Keep on Truckin! The Canadian Anti-Mandate "Freedom Convoy"

At present there appears to be approximately 250 ongoing protests in 110 countries over government imposed restrictions pertaining to various issues, from strikes over austerity to economic cutbacks to anti-corruption to  calls for democracy . 78% of these are aimed at authoritarian or authoritarian leaning governments.

Of these 250 protests, which involve hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) worldwide. 25 of these protests are directly related to anti-Covid mandates, which range from mandatory masking, lockdowns, quarantines, employment restrictions, and vaccinations. In many cases, the anti-mandates protests are accompanied by protests against other restrictions to human freedom.

In Belgium, the people are protesting rules on mandatory masking at locations where "Covid Passes" are already required.  "Covid Passes" have become common in most of Europe. They provide documentation that the holder has been vaccinated. Those who are unvaccinated and/or don't have a Covid Pass are prohibited from entry into restaurants or other public locations.

In the Netherlands the protests concern mandatory lockdowns. Unlike Belgium, the protests in the Netherlands have become increasingly violent with shots being fired and fires started in the middle of the street. Many of protestors are seen waving "Gadsden flags" and carrying banner reading "Resistance" and "Freedom".

France is facing similar problems, especially on the island territory of Guadeloupe, where there have been previous protests over the Covid Passes and lockdowns. As in the Netherlands, there has also been gunshots aimed at the police. Austria, the UK, and Italy, countries outside of Europe such as Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Israel, and about a dozen others  have been dealing with similar problems, which also stem from quarantines, lockdowns, and Covid Passes. In short, people are demanding liberty.

Germany had the largest mass protest in its history---and estimated 188,000 people turned out to demonstrate against enforced masks, vaccinations, lockdowns, Covid Passes, and "vax-to-work" requirements. What's even more interesting is that the protests brought together those on Germany's extreme Left and on its Far Right, uniting them on at least this one issue.

Since the Covid measures started almost three years ago, there have been at least 1046 protests throughout German towns and cities.  If there's one thing Germans know, its tyranny and its impact on individual rights.

But perhaps one of the most underreported protests is taking place in Canada and involving the truck drivers and their self proclaimed "Freedom Convoy". Perhaps the reason the "Freedom Convoy" is so underreported is the popularity of it by the masses.

The mainstream media tries to create the picture of an unpopular protest (trying to tie it to Far Right and hate groups, including the use of the Gadsden, Nazi, and Confederate flags and pro-Trump signs), and yet upwards of over 800 trucks plus hundreds of other vehicles are involved (some estimates have put that number to around 50,000 or more).

When Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau issued a National State of Emergency and ordered citizens to stay home. Instead thousands came out in support. They lined the route to the national capital in Ottawa. They joined the truckers in Ottawa and on the Ambassador Bridge on the Canadian-U.S. border between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. 

When the police ordered Canadian citizens not to fuel the trucks or face possible arrest, fines, or jail, thousands showed up with gas cans. When a judge shut down a "Go Fund Me" account in support of the truckers, other sites sprung up immediately.  Canadians authorities are now threatening to forcefully remove protestor's semi trucks as well as the protestors themselves. I don't think that's a smart idea.

Meanwhile, there is a rising concern over the lack of shipment coming into the U.S., which could have a added negative effect on the economy given the already severe backlog of unloaded ships at U.S. ports due to Covid restrictions. In some places, store shelves are already sparse and the country is increasingly in the grip of a rising inflation.

The continued scarcity will only make things worse by driving up prices.  Truckers are the backbone of not just the American economy, but pretty much the economy of every industrial society on the planet. Without truckers, very little gets delivered, be it food, medicine, clothes, or whatever.

So what's fired up the normally docile and overly polite Canadians? Pretty much the same as everyone else. The truckers were ordered to get vaccinated or face suspension, fines, or loss of the job, particularly if their load crosses into the U.S.. The protest was organized by Tamara Lich, the secretary of the relatively new conservative leaning Maverick Party which supports greater autonomy for Western Canada (perhaps that's the reason for the media's link to neo-Nazis and such). However, the truckers insist that they are grown ass men and women and they can make their own informed decisions. You know, pretty much like everybody else.

As an aside, Ms. Lich and others leaders of the Freedom Convoy were arrested in the wee morning hours of February 18th. At the time, Ms. Lich was simply standing out front of a building in downtown Ottawa talking with supporters.  Her arrest fueled rumors that the police, under orders from Trudeau, were planning on taking some sort of aggressive action (the following morning, the police, some on mounted horses), arrested about 100 individuals and began forcefully moving trucks, which is only the beginning. 

