God, and, of course, the various apostles, the role of women, the nature of sin, and so forth. The human Jesus was to be replaced by the immortal Christ as one of the delegates (an Arian) stated.

Needless to say, those present were not just the best and brightest in Christendom present, but the best and brightest throughout the empire. There was a great deal of disagreement among these distinguished individuals (okay, even some heated yelling matches, shoving, and even a fistfight between St. Nicholas--aka "Santa Claus"--and St. Arius). In the end, the Council of Nicaea laid the foundation for Christianity as an institution and created the core statement of faith known as the "Nicene Creed" (the "Apostle's Creed" would later evolve out of it).

So what does all this have to do with Christmas? Just this. The Council of Nicaea, under the direction of Emperor Constantine, set forth the two central events for all Christians---Easter and Christmas. Easter, which symbolizes the belief in the resurrection of Jesus following his execution, as well as the nature and date of his birth. So, if you ever wanted to know when Christmas (or "Christ Mass") first started, this is it!  

At the time of Nicaea, there were several differing Christian sects. Each had its own religious texts and traditions, which could vary widely. Some had certain books or texts than others didn't which included various stories about Jesus. For instance, some included stories of his birth. Some didn't. A few, but not all, mentioned his brothers and sisters.  Some detailed more of his teachings. Others didn't, and so forth.

 As an aside, the teaching of many of these "non-canonical" or unapproved texts would later be ordered to be discontinued while others were edited or considered as "apocryphal" and "pseudo-apocryphal" books. And yet other texts would be seized and destroyed. In fact, many of the smaller Gnostic sects would be burned as "heretics" along with their books. As a result, many of these sects hide or buried their sacred texts until, hopefully, safer times arrived.

Many of these early Christian sects which had a birth narrative that assumed Jesus was born in the Spring based on lines  like "tending flocks in the field". Thus, March 28th was generally accepted as his birthday or at least, nativity. However, if Christianity was to be the "official" state religion, Constantine would still need to contend with the very popular pagan cults of Isis, Mithras, and Sol Invictus.

The three pagan cults held that the winter and spring solstices were the most sacred (in fact, most pagan religions in general still hold these as sacred). Therefore, Constantine decided these should be merged and celebrated as a way to bring the four religions together (besides, as a follower of Sol Invictus, Constantine, was well aware that the "birthday" of Sol (the sun) was December 25th, the Winter Solstice).

The Spring Solstice, which was celebrated a symbol of the nature's rebirth and fertility, fell conveniently in line to be the date of the resurrection. It was also close to the Jewish day of Passover, which was mentioned in the majority of various Christian texts pertaining to the crucifixion. Other events could (and eventually were) incorporated around these two central pillars of Christianity.  Thus, Constantine brought the four main religions of the Rome Empire together, which he hoped would ease some of the mistrust and competition between them.

Note too that "Christmas" was, strictly speaking, a solemn day of worship. It simply meant "Christ Mass" or Mass of/for Christ". There was no tree or gift giving. The evergreen tree was incorporated from ancient Germanic pagan practices and first introduced in the 1500's. Legend holds that religious reformer (and one of my ancestors), Martin Luther, first placed candles on the trees after a walk in the forest where he saw stars peering through the limbs of snow covered evergreen trees.

The notion of gift giving dates back to ancient Celtic, Germanic, and Roman practices during the winter solstice celebrations. Typically these were inexpensive items such as combs, yarn, and flint. Expensive objects were actually frowned upon. It was believed that simple and practical were in keeping with the spirit of the season. By the late 300s, converted Christians had carried over the practice into their new found faith, which was supported by the gifts brought from the east by the three Magi.

As for Constantine himself and whether he kept his promise to convert to the new religion of Christianity which had secured his victory, that's a matter of debate. Some historians and theologians say that he did immediately after his victory. Others say it was while he was on his deathbed that he fulfilled his promise, and then there are those who say that his "conversion" occurred  shortly after his passing since apparently the bishops attending him could do such things. Regardless, Christmas...and Christianity...all began with Emperor Constantine.  

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

Christmas

Sol Invictus

Mithraism

Paul And The Greco-Roman Mystery Cults

The Jewish--Roman War

Constantine the Great and Christianity

The First Council of Nicaea

Apocrypha

 

New Testament Apocrypha

History of Christianity

Origins of Christianity

History of Christmas Trees

Why do we give gifts at Christmas?

.

 

 

 

The Changing Face of America: The New Demographics

America is changing. Rapidly. When the Pilgrims first celebrated what we now call "Thanksgiving" in 1623, the land was populated by indigenous people. The Pilgrims were just a tiny handful of English settlers. Further to the south there were small Spanish settlements, but that was about it. The French and Dutch were just starting to eye this "New World" for a piece of the pie. By 1800, America as it was now known had grown in size and population, but it was still mostly Western Europeans along with African slaves who had been brought over by English, Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, and Spanish explorers and traders.

By the turn of the 20th Century, the native population had been mostly killed off or confined to "reservations". So much for "civilization". America was overwhelming European; 98% by most estimates. They came from everywhere. There was a growing but still small population of Asians (mainly from China) and Hispanics, plus a burgeoning black population. By the start of WWII in 1939, America remained a dominant "European" country. By the 1950's, America represented nearly every population on the planet. By the 1970's all this began to change.

Birth rates among whites began dropping off following the end of WWII in 1945. Meanwhile the black population continued to grow along with rising Hispanic and Asian populations. However, the overall demographics of the country largely remained intact, but for those watching the trends, the eventual outcome was obvious. America would, within half a century or so, cease to be a predominantly European based nation, and with it perhaps begin losing its Western appearance.

Whites would still dominate but as their numbers declined they would reach a point where they were simply a large minority whose political, social, and economic influence wouldn't be as it once was. Most estimates put the tipping point around 2050. However, those estimates didn't anticipate the mass influx coming illegally or the infusion from developing or second tier nations.

It didn't take into consideration either the invasion and collapse of Europe by so-called "migrants" from Africa and the Middle East (many not coming from war impacted countries), nor did it consider the potential conflicts the diversity of religions and ethnic groups with differing values and traditions would bring. Perhaps the most damning factor was that America had previously been a "melting pot" nation, where each immigrant brought their own experiences and values and added to everyone else's with the goal of becoming an integrated "American" and all that entailed.

It now appears that the estimated tipping point of 2050 was too optimistic. According to recent data, the tipping point may be closer to 2035...if not sooner, at least in terms of politics. For instance, while Hispanics have been the largest minority in terms of numbers, having surpassing blacks years before, blacks have outvoted Hispanics. However, it appears that Hispanics may now, for the first time ever, show up in larger numbers than blacks starting in 2020; 13.3% to 12.5% registration. Not that the impact will be all that different since both blacks and Hispanics tend to register and vote Democrat.
What may be most affected, however, are the issues since Hispanics will vote issues which most impact them, specifically on matters of immigration. Several states (most notably California and the western states) already have large Hispanic minorities or even majorities in some cities and towns. Many mostly "red" or Republican states among them. An increase in number could swing those states back to the blue column.

Another factor was the increase in immigration from Asia, principally Chinese. This has resulted in a major increase in Asian communities not just in places especially along the upper West Coast into places like Northern California, Oregon, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia Canada where they are having the same impact as Hispanics are elsewhere. Again, like Hispanics and blacks, Asians tend to vote Democrat although as a group, they have increasingly registered as Independent.

Also, beginning in the 1960's, immigrants, legal or otherwise, were encouraged to keep their own identity; their own language, culture and values. Instead, we would find ways to adapt to them in order to make them feel more "comfortable" in their new homeland. The result was the creation of a multicultural nation rather than a integrated "melting pot", thus planting the seeds of a potential balkanized American future. Another factor, an ageing population, became a new issue.

Babyboomers, who range in age from 55 to 73, are no longer the largest segment of voters. Millennials are, and they lean mostly Left or even Far Left (much has already been written on their strong support of democratic socialism). As an aside, in a recent survey, Millennials, ages 23 to 38, were asked why they didn't support Hillary Clinton. Their answer? She wasn't socially liberal enough!

However, it's Generation Z, the follow up to the Millennials, who are the ones to watch. They are the most racially diverse of the cohorts, and likely to be one of the best educated (Millennials now hold that title). Nearly half--48%---are racial (including mixed race) or ethnic minorities. They are more likely to come from homes with single parents. They are also more likely than not to come from homes which have experienced some form of poverty and the least likely to own a home (many having been homeless at some point in their lives).

While most Millennials are college educated and earning record incomes, many describe themselves as "poor" due to crushing debt (college); many still live at home with their parents or grandparents. Gen Z, on the other hand, perhaps taking a cue from their elders, are concentrating on the low debt/high pay trade and craft jobs; many of which have critical shortages What's most interesting is that socially and politically, they lean further Left than their older siblings. If that trends holds, we will see two generations track to Left or even the Far Left, not including, of course, the remnants of the Silents, Babyboomers or Gen X.

In terms of voter registration, things are changing there too. Currently the largest political bloc are Independents, with approximately 38% followed by Democrats with 30% and the GOP bringing up the rear. Women tend to be the single largest bloc for the Democrats (mainly due to social issues) with 56% compared to 44% of men; white evangelicals make up the core of Republicans. While the majority of Silents, Babyboomers, and Generation X have clung to their partisan labels, Millennials have eschewed being labeled. Instead, they have opted to register as Independents by and large. The same to be holding true for Gen Z thus far.

Nevertheless,71% of Millennials, regardless of their political registrations, say they would prefer a third party (including an Independent) over either the GOP or Democratic parties. Broken down by race and gender, 80% of whites, 71% of Asians, 67% of Latino, and 65% of black males said they are over the two corporate owned parties. Meanwhile,73% of black females agreed along with 70% of white, 67% of Asian, and 61% of Latina women.

So, where does this leave us? In short, it means that the country most of us grew up with is fading rapidly. White voters are still expected to cast 74% of the ballots in 2020 with Hispanics, Asians, and black making up the remaining 25%, but that's down from the previous years. Going forward, that percentage will continue to decline as the number of minorities, particularly Hispanics and Asians, increase.

How much does this really matter? In terms of the overall complexion of America, not much. The two cohorts--the Millennials and Gen Z---will be increasingly comprised of minority races and mixed parentages. I guess that in that sense, America will remain a "melting pot". Historically speaking, today's Italians are not the same ancient Romans, nor are modern Greeks the same as their illustrious ancestors and neither are the Insular Celts of the UK. Time marches on, and so do people. In terms of the direction America will take, it matters a great deal.

In terms of age, the white population will have grayed due to the fact they had fewer replacement children going back to post WWII. The majority of young adults will be Hispanic or Asian while the black population will remain steady at around 13%. The largest population growth will be from immigrants. In fact, most Americans will be either immigrants themselves or the children or grandchildren of immigrants.

In 2018, 15% of Americans were 65 years old or older. By 2050, 1/5 of the population will be at least 65. Many will be disabled or in need of continual medical care. Currently there is about 33 workers for every American 85 years old and up. By 2050, there will be 13 workers for every America 85 and older. That will likely mean that taxes will dramatically increase to cover the costs while the overall level of care decreases.