It should be noted that the protesters have been very peaceful and orderly to date. Residents in Ottawa also received a notice on their front porches that morning advising them that any violent behavior wouldn't be tolerated. 

After all this time and the peaceful nature of the protest, why would anyone assume there would suddenly be violence unless the police were planning on doing something violent and they want residents to stay away? Trudeau also threatened truckers with a loss of their commercial licenses if they didn't leave now. Trudeau is showing himself to be a petty tinpot tyrant and incapable of handling a peaceful and legal protest. Obviously he lacks the backbone and insight to lead to Canada. 

In addition, the trucker protest has sparked fears here in the States as smaller protests seem to be forming ad hoc. There's currently a trucker convoy, which originated in San Diego, headed along the southern coastal highway headed up to Washington D.C. or the 100+ cowboys (yes, cowboys) on horseback the "Freedom Convoy" from the American side of the border, not to mention similar protests popping up in places like New Zealand and the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, the Canadian trucker "Freedom Convoy" isn't getting a great deal of press, at least not on television in the States, and certainly not anything positive. Even coming up with pictures for this article is difficult). The same goes for the other anti-mandate protests taking place around the world. What coverage there is presents the protestors as something most aren't, namely extremist, uncaring, or racist (tell that to the Hispanic, Asian, or black truckers and protestors).  

Counter protestors have started showing up using not just the usual signs, bull horns, and throwing of trash (among other things), they are also blaring a pretty vulgar "porno-metal" "gay cowboy" song to disrupt or shut down anti-mandate channels.  Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to report that the anti-mandate convoy is in "chaos" and has become "disorganized" and is "falling apart"; something that the organizers and those on the scene deny. Why the disparity of observations?

I think it's because the protests themselves doesn't present the government, be it the U.S., Canadian, or any of the other governments, in a particular good light. The reality is open challenge to the government's authority. It shows the people are rejecting government dictates as we have the right to do. They are rejecting "We-Say-So" herd mentality in favor of informed individuality.

If people want to mask up or vaccinate, then do it by all means. It's your right to, but don't try to impose it on everyone else. It's a short step from mandates vaccines to "everyone's good" to imposing mandatory religious beliefs, social values, or political ideology. That's not what democracy is all about. At least I hope not.

While the government can and should make recommendations, especially when it comes to public health, it is "We The People" who have the absolute final say. We, as individuals, assume the risk and responsibility either way. The government works for us, not the other way around.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on Facebook or whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation.

Covid: Huge protests across Europe over restrictions

Carrots, sermons, sticks: Vaccine mandates face oppositionaround the globe

250,000 trucks are participating in the "Freedom Convoy" in Canada

Canadian Trucker Convoy Descends on Ottawa to ProtestVaccine Mandates

'Snowball effect': Canada's trucker convoy sparks anti-mandate protests globally

 

Global Protests Tracker

Largest Ever Protests in the History of Germany Are Anti-Vax & It Won't Matter

Protests against Germany's Covid restrictions turn violent as Europe moves to stem Omicron

Europe's COVID mandate protests are getting big and violent

Ram Ranch Resistance: How a gay cowboy song became ananti-convoy anthem

Why Do So Many Countries Hate Trump? A Global Perspective

Here we are, at the end of 2019, and what a year it's been. Like most everyone else I thought about doing a retrospective; taking a look back at perhaps the top stories we did for A/O or maybe a look at the year's leading stories, but that wouldn't be very original would it? So, instead I decided to look at how President Trump stacks up among some of our allies.

While they don't have a direct impact on our elections, their opinions do impact us through the perceptions they create. It also has an impact on our trade relations since their impressions reflect their confidence in the presidency and the government. Besides, Trump's Presidency began with the absurdity that somehow Russian President Vladimir Putin influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election which kept Hillary Clinton from her coronation. So, let's take a look shall we?

In tenth place is Japan. An important economic partner of the U.S. which doesn't seem to like Trump. Since the beginning of the Trump Presidency, Japanese opinion has dropped 54 points. In addition, their opinion of Americans in general has fallen 15 points as well. The Japanese seem to equate Trump with their largely unpopular Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who they see as having no sense of humor, a big ego, and militaristic. Additionally, like Trump, Abe was born wealthy and appears out of touch with most Japanese. At least Trump hasn't thrown up on Japanese PM yet unlike another certain U.S. President!

The ninth spot is our friends down under, Australia. Although 75% of Australians have a positive opinion of Americans, only 45% can say the same thing about Trump. The Aussies don't seem to be particularly confident of Trump being able to do the "right thing" when it comes to his foreign policy, especially on the topic of refugees or ability to comprehend the complexity of the situation on Nanru and Manus and ship based human smuggling.