Another factor to consider is the continuing decrease of the Mainstream Christian churches. Those churches which remain will likely be more mixed racially. Among Protestants, the Baptist church will be the strongest. Meanwhile, traditional Roman Catholic churches catering to the Hispanic community will thrive. We will also see an increase in mosques thanks to the increase in immigrants from Muslim countries and tendency to have large families. There will also be in increase in Buddhist and Hindu temples as well. But overall, most Americans will be secular or at least hold non-traditional beliefs.

From a political perspective, white evangelicals will remain central to the GOP while white Christians will become a small minority in the Democratic party, with most of its members will be secular or belonging to other religions.

Politically I think America will be very different. Some estimates show as many as 20 states will have majority non-white populations with perhaps another dozen or so have substantial minorities. Among these are the electoral rich states of California, New York, Illinois, Texas and Florida. If the present trends continue, Democrats could emerge as the defacto national party. Of course, the Democratic Party may be quite different from the one we currently have.

Millennials and Gen Z have repeatedly stated that the Democratic Party isn't liberal enough. Both show a strong support for some form of socialism. Also bear in mind that both groups strongly support a new third party and/or support for Independents (indeed, many are already registered as Independent and nationally, both parties are hemorrhaging members). Therefore, there may be some other political party or movement in place of either corporate controlled party. Who knows? Perhaps by 2050 the two demonian parties might the Greens and Libertarians!

As for the Republicans, they will have to either adopt a much more moderate or liberal attitude such as they had in Rockefeller Era or accept becoming a largely regional or local political party. Rigid conservatives and the Far Right will likely find themselves on the fringes and excluded from power.

As with most changes, especially of the type I've discussed, we can expect conflict across numerous lines, be it socially, economically (current data also indicates a much wider gulf between the working poor/chronic poor and the uber-wealthy), political, racial, immigrant versus citizen, rural versus urban, or along religious lines (especially if Muslim extremists attempt to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims along with their historical conflicts with Hindus and Buddhists as they have in other countries).

Come Thanksgiving in 2050, America and indeed the world will be as different to us as the one the Pilgrims celebrated in 1623 and world they left behind. America will no longer be a nation with either a racial or cultural majority. There will be larger populations of other religions than we've ever experienced before as a country. We will likely have two or even three primary languages. To survive as a nation, we will have to focus more than ever on what unites us or face internal conflict and the breakup of the United States.



6 demographic trends shaping the U.S. and world in 2019


Trends in Party Affiliation Among Demographic Groups

Millennial Poll: Strong majority want a third political party

America: This Is Your Future

America's Changing Religious Identity

Merging Religion and Politics or Stop Letting Your Dogma Chase My Karma

"Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains." (Mark 13: 6-8). This passage is from the Christian New Testament. Most would consider it to be a dark and foreboding passage, while others---the "true believers"---consider it a warning with an ultimately happy ending...of sorts. It's about the so-called "End Times" which is a popular theme among the three Abrahamic religions; namely Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Groups like ISIS/ISIL/DASH, Al-Qaeda, Boku Harem, and other such terrorist organizations openly proclaim that it is their "divine mission" to provoke not just the West, but any and all nation which isn't under Sharia law in order to "hasten" the coming of the 12th Iman, which is their equivalent of the Messiah. Some even claim that that individual already exists but is waiting for the right moment to appear. This individual will be seen as the Prophet Muhammad reborn. Along with him will come Jesus, who is seen as a lesser prophet, whose job is to convert all non-believing Christians. After their successful victory, there will be a divinely inspired Caliphate to rule the world for eternity.

In Judaism, they await the coming of their two (or three) messiahs. Specifically, a return of the ancient prophet Elijah who will precede the Messiah ben Joseph, who is sometimes called Messiah ben Ephraim. This individual will be followed by the long awaited Messiah ben David. However, before any of these individuals can appear, certain conditions must first be meet. First, the Jews must return to their ancient homeland, Israel. Next, they must rebuild their ancient temple (for the third time) and reestablish the priesthood, both of which were destroyed by the Roman in 70 CE under the command of future emperor, Titus. Of course, there are numerous sub-plots which have to take place such as a great persecution of the Jews, the birth of "pure" white bull (that is, one without any physical flaws or marks) and so forth.

Ben Joseph will do battle with an evil ruler from the North named "Armilus", who is born of "a woman of marble" in Rome, will ultimately kill ben Joseph and leave his body in the streets of Jerusalem. Armilus and his minions will then descend on the nation of Israel and will be defeated by its new leader, ben David. Ben Joseph is brought back to life, along with all the "devout" Jews who've died down through the centuries, thanks to Elijah, along the world and its "true believers" will enter a new "Messianic Age", said to last 1000 years.

Christians have a different take, however. They believe that Jesus, their messiah, will return after the rise of two really nasty and evilly possessed individuals, the "Anti-Christ" and the "False Prophet" (some interpretations claim they are actually one individual). The "Anti-Christ" will come to power over a reconstituted Roman Empire with the "False Prophet" acting as his PR man. Together, they will seduce the world and force everyone to accept his personal brand or stamp---666---or the "Mark of the Beast". Those that refuse will be unable to conduit any financial transactions, buy food, etc. As an aside, the number is sometimes written as "616". Either way, it was intended to be symbolic of the then current reigning emperor, Nero Caesar.

A some point, Christians will be singled out for persecution (some Christian theologians claim this will include Jews as well). Meanwhile, things will go to "hell in a hand-basket". There will be all sorts of natural (or not-so-natural) disasters like in increase in volcanic eruptions, extreme changes in the weather and earthquakes, rampant diseases, starvation, and, as alluded to in the opening paragraph, wars and rumors of war. Eventually, Israel will be left standing alone with small pockets of Christian "true believers", and just when it looks like all is hopelessly lost, the dark and ominous clouds (these seem to be required in any apocalyptic story) will open and Jesus will coming riding down on his white horse (naturally) surrounded by an army of angels. A horrific battle in the heavens between the demon armies of Satan and Jesus and those on the ground will ensure; centering in a valley called Megiddo (hence the term Armageddon).

Ultimately, the Anti-Christ and his PR guy, the "False Prophet", are defeated, bound, and thrown into a lake (or pit) of fire for a 1000 years along with any remaining demons; his evil earthly minions follow him into the pit shortly afterwards. Meanwhile, any non-believing Jews remaining will convert on the spot, and a new divinely led or inspired era will ensue; one which includes a "New Jerusalem" and a divine kingship.

Now, I admit that I've given the abbreviated version of events. To spell out the apocalyptic visions of all three of the Abrahamic faiths in detail would take way to long: there are literally dozens of texts which deal with each religion, and hundreds of additional books examining each point, not to mention the dozens of books excluded from officially sanctioned scripture. However, I wanted to point out the difference and similarities of each of the three religions, which share a common origin, starting with their mutual founder, Abraham, who is credited with being the literal father of Judaism and Islam through Sarah and their son Issac and Hagar and Ishmael respectively.

All three believe there will be mounting violence and destruction. Some of it will be natural, while parts will be either divine retribution for straying from the "righteous path", while some demonic power reins over the balance of it in the form of wars, disease, pestilence, and their derivatives such as famine, a lack of fresh water, toxic pollution, and so forth. In the case of Islam, they believe they must act to help bring about the arrival of the 12th Iman, which includes destroying all those who are non-believers.

Judaism, on the other hand, believes it has a divine right to restore its former glory, especially the restoration of its temple complex on its original site and priesthood. The only problem, however, is that the site of the original temple is now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which were built between 692-693 by the Umayyad Caliph, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, which was about 55 years after the capture of Jerusalem by the invading Muslim armies. As an aside, some Islamic scholars believe that al Malik purposely built the site as an alternative hajj (a mandatory religious pilgrimage) to Mecca and its "Ka'bah", considered the most sacred structure in Islam, since at the time Mecca was under the control of competing sect led by an individual named Ibn al-Zubayi.

Nevertheless, many Jewish theologians and scholars hold that the temple complex must be completed for restoration of Israel's former glory (some scholars don't believe in a literal return, but more of a "Messianic Age" or a second "golden age" for Israel. However, they also recognize that to do so meaning removing---likely by force--the existing mosque, which will be like throwing a firecracker into a hornet's nest.

Christians tied their end-of-days story closely to the Jewish tale, with an obviously emphasis on themselves as previously described. They believe pretty much everything that the Jews do, except they are the intended victims, or at least as much as the Jews are. Their biggest difference is that their messiah returns a second time, from heaven, while the Jews believe theirs will come for the first time, and will be divinely inspired, but not a god or demigod; just a purely mortal human being.

What's interesting about all three interpretations is that for each, the other one's "messiah" is their demonic bad guy. So, for the Muslims, the Jewish reborn Elijah and Messiahs ben Joseph and ben David, are the "Spawns of the Devil". Jesus is actually a Muslim and a sidekick to the 12th Iman. His role is to convert or destroy non-believing Christians. Meanwhile, the 12th Iman and his forces are the evildoers of Judaism and Christianity. Now the really scary part of all this is that each believe with absolutely certainty that they are correct; there is no debate and definitely no questioning. This means that each is on a deliberate path to mutual self-destruction in order to see their particular vision come to pass.

An interesting side note to all is that is that neither Buddhism, Hinduism, nor Shintoism and any of the Shamanic religions contain this type of doomsday scenario, which is at the core of the three Abrahamic faiths. For the Buddhists, it's more of a natural, cosmic event. Think of it as the Big Bang in reverse followed by a simultaneous new Big Bang and the cycle of creation repeats. In Hinduism, which also follows a cyclical philosophy, the god Vishu returns in the final comic cycle (known as a "kalpus") as the god or avatar "Kulki", on a white horse carrying a flaming sword resembling a comet with a long tail, and destroys the forces of evil which has come to destroy all those seeking enlightenment. Interestingly, this final, fourth, cycle is known as the "Kali Yuga", which so happens to be our present one. Once this destruction takes place, the cycle of creation repeats.

The majority of shamanic or "natural" religions such as Wicca, paganism, Native American, Tengri, and so forth, all have their take on how things end, but they tend to believe that Mankind in general is blame, not any specific individual or entity is the cause. Mankind loses its connection to the Earth and to Nature. As a result, we destroy ourselves out of our own willful ignorance, arrogance, and old fashion greed. In a sense, Nature fights back to rid itself of what is "making it sick" as some of these religions believe. The Mayans predicted that we will (and have) enter a final cycle whereby there will be great change. However, it will not make an "end" has some have tried to predict. Just the end of one cycle and the beginning of another, and with all ends and new beginnings, there is change, often major change. It reminds me of a line from Frank Herbert's novel Dune in describing religion and politics, "the religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows".