Next is perhaps our closest ally, the United Kingdom. Trump's approval is down 57% from what it was under Obama. In fact, some of their media goes as far as to say that the Brits "really really hate" Donald Trump, but that's not all. Just 50% have a positive opinion about America and Americans in general.

The reason most cited was Trump's promise to minimize Muslim immigration into the US. Of course, the UK has been inundated by Muslim "migrants" as has Europe, much to their detriment I might add. In fact, several large cities in the UK, including London, Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, have substantial Muslim populations, not to mention Sharia courts and "No-Go" zones, albeit unofficially.

Our northern neighbor, Canada, is next. So could those obnoxiously polite Canadians dislike about "The Donald"? Well, apparently everything. According to Pew Research, they regard the President as arrogant (92%), intolerant (78%), and dangerous (72%). 84% doubt he's qualified to be the president. They dislike his policies just as much as him personally, and for the first time since Pew began tracking opinions in Canada has Canadians polled over 50% in their dislike of Americans.

According to the survey, 57% of Canadians have a negative opinion of the U.S. while the remaining 43% apologized profusely (just kidding). As an aside, Mexico, our neighbor to the south, came in 14th with a 44% disapproval rating of Trump (mostly due to illegal immigration). Thus while Trump and America are viewed rather poorly by our two closest neighbors, it's Canada which has the worse opinion of us.

Spain is sixth on the list. Spain, which has become a major entry point for "migrants" entering Europe from Africa and the Middle East, not only strongly dislikes President Trump, they don't care much for Americans either. According to Pew, Trump is down 68% from former President Obama. The majority don't believe that President is capable or willing to do the "right thing" when it came to his policies.

They also believe that Trump doesn't understand the international situation well enough to be president. Regarding Americans, a whopping 60% of Spaniards had a unfavorable opinion of Americans while 23% had a very unfavorable opinion of the U.S.. The previous high has never exceeded 7%.

Next on the list shouldn't come as much of a surprise. After all, it's France, which has had something of a national "Napoleonic Complex" toward the U.S. since the end of World War II (you're welcome again by the way) and presidency of Charles De Gaulle. That's not to say the French People don't like Americans, they do...well, mostly. 73% of those polled had a favorable opinion though they admitted to getting a bit miffed when tourists show up and expect everyone else to speak their language. Trust me when I say that most Americans these days can relate!

Nevertheless, President Trump is down 70 points from Obama! To put it another way, the French hate Donald Trump more than Russian President Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping, or even Germany's Angela Merkel (who is partly responsible for Europe's decline thanks to the importation of the "migrants"). France's current president, Emmanuel Macron (the other person most responsible for Europe's decline) has even tried to bill himself as the "Anti-Trump".

As for why the French hate Trump so much, it really covers about every one of his policies, from trade to terrorism to the environment, human rights and the global economy. They dislike his personality and just about everything else about him. The only thing they seem to like is his wife, Melania Trump (the French do love class and style and she exudes it).

Interestingly South Korea is fourth. Now with a nut job with possible nukes just a few dozen miles to the north, you'd think they would have a more favorable opinion of Trump. After all, he has been one of the few American presidents who hasn't been bullied into backing down every time Kim Jong Un throws a tantrum.

In fact, very few world leaders have actually stood up to Kim in the past, including presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama. In addition, the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea, as well as our strong trading partnership, are major reasons South Korea is still there.

Nevertheless, 71% of South Koreans have an unfavorable opinion of Trump compared to Obama. Many fear that Trump is using South Korea as a pawn in his dealings with Kim Jong Un. They also believe that Trump is "indifferent" about South Korea's role as an ally. If that was case, I doubt that Trump would have gone to bat for them as often as he has in the past. By the way, 75% of South Koreans still have a good opinion of America and Americans.

Now for Germany. Is anyone actually surprised? The only thing I found more surprising was that Germany wasn't higher than third on the list. Pew's poll showed a 75% decline in favorability from Obama to Trump; a drop which cuts across all of Germany's political lines.

Perhaps it's because Trump has been a vocal critic of Angela Merkel's disastrous policy of "open borders" of the so-called "migrants" into Europe (many Germans feel the same way except that "war guilt" seems to keep getting in the way of Germans doing the right thing for Germany and Europe). Merkel's immigration policies smacks of national suicide; a desire to destroy Germany's culture, traditions, and sense of national identity, even if that means taking Europe down with her.

Like Germany, the Netherlands has an equal distain for President Trump and like Germany, it's favorability toward the American President has dropped 75 points. Like the Germans, the Dutch believe that Trump is intolerant, arrogant, and lacks the practical experience of a world leader. They too, as others on this list have expressed, believe that Trump lacks the moral character to "do the right thing", be it pertaining to immigration, human rights, the environment, the Middle East, or just about anything else. On the plus side, 71% of the Dutch still have a positive opinion of Americans.