So, just what does all of this have to do with politics? Actually a lot. There was time, not very long ago historically, where religion and politics were one in the same; different sides of the same coin. In some societies, such as exist in Islam, it still is. However, there seems to be a unconscious belief in the other two Abrahamic religions which hasn't fully divorced itself from the political secular and the private religious. At the same time, the native or natural religions may be on to something. We have, as a species, lost our way. Violence has dramatically increased, especially over matters of religion. Instead of allowing each other the right to believe or not believe as we decide, we're seeing an dramatic increase by some that all must comply or die.

That's wrong any way you look at it in my opinion. Whatever choice we make is ours and ours alone. If there is a Hereafter or some Divine Justice, then that's between us as individuals and that entity, not some person who claims to know the Divine Mind and what's best for us. It was just a few weeks ago that two Scandinavians girls were murdered; beheaded by a group of "men" who thought that by lobbing off the heads of these two innocent girls, they were appeasing their god! Throughout Europe, and increasingly in the US, Australia, and elsewhere, we see the same group demanding that all must "submit" or face death (of course, if we pay a tax and forfeit our natural rights, we get to live at their discretion). That ideology is fundamentally opposed to both Western and Eastern Thought. It seeks to deny us as individuals the right of free choice. It imposes a tyranny which is nothing less than enslavement.

However, every religion, philosophy, government, or political ideology which attempts to prohibit independent thought, the questioning of its so-called "authority", or our blind obedience to it is nothing less enslavement by other means. This "disease"--- for lack of a better term---is spreading across the world like one of those apocalyptic black clouds. If it's allowed to go unchecked, it will lead to either the shackling of the Human Spirit or to its destruction. Ultimately, we are our own deliverers; our own "messiahs". We are the ones who've fashioned the shackles and we are the ones who have the keys to unlock those shackles and our potential as a species. We can have faith, but it will be us as individuals and together, who must save Humanity.



Dome of the Rock Shrine

Buddhist Theories About the End of the World

Hindu Eschatology

Apocalypse Prophecies: Native End of the World Teachings

A Prelude to War?

On April 6th, the US fired 59 "Tomahawk" cruise missiles at a cost of some $1.5 million dollars each at the Syrian Al Shayrat air force base located in Homs. The US and Western corporate media claimed there was extensive damage to the base, with between 23 and 26 top line fighters destroyed as well as damage to the runways, maintenance and storage outbuildings and hangers. The Syrian and Russian media outlets, however, reported that the damage was minimal, with only six planes destroyed and four suffering minor damage. A few of the reinforced dual hangers suffered some damage but remained functional. They confirmed that several of the outlining maintenance and storage buildings hit, resulting in significant damage, however none of fuel or weapons storage facilities were affected while the runways were undamaged. As proof, Russian and Syrian media showed footage of the base. In addition they reported that six individuals were killed and about a dozen were injured in the attack. As if to reemphasis the point, the following day, Syrian jets took off from the base's air strip. The Al Shayrat base is home to the Syrian 50th Air Brigade which is comprised of the 675th, 677th, and the 685th fighter squadrons (the 675th is made up of the MIG-23 "Flogger" while the other two are comprised of Sukhoi SU-22Fs). Russia's 120th Artillery Brigade is stationed there along with approximately ten "Hind" attack helicopters.

What prompted the US attack is a matter of some conjecture. Approximately two days earlier, fighter jets from the Al Shayrat base took off with instructions to knock out a rebel stronghold in the rebel controlled city of Khan Sheikhun, in the Idlib Provence, which allegedly contained a warehouse of various weapons, rockets, ammunition, and artillery shells. The Syrian jets successfully hit their objective and removed it as threat to Syrian government forces and the surrounding pro-Assad population. Shortly afterwards, came the first reports of a nerve gas cloud. Now, this is where things get a little murky, but first, let's explain who these rebels are. As everyone knows or should know by now, the US and a handful of Western nations have been battling Islamic extremist aka "the terrorists" in Iraq, Afghanistan . These terrorists are known variously as ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, and so forth. In Syria, they are known as the Al Nusra Front. These are the same groups which were involved with the attacks on 9/11, and numerous other attacks in France, England, Germany, Russia, and most recently in Sweden.

However, Al Nusra opposes President Assad of Syria. Their goal, as always, is to create a Islamic Caliphate of the extremist variety. Syria, which has been generally pro-Western and secular since the end of World War I, has been a long time regional ally of Russia, and recently, chummy with China (Russia and China are also on friendly terms with Iran, while Iran funds and arms their proxy terrorist organizations, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza). Since the US would like to isolate Russia in the Middle East, we have tried to destabilize the Assad Government whenever and wherever possible. The current civil war, has proven to be an excellent opportunity. However, in order to do so, we have had to ally ourselves with the rebel opposing Assad; and yes, they are the very same people we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and has been attacking the West is now our buddies in Syria. Amazingly stupid if you ask me.

Shortly after the recent attack, there was reports of what appeared to be a sarin gas cloud. News footage seemed to confirm that there had indeed been a release of the highly toxic never agent. Horrific scenes of dead and dying women, men, and children, along with brave attempts to save those still alive was broadcasted around the world. Condemnation from throughout the world was loud and swift. The only problem, however, was who did it? The US was the first nation to point the finger at Assad's government. It claimed that their intelligence reports "confirm" that the Syrian jets had dropped the sarin gas in a blatant disregard of international law or even basic respect for humanity. Based on the claims of the US Government, other nations joined in their condemnation of Assad.

However, there was a problem with this claim by the Trump Administration. Both Russia and the Syrian governments maintained that the Syrian military does not have any chemical weapons. They claim that the rebel warehouse must have stored the toxic agent and was released by the bombing, which is why there was such a limited exposure. Several years ago there was a similar incident in Syria where there was a sarin gas attack on a small pro-government neighborhood. President Obama, again acting on US military intelligence reports, quickly blamed the Assad Government and began demanding that the US military intervene in Syria's Civil War for "humanitarian" purposes. Both Putin and Assad insisted that the attack, which was made from nearby artillery fire, was the work of the rebels who were assaulting pro-government forces (and losing). Both Assad and Putin also stated that Syrian doesn't have sarin gas. Finally, in a last ditch effort to prevent a US military invasion of its ally, Russia produced satellite imagery and other intelligence reports confirming the Syrian military didn't fire on their own troops and pro-government neighborhood.

So here we go again. Same scenario. Different president. Meanwhile, Russian ships of the Black Sea Fleet are moving into the region. The speed at which Russia is able to move ships into region is another reason for Russia's long standing presence in the Crimea, which is home for the Black Sea Fleet. Additionally, Russia, which has about 9000 military personnel in Syria, is reinforcing its air defense networks in and around its bases while the US is positioning a carrier task force to bolster their resolve. The British and French navies also maintain a strong presence in the Mediterranean , along with other NATO nation countries, including Italy, Greece, and Turkey (which, ironically, had just concluded war games in the Black Sea with the same Russian ships who are now steaming toward the Levant).

President Assad is winning the Civil War, despite US support for the rebels. He has publicly stated that Syria will need to the support of other nations to help rebuild their infrastructure and the economy. President Putin has maintained from the beginning that his goal is to protect his friend and ally, plus remove the terrorist threat not just from the region, but from Russia as well. Russia has the longest unbroken border of any country with majority Muslim countries; many of whom had been former Soviet Republics back in the days of the USSR. However, Russia has faced a growing threat from radical Muslim terrorists since the 1980's, including violent attacks in Moscow and more recently, St. Petersburg, not to mention their war with Chechnyan guerillas in the Republic of Georgia.

As for the rebels, they have repeatedly shown in the alter identity as "terrorists" to have a complete disregard for human life. They have massacred thousands of Christians, Kurds, Yazidis, non-Muslims, gays, not to mention ordinary civilians. They have raped countless women and children and sold untold numbers into sex slavery. Their atrocities have prompted one of the largest mass exoduses in world history; most of which has descended on Europe with trickles coming to the US. Unfortunately, with this mass migration has come terrorist cells intent on spreading their hate and bloodshed. So, why would the US align themselves with the likes of these monsters? The only explanation I can come up with is the same of ole one---control. Control over the oil and gas fields. Control over shipping routes. Strategic control over territory to further helm in Russia. Plus, it could provide a staging area for an invasion, either directly or indirectly, against Iran. It would also separate Iran from Hezbollah and Hamas, which could relieve pressure on Israel and even Egypt and Lebanon. It would also secure Israel's northern border with Syria and end the standoff over the Golan Heights, which was seized in the Six Day War of 1967. In addition, it would prove to be an excellent investment for US and Western business. After all, "someone" has to help with the rebuilding and provide the investment capital right? Why not our friendly neo-fascist Oligarchy?

I think there's a lot of potential for missteps in this game of geo-politics; missteps that the world cannot afford. We need to put aside our outdated Cold War mentality and forget about trying to fight the last war. The world has changed. Old ideas of political ideology belong to the history books. Nowadays, we face a common foe who couldn't care less about Communism or Capitalism. This enemy fights for its religion. Nothing and no one else matters. It sees no different between Moscow, Berlin, Beijing, Paris, Mexico City, Ottawa, London, or Washington DC. The US cannot win this war alone. It needs committed allies. Russia appears to be willing to be that ally, but will the Oligarchy who rules this country let it? Will it allow us?


The Latest: US Calls for Transparency in UN Syrian Summit


Sarin gas used in Syria chemical attack, Turkey's Health Ministry says


U.S. Missile Attack on Syria: What We Know and Don't Know


Worst Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad

The Syrian Equation

It used to be that war was a rather simple affair. In the beginning, someone grabbed a big stick or rock and went swinging at the other person. Over time, it got a bit more complicated. A king or other leader would dispatch some knights and occasionally the king would even join them in battle. Then it got to the point where the leaders would stay behind and direct operations through as a series of decreasingly important leaders until you reached the guys doing the actual fighting. Sometimes these individuals would be sent enmasse against a battery of guns or cannons and hence the term "cannon fodder". Despite the changing tools or tactics of war, usually the goal was the same---beat your enemy to a bloody pulp and break their will to fight.

Of course, the objective was also usually the same; capture land, specific resources or assets on behalf of some powerful and greedy individual or group. At first, that might be a king or council of lords or barons. Nowadays, it's corporate powerbrokers working hand in mailed glove with the government. The masses are usually sold the same story--we're in danger of losing something such as national honor or our perceived freedoms or perhaps some territory (which happens to be controlled by some uber-rich individuals) and so, amid catchy music and waving flags, the masses go off to fight and die for "God and Country", while in truth, someone wants control over an oil or gas field, minerals, fresh water, fertile land, seaport or trade route. Seldom do their children venture off to war to fight, suffer, be maimed, or to die. And that brings me to a situation in the Middle East which potentially could affect all of us. I would argue that it already does.