Finally, the number one spot. The country which hates President Trump more than anyone else is (drum roll please)...Sweden. Yelp, that ultra polite "Canada of Europe" dislikes Trump more than any other country in the whole wide world. It's hard to believe actually. Sweden is, after all, so damn polite. They are consistently listed as being among the happiest and healthiest people in the world. They are routinely ranked among the best educated people in the world. Sweden has one of the world's best social safety nets, top government infrastructure and environmentally friendly countries in the world.

Of late Sweden has been suffering from the influx of "migrants" coming into the country; many of whom are poorly educated and lack few, if any, transferable work skills. They've proven to be a huge drain on Sweden's economy, especially its once renown social safety net. Additionally, crime, particularly violent crime, has skyrocketed throughout Sweden, particularly in major cities like Stockholm.

In addition, there has been increased demands by these "migrants" for the implementation of Sharia law (including Sharia courts) as well as curtailing Sweden's traditionally liberal social standards. Many political scientists have proclaimed that Sweden, as a solidly liberal society, may be the first large country lost to the "demographic replacement" of Europeans along with Holland and Belgium.

As a result, we have a nation caught in the grips of a transitional crisis. Nevertheless, their opinion of Trump puts them at the top with an 83% disapproval rating, though the American People retain a 80% approval rating. The principal reason, they claim, is Trump's failure to "fact-check" before speaking (or tweeting). They believe Trump is too intolerant (especially toward Muslims), and lacks the intellect as well as personality to be president.

Could the Swedes be right? For that matter, could everyone else on the list be right? Is Donald Trump the wrong person for the job? Would someone like Hillary Clinton have done a better job as president? If her record as Secretary of State or as a candidate are any indication (including her attempt, along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazille to rig the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders, illegally obtain questions in the final presidential debate, Benghazi, or the Clinton "pay to play" Foundation), the answer is no. Hillary fails, if for no other reason, than on moral grounds.

We also need to remind ourselves that almost every country on this list has a politically Left government. A few, such as Sweden, have a long tradition of socially and economically liberal policies. Some were part of empires or were the nexus of the empire itself. Many too have had brutal Far Right juntas imposed on them with the help of the U.S. Government. All have had a close economic relationship with the United States. A few are heavily dependent of American economic aid.

To them Trump perhaps represents a threat. He is not just tightening the borders, preventing illegal immigration into this country, but as a result, restricting money from going back to these countries which has become an informal form of economic aid; something which props up small communities. It has also helped to relieve local poverty thanks to the illegal exodus, providing education and healthcare which would have otherwise been unavailable.

Along the same lines, they may be concerned about the cutback of official aid or military support, forcing them to pick up the slack instead on relying on "Uncle Sugar" to do it for them. Of the countries in Europe, they are suffering under the crushing burden of these "migrants"; many of whom are Muslim. No doubt they'd like to see more redirected to the U.S. America has been viewed for decades as the breadbasket, policeman, and bank to the world. As long as the money flows, they love us.

They worry that America may decide to turn its attention inward and start taking care of Americans first. Many would like to see America drop its border restrictions and turn itself into n open "feed trough"; doing for the world what their own governments won't thanks to their greed. Instead of removing their own tyrants and incompetent government officials, they turn to America for free handouts. This, I believe, is what they're afraid of, and Trump is just the outsider who would do it.



These Are The Countries Which Really Hate Trump


Making America Grate Again

Where Countries Stand With Donald Trump: A Crib Sheet

When is Terrorist actually a Terrorist?

"A rose by any name". That's part of a famous line by English playwright William Shakespeare from his 'Romeo and Juliet' . The rest of quote speaks of sweetness. The question I ask, "When is a terrorist actually a terrorist?" isn't so sweet. It often smells of fear and of death. Terrorism has been around since there's been oppressors and the oppressed. Modern terrorism, in large part starting with the PLO, Black September, Baader-Meinhof Gang/Red Faction, and even the SLA and the Black Panthers is a matter of theater, much like the protests of the same period (I don't include the IRA here since their actions rarely involved the media and was aimed strictly at inspiring fear). It is at once the theater of the absurd and of the desperate; of those who believe they have nothing to lose. Its purpose is to create a form of morbid sensationalism between an event starving media, the group trying to call attention to its perceived wrongs, and a public, which is both horrified and at the same time, unable to divert its attention. That really is nature of modern terrorism; to compel the public's attentions to a group's plight by using the media as its willing accomplice.