Syria. An ancient country, known primarily in antiquity as the mighty Assyria; a military and economic powerhouse. It was the home of the oldest population of Christians---the Chaldean Christians who, until recently, had lived in basic peace for the last 2000 years. It was also the Yazidis, a Kurdish people, who one of the oldest ethnic groups in the world; possibly going back to old of the most ancient civilizations, Mesopotamia. Their principal religion, Zoroasterism, pre-dates Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's believed that the concept of cosmic duality---angels and demons---first arose with Zoroasterism. Since 2011, Syria has been engaged in a bloody civil war which, as of now, shows no signs of ending. However, one could argue that Syria's troubles started before then. Some would say it began in 1948 with the creation of Israel, which resulted in five wars initiated by Syria and her regional allies, Jordan, Egypt, plus whoever else wanted a piece of the action. However, none could best Israel and at the end of the Six Day War, Israel had captured Jordan's West Bank including Jerusalem, Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, and Syria's Golan Heights. But, one could equally argue that their troubles began earlier, with the fall and breakup of the Ottoman Empire following its defeat at the end of World War I. The Ottomans were allies of the Triple Entente, which included the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Imperial Germany. After the end of war, France and Britain assumed control of former Ottoman territories and, frankly, created countries based on their own national interests with little or no regard for historical or natural boundaries, tribal or religious ties. They even went further by picking who would run these artificial countries on their behalf (such as Saudi family, the Hashemite Clan in Transjordan---later Jordan, and so forth). Regardless, I don't believe there was one single cause which triggered the present situation in Syria. Nevertheless, there was one incident which could be described as the "spark" which ignited the powder keg which had been accumulating for decades, and that was the Arab Spring.

The Arab Spring was bound to happen, thanks in large part to the social media which interconnect peoples the world over. It also provided them with access to uncensored history and current events, the free exchange of opinions and information and a link to likeminded people throughout the world and a means to organize. As a result, individuals living under some of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East were faced with a people who now had a means to fight back. Of course, no dictatorship ever willingly gives up power. As a result, various nations shipped in weapons and "military advisors", provided "humanitarian" assistance, and air support which included imposed "no fly zones" over an otherwise sovereign nation. While it worked in a few countries, it either fizzled out (or was violently suppressed by security forces) or backfired in others. Syria was one of the "others".

The US and other coalition nations had previously invaded the big bully on the block, Iraq and its "Hitler wannabe", Saddam Hussein, following his invasion of Kuwait, which he claimed a historical right to (in reality, he wanted the oil fields and access to the gulf). Hussein also claimed that the US was previously aware of his intentions and that he had the green light to proceed based on the promise of favorable deals with US and certain oil companies. At first, Hussein thought the US was bluffing in its announced invasion, however, he soon learned better and quickly defeated. Some whispered that this was more about the "liberation" of Kuwaiti oil and royal family than about the people of Kuwait, and they were likely right. A trade embargo was put in place along with national "no fly zone". Then came 9/11 and America's subsequent invasion of Afghanistan to remove Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Then there was the "great lie" about having weapons of mass destruction (nukes) and a second invasion which resulted in the occupation of Iraq (Hussein did have chemical weapons and showed a willingness to use them such as in 1988 when chemical tipped bombs were used on Kurdish villages, resulting in the deaths of at least 100,000 Kurds. He also had used chemical weapons against the Iranians, resulting in several hundred thousand deaths though the actual number may never be known). Throughout this we continued to fight local terrorists (which, ironically, we helped to create, train, and arm years earlier to fight the Russians after they invaded Afghanistan). These groups, which included Al Qaeda, sought to spread a radical form of Islam throughout the region. When this proved unsuccessful (thanks mostly to successful drone attacks which eliminated their leadership and technical skills personnel plus the death of Bin Laden), more radical groups broke off and began a program of brutal murders coupled with video cameras. Among these included ISIS, whose expressed intent to global conquest and forced imposition of their version of Islam and the establishment of a world Caliphate.

While it's highly unlikely they'll be successful, they have been successful with mass shootings, bombings, and other terrorist's acts outside the region, including Asia, Europe, Russia, and the US. However, most of the "thanks" (note sarcasm) has been due to incompetent "leadership" and flooding of so-called "refugees" whose aim is to disrupt the social and economic system, demanding changes to a country's religious freedoms, values, and traditions, plus the commission of violent crimes including assaults and mass rapes. Embedded with these "refugees" has been trained terrorist cells, whose job includes not just destruction and murders, but also recruiting and training of others. In Libya, ground zero of the Arab Spring, the country has never fully recovered and US involvement (not to mention illegal gun running, which resulted in the burning of the embassy plus the death of the ambassador and three security personnel) has proven to be a fertile recruiting ground for radical Islam. Meanwhile, military occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to struggle along in Iraq and Afghanistan along with continuing global terrorism while the Obama Regime has made several attempts to convince the American People that we need boots on the ground in Syria for the usual excuses---to promote democracy, potential weapons of mass destruction, prevent expanding Russian influence ( however, Russia has been a close ally since the 1950's), and probably denying air space access to Santa Claus. This now brings us to the present day.

The Assad Government has been under attack since around 2011/2012. Their enemy has been various groups of rebel fighters; mostly radical Muslims, including Al Qaeda, intent on imposing mandatory Sharia law, of which ISIS is the prime player. They have been guilty of the mass murders of Christians, Kurds, Yazidis, and Muslims who are secular or not of the same sect (some Kurds, Christians and Yazidi women and young girls have been sold into slavery, including sex slavery where they daily endure mass rapes). They have also been beating and murdering women who fail to follow their definition of Sharia as well as gays, agnostics, atheists as well as anyone who fought for Assad. Typically they are beheaded enmasse, burned or buried alive, stoned, shot, drowned in cages, crucified, throw off roofs, hanged, beaten to death, or skinned alive(at least they're creative. You've got to give them that at least). There are a few very small groups who which to implement some form of democratic republic, but they're pretty much small fry. On Assad's side is the military and a few pro-government guerilla groups who have been promised various reforms. Many of these groups are from outside the country and came to Syria as something of a Islamic mercenary.

As an ally of Assad and Syria for close to 60 years, Russia has been providing military hardware, medical supplies (including medivac to hospitals in Russia), food, clean water, sanitation supplies, and so forth. Recently, however, Russia has announced that it intended to provide air support for Assad's troops which includes bombing of enemy targets (supply depots, military caravans and transportation routes, troop clusters, etc). They have also introduced low level air cover through the use of various fighters and helicopters. In addition, Russia has provided heavy artillery, tanks, trucks, and other vehicles along with military advisors. On the other side, the US has been supplying arms, ammo, as well as other equipment along with medical equipment. Recently though, the situation has changed with US aircraft providing air support in the form of bombs, air cover, as well as technical assistance which includes reports on Syrian military and auxiliary troop movements, etc. This is in part why Russia stepped up its involvement. Now bear in mind that Russia is supporting a long standing ally, and their focus has been on groups like ISIS while are support is not based on any long standing connection with Assad or Syria, plus our aid has been going to the rebel groups which includes Al Qaeda and ISIS---yes, that ISIS. So, on one hand we are fighting ISIS here in the US and elsewhere while at the same time we are providing them with hard and soft support. I believe the proper response would be "WTF?".

Now, to raise the ante in this global poker match, Russia has announced that it intends to introduce troops to provide backup support for Assad's troops (one has to wonder if this includes Russia's famous Spetsnaz special forces units. They are among the very best in the world). Meanwhile, Iran has offered Russia the use of one of their northern airbases in which to launch its bombing operations and supply support in Syria. Iran is already active in the area, and has been for decades. Iran trains and supplies the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon with everything from small arms to heavy artillery and some rather powerful intermediate range missiles capable of hitting almost anywhere in northern and central Israel, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem. Hezbollah also exerts a rather powerful influence on the Lebanese government. In addition, Iran provides similar equipment to the terrorist group Hamas who are located in and control Gaza. Lastly, Iran has been working overtime to undermine US efforts in Iraq in order to create a Tehran friendly government in Bagdad.

Now, to makes things a bit more interesting, China, also an ally of Iran and its chief arms provider, has agreed to introduce soldiers and military equipment on the ground in Syria (China is having its own problem with a rising radical Islam in its western provinces). Not only does this include fighting troops (about 40,000), but tanks, trucks, artillery, and air support. Air support you say? How is that possible? China is thousands of miles away. Well, those questions are quite simple to answer. You see, China has an operational aircraft carrier. The US Pentagon and the CIA as well as some European intelligence agencies said it would take years for China to develop an aircraft carrier and years longer to develop aircraft capable of operating from an aircraft carrier as well as properly trained pilots. Well, in short, they were wrong. Wildly wrong. China was years ahead in their development of not only an aircraft carrier, but both the planes and pilots, and the supporting ships needed for a task force. Now do you want to guess where that task force is headed? If you guess the eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Lebanon, you'd be right.

Meanwhile, little ole Israel is sitting there between not just a few million Arabs who despise them, not to mention several well armed terrorist groups, an Iran which is intent of developing nuclear tipped missiles capable of reaching Israel, a serious civil war on its northern border, an unstable Egypt on its southern border (thankfully the Egyptian military just ousted the terrorist umbrella organization, the Muslim Brotherhood who had hijacked the pro-democracy movement during Egypt's "Arab Spring"). Plus you have a growing ISIS presence in Libya thanks to Hillary Clinton's misadventures there. Then there is Turkey, a traditionally secular nation, which is inching more and more to radical Islam. Lastly, but surely the most important, you have three of the four global superpowers (the forth being India) with an active military presence amid active terrorist groups.

Then there is a intellectually and morally weak US president with questionable loyalties to Israel, America's allies, and even the American People. My oh my. I see nothing about this situation which makes me feel comfortable. But this is the situation that we find ourselves. For the first time ever, more Americans trust the Russian president, Putin, than the American president. We have a president supporting the very terrorists who are murdering Christians, Jews, gays, women, and just about everyone else not just in the Middle East, but in Europe, Asia, Russia, and the US while at the same time supporting them against Assad while Putin is trying to stop them while they're still mostly in the Middle East. The same US president who is determined to bring these "refugees" to the US just as Europe did; much to their regret and in defiance of the majority of the American People or discussion with Congress.
So, there you go. Now it's up to you to come to your own decision about what's happening and what can or should be done about it. One thing for sure though---the system is broken beyond repair.

We are a defacto Oligarchy; a neo fascist nation complete with a spreading surveillance apparatus and a growing militarized police state. This Oligarchy lives under one set of laws while we live under another. They work hand in mailed glove with the government (with the government being the junior partner here). They control the media. There is only six companies which own 96% of all media--radio, TV, internet/social media, newspapers and magazines. That means they control what we hear and see. They try to control events though spin. They try to manipulate public opinion and direct issues. They own the banks and financial institutions. They own the oil and gas companies. They own the defense industries. They, in effect, own us too. We are their economic serf. Our debt is our chains. Our credit rating is the lock. This isn't about wealth. They already own 96% of that. Their aim is control. Control is power. The next question is really simple actually. What do you want to do about it?



The Syrian Civil War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war


Putin Confirms Russian involvement in Syria's civil war
http://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-confirms-russian-involvement-in-syrias-civil-war/


Iran, Russia, China, Syrian plan 'largest' war game'
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-Russia-China-Syria-plan-largest-war-game


World's richest 1% Control Half of Global Wealth
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/01/20/264241052/oxfam-worlds-richest-1-percent-control-half-of-global-wealth