Typically these acts carry a demand of some sort---return of land; recognition of rights; provided with food, medicine, or whatever. Some nations engage in a form of implied terror like the "Hermit Nation", North Korea. Here we have a country time-locked in the mid-1950's with a failed political and economic system that even hardcore Marxists have long since abandoned. North Korea has no industry to speak of, unless you count the military. It's closed most of its universities and sent it students off into the countryside to work farms using mostly mid-century (20th century that is) technology at best while its population slowly starves to death. The only other "industry" which seems to be prospering is the State's "blackmailing" business. This is where the State inspired terrorism comes in.

Every "red" cent North Korea can scrape together goes into it military and its questionable nuclear program. Every so often North Korea rattles its saber and threatens to accelerate its development of nuclear warheads to deploy against South Korea, or Japan, or the US or whomever. They even launch middle range missiles with mediocre success from time to time to prove their sincerity unless the West (and in particular the US) agrees to interest free "loans" (handouts actually), food, technology, medicines, and so forth, and so far, the implied threats have works. Other nations, including Iran, have tried the same trick and have been more or less successful. Typically, however, they found it safer to simply sponsor outside terrorists organizations.

These days we seem to have another form of terrorism---religious terrorism. The core hasn't really changed that much---do something drastic to get the world's attention and then make a demand along with some additional threat if their demands aren't meet. In this case, we have Moslem terrorists who are attempting to return their region of the world to the 7th Century (with the exception of the technology for a privileged few). In making their demands, they're reverted to some good old fashion tactics from the 7th Century like beheadings and crucifying. It's cheap. It's brutal. It's bloody. It makes for good media. It demands to be allowed to subject unwilling peoples to a version of the Koran the inhabitants simply aren't interested in along with a "holy war" that few want any part of. This differs from other others of terrorism in that these individuals don't have the support of the population or the assured long term assistance of terror sponsoring State.

The problem with this action is that while the impact is powerful, it's not lasting, no matter how many are murdered or how gruesome. The public's attention span simply ain't what it used to be the 700's. Secondly, instead of inspiring fear and dread, it inspires hatred and determination to resist. In addition, it provides tinder for the subjected populations. Lastly, it requires a long term strategy. In today's world, Capitalist economies thrives on this kind of wartime economy fighting terrorism engenders. In other words, over the long run, the Capitalist oriented economies adapt and improve while the terrorist organization never gets an opportunity to solidify its holdings; its victories become like sand.

Finally, the "or else" part of the terrorist's agenda. Historically, it's been to keep doing whatever its been doing but only more so. Here the aspect of "religion" enters the picture again. While its central to the domestic aims of the terrorists, they have added an additional dimension by threatening to force the West into converting to their version of Islam or be subjugated. In this modern application, the terrorists have made impressive use of social media at a time there's is a lackadaisical immigration policy which has allowed immigrants from various Moslem countries to enter, thus creating a heightened perceived threat. Now whether these Moslem immigrants subscribe to their form of Islam of not is the catch. The terrorists will claim they do while the West simply doesn't know for sure. Most likely, if history is any guide, they don't but they also lack the moral fiber to resist; to put it another way, they'll go whichever way the winds of fortune blow. One thing is certain. The number of Moslems and Mosques are growing rapidly, especially in Europe while here in the US, we have no political leadership; no political will; and no political rudder coming from either party.

There is one other factor I would like to add which stands out. Historically, most acts of terror are confined to the country or region in question such as forcing the British out of Ireland (or since 1917, out of Ulster) or India, or the French out of Indochina or Algeria for instance using a native participant--an Irishman, Indian, Algerian, etc. Here, the terrorist have used social media to "self-radicalize" individuals (usually those who are mentally unstable, or feel somehow threatened or weak) in host nations. These are the so-called "lone wolves"; individuals who, largely through social media sites come to embrace this ideology and ultimately their goals. Many first convert and seek to make connections through various Mosques and the Moslem community. To them, it appears to "solve" whatever ails them, but like any other drug, it has a wicked kick.

Then they start to prepare themselves psychologically, which often includes breaking with family and friends; changing their self-identity---what they read, their habits, even their style of dress or diet. Part of this break includes losing their respect for society as a whole and transitioning into a "us vs. them" mentality. They start seeing everyone, even their country, as "the enemy"; one could think of this as something of a metamorphosis of sorts, except that instead of a butterfly of peace emerging, a twisted killer takes flight. Some may try to acquire skills to accomplish their self-induced "sacred" duty while others simply go with what they got.

As if to downplay its affects, the Obama Regime has sought usage of "Orwellian speak" in defining who is and what isn't associated with terrorism. Canada's Prime Minister has been quick to call to recent incidents what they are, "acts of terror" and although New York's Mayor and its Chief of Police has called its recent event as "terrorist act", the Obama Regime hasn't made that determination yet, and for the time being appears to be leaning to so-called acts of "domestic violence". Not too surprising. In what were clearly previous acts of terrorism, the Obama Regime has chosen to chuck the facts out the window in order not to "offend" Moslems abroad (I'm speaking here of Major Nidal Hasan and Ft. Hood, the Boston Marathon Bombing and approximately 60 other acts of violence committed on US Soil by Moslems not including the butchery known a "honor" killings). Perhaps too President Obama or his advisers are afraid of raising the ire of the American Public which would be equally as swift and brutal. Anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of violence in the name of a religion which has sworn to destroy us, our way of life, our values; or because of our religion (or lack thereof), or to enslave us is a religious terrorist. Nevertheless, whether or not the President, or his advisors, or Congress have the backbone (and as a rule, they do not) to call it like it is, doesn't change the facts.

America may not always be right in some or even most of the things it does. We've made some serious foreign affairs blunders, including coups to overthrown popularly elected governments because corporate interests felt threatened or were denied access to certain resources. Often the US government acts in ways that are contrary to the demands of the American People (take illegal immigration for instance); it acts all too often to serve corporate interests more so than the Peoples. However, the American People themselves are perhaps the most generous and giving this world has ever known, and despite currently having an incompetent federal government, if there's one thing any foreign "rouge" nation, terrorist or wannabe terrorist should know---the American People don't take any crap off anyone. If there's any questions on that point, ask the Japanese. They know what it's like to "tell it to the Marines".


Ft. Hood Killer Admits He Committed Act of Terrorism
http://www.aim.org/special-report/ft-hood-killer-admits-he-committed-act-of-terrorism/

Islamic Attacks on American Soil
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm

60 Terrorists Plots Since 9/11
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism

Beheading at Oklahoma plant being considered workplace violence
http://twitchy.com/2014/09/26/beheading-at-oklahoma-plant-being-considered-workplace-violence-and-not-terrorism/


Poll Closing Soon!

If you haven't voted in our poll, please be sure to do so. They are located in the upper right hand corner. The poll will be closing on October 30th. Thanks!

The Game Plan

Let's assume illegal immigration and the blatant refusal of the US government to secure the border, is simply part of a secret agreement--an addendum if you will--to NAFTA, which at its heart was designed to create an open border between Canada, the US, and Mexico, was extended to some of other nations south of border. Suppose further that the Latin American nations have chosen either to enact that portion of the agreement that allows its citizens unrestrained access to the US either directly or indirectly through Mexico, and because Washington was unable to "sell" NAFTA (though it passed, it has remained unpopular)---for whatever reasons such as a downturn in the economy, job outsourcing, union opposition, crime, unexpected prolonged wars or especially open immigration, decided to "dump" their children on our border, perhaps as a pointed reminder, or frustration over Washington's foot dragging? If true, does the hidden terms work both ways? What if Americans or Canadians decided to "invade" Mexico or South America in droves? How would their governments react? One or two, or even a few dozen would likely be imprisoned since they have (ironically) a no tolerance policy for illegals or those who aide them in anyway. But what about a few hundred or even thousands? What if these illegal Americans or Canadians demanded access to public services--such as health care or education, and in English? If Mexico's refusal to release a single US citizen, US Marine Andrew Tahmooreisi, is any indication, neither the US or its Latin American neighbors are prepared to deal with reverse illegal immigration, but I think they'd certainly be willing to discuss the situation with us.

There seems to be a global interest in the concept of "democratic liberalism", or as it's sometimes referred to, "friendly capitalism without borders". Think of it as democratic socialism as practiced by, say, Germany as opposed to Scandinavia. Social services, now paid for by States or a federal government, would instead be paid for through a transnational organization of some sort, perhaps the UN or one of its agencies. There has been, after all, much interest in expanding its role along with the influence of the UN, WTO, and/or World Bank, which collectively already controls much of the world's finances (along with the Federal Reserve) and dispersal of capital.

How could this be accomplished? The simplest tool would be a tax levied on a federal government and thus either directly or indirectly on the public. State specific programs would of course remain in place. This transnational "public welfare" tax would detail its own unique qualifications, which would be resident neutral and administered by each host country (notice "host" as opposed to "sovereign"). Since this would eliminate all or most other federal programs, administrative costs should be generally cheaper. The formula for taxation could be based on GDP, which would mean poorer countries would pay the least while richer countries would pay the most. While one could argue against this loss of sovereignty, it could increase the globalization of the commerce and through its concept of "open borders", enhance the development of worker movements since movement of workers would be unimpeded; something I'm sure would be unintended by the powers that be.

But as alluded to earlier, something happened. The US isn't playing the game as it's supposed to. There's the fact that America is becoming more fascist; certainly more "police state" like. To be more precise, corporations are behaving more feudalistic. In keeping with the concept, our national government is assuming the role of a dukedom; that, they are acting like overlords or administrators serving their lieges and lords. There is nothing "democratic" or "socialistic" here since we are not becoming more democratic by seceding more power to the People, nor are the People more in control of their own collective destinies, while government serves less our needs and more the needs of K Street and the 1%. States are increasingly losing powers guaranteed under the Constitution as well and must beg with hat-in-hand on bended knee for the funds to keep local governments going.

Meanwhile, threats to the expanding modern feudal State continues. Putin's Russia, and to a lesser degree, China and India (which tends to hedge its bets thanks to job outsourcing), have resisted dominance by the global "McState" and are threatening to undermine the US dollar as the defacto global currency; a currency backed solely on the "faith and trust" of a bankrupt government--economically, politically, and morally. Should they succeed, it would collapse the US economy as our unsustainable debts become due but it would have dire consequences worldwide in this interconnected world economy, eventually collapse the economies of the rest of the world like a house of cards. As the saying goes, when the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold, and this cold would be terminal.

Then there's the situation in the Middle East, which appears, at least to yours truly, to have been initally an attempt to increase control of oil reserves and oil production, by these feudalistic corporations and away from these artificially created nation-states, and now appears to have spunned out of control. We are now faced with brutal terror organizations which we helped to create, arm, train, and finance, to deal with the last terroristic organization which we created, armed, trained, and financed ad nauseam.

These terrorist groups, which are being portrayed by the corporate media, to operate virtually at will, could, in truth, be easily snuffed out by the power of the US military. But what's the point in that? At present, "terror" is a useful tool in the arsenal of the Corporate State. It inspires fear at home, and thus in the name of security, increases the "demand" for security, or to call a spade a spade, a police state. After all, businesses require stability in order to operate. People require a sense of safety in order to feel comfortable to go about their daily affairs, which just so happens to includes spending money, so what's the loss of freedom among friends...or big brothers? By the way, this "necessary evil" for the care and grooming of a fascist or feudalistic society is never a requirement for either a democratic or socialistic State. So much for the notion we're becoming "socialist".

So, there you have it folks; "the plan" as I've termed it, and an explanation in a nutshell. An addendum to an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the US to do away with borders, and an apparent reaction by Latin American leaders to Washington's delay in implementing their portion of the agreement due to their (perhaps chagrin) inability to sell it to the US People. Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, India, resisting this latest variation of the game of Risk by the WTO among others while holding a gun at our heads and one at their own. A spiraling problem in the Middle East as the result of failed plans to secure oil reserves by destabilizing resistant governments with the use manufactured "terrorists" who aren't following the playbook. You would think that after Watergate, they would have stopped using amateurs. But, on the upside, using terrorists as sort of the all purpose bogeyman behind every lamppost, an opportunity to expand government monitoring and police power under the auspices of "security" while corporate control of Washington not only increases, but emerges from the shadows. So my fellow Americans, what are you prepared to do? And then what are you prepared to do?

America: Are We Really Free?

Are we free? Really free? We're taught from nearly day one of school that America is world's freest country; the "beacon of light" to the world; the home of the world's greatest democracy. With the Supreme Court's most recent decision ruling, McCutcheon v FEC, in a 5 to 4 ruling, corporations and the very rich can now donate as much as want to too any candidate, party, cause, or political action committee. They had previously ruled in 2010, in the Citizens v FEC case and another 5 to 4 decision, that free speech equated to money and that corporations had essentially the same rights as flesh and blood individuals; actually, more rights to be truthful since individuals remained capped in what they could donate.

With this recent ruling, the uber-rich and the supra-corporate elite have much more "freedom" that ordinary working class Americans, who are severely limited in the amount of "free speech" they are able to give. In effect, the one percenters can openly buy any candidate and any election they want too. Of course, they've been doing this for a long time already, but now they can come out from behind the curtain and out of the shadows and do it openly while the rest of America just stands and watches their Constitutional freedoms evaporate one by one. Chalk up another victory for the Oligarchy. This got me to thinking--just how free are we really? How do we compare with other nations?

Well, one would hope we're still number one; at least I was hoping. However, not only are we not number one, we're aren't even in the top ten freest countries. The freest country in the world is actually Hong Kong, followed by Singapore. Interestingly, both nations have a "open" or laissez faire economy (think "hands off" by the government or a libertarian style economy). That's something our Founders had planned for us but has long since vanished. So, where do we stand?

Actually, the US is 12th, between former Soviet client state of Estonia and the constitutional monarchy of Bahrain (known for being dictatorial with an ineffectual parliament and ineffective judiciary system as well as human rights violations, which Human Rights Watch calls "dismal"). For "leadership of the free world", that's not exactly good company (no offence to Estonia or Bahrain intended). Our neighbor to the north, Canada, came in sixth while our southern neighbor was ranked 55th, which might explain all the border troubles! If there's any good news here, it's that our friends across the pond, the UK, came in 14th place (and being part Irish, I have to point out to our English mates that Ireland was ranked 9th).

Speaking of human rights, the International Human Rights Ranking Indicator places America in 20th place, between France and Monaco. Not exactly comforting for the "leadership of the free world is it? Canada was ranked 10th while Mexico was 63rd. Who ranked highest for protection of human rights? That was Norway, followed by Sweden and Australia. In another ranking, this time compiled by the Maplecroft 2014 Human Rights Risk Atlas, the US ranked 139th out of 197 countries, making it a "moderate" human rights risk while the Scandinavian countries ranked at the top.

In comparing Hong Kong with the US, I found some remarkable results. In terms of business freedom; that is how much a business can operate without government interference, Hong Kong score nearly a perfect 100 which the US wound up with an 85%. Closely related, in terms of fiscal freedom, Hong Kong "very free" with a 95%. The US was rated as "moderately free" with a 65%. In looking at government spending, the US at 50%, which put it in the "mostly unfree category" while little Hong Kong again was ranked as "very free" with another 95%.

In terms of property freedom, both Hong Kong and the US ran equally at 90% until 2009, when the US dipped to 80%. Meanwhile, Hong Kong continued at 90%. In terms of freedom from governmental corruption, US ranked 72%, making it the 23rd in the world. As for Hong Kong, it came in 13th place at 82%. Any way you slice it, America didn't do so well, so I decided to see just how well respected we were. Surely, we were at least well respected.

Well, as it turns out, not so much. America was ranked paltry 22nd most respected country in the world, just ahead of Peru and just behind Brazil. According to the report, the reasons for our dismal showing was our perceived lack of an effective government and "appealing environment". In case you're wondering, Canada came in first, following by Sweden.

Clearly, we're a nation in trouble, at least from the perspective of the rest of the world, which seems to bear out what the overwhelming majority of Americans think. According to a recent Rasmussen Report, only 28% of Americans think we're headed in the right direction, and those numbers have remained fairly consistent. Congressional approval is currently around 13%, which is actually up from 9% in November. For the last three years, it's been 20% or under. Obama isn't doing much better. Gallup has his most recent job approval rating at 43%. And the Supreme Court? The last poll was taken before their recent decision, but even then, it was only 45%. I'm sure it's much lower now. In any other country, that would be called a "no confidence vote".

So what does all this mean? Well, obviously we're not the free country we think we are, and we haven't been for some time now. It means that not only does the world have its doubts about us, we do too. We're not happy with the nation we've become, and despite our objections, those elected to represent us either ignore us out of arrogance or self-interest, namely they're catering exclusively to those whose "free speech", as defined by the Supreme Court, they hear the clearest. In what has to be the clearest case of politics making strange bed fellows, those outside of conventional party politics on both the Left and Right, have more in common than not when it comes to defining who's to blame. What do I mean?

The non-aligned Left sees the transnational corporation's influence over governments as the key problem while the non-aligned Right see government as being too large and too invasive. Both see the power of government becoming to encompassing as the power of corporations over governments, even superseding governments, continues to grow. In any other country which valued freedom, both would have used this common cause to march together in the streets and in to the halls of power----Wall Street and K Street and maybe if they have time, Capitol Hill. In any other country which valued freedom, there would have been revolution to rid itself of the corruptors and abusers of our sovereignty, but America isn't any other country...or is it?


2014 Index of Economic Freedom
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The World's Most Reputable Countries 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/06/27/the-worlds-most-reputable-countries-2013/

Right Direction or Wrong Direction?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

Barack Obama Presidential Approval
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Congress Job Approval Starts 2014 at 13%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166838/congress-job-approval-starts-2014.aspx

International Human Rights Ranking Indicator
http://www.ihrri.com/index.php

Maplecroft 2014 Human Rights Risk Atlas
https://maplecroft.com/themes/hr/

The Economy

The headline was frightful: Job losses in 2008 hit 2.6 million people. That’s nearly 7% of the population. As I walked back from by mailbox in the coldness of the morning, all I could think of was all those people facing an uncertain future in the middle of a brutally cold winter with utility, water, and gas companies raising rates. I wondered if there were be tax revolts. Even garbage companies were passing on the costs of doing business by making their customers pay for their gas. That’s not right. Who do I charge for my gas? My employer? I thought too of all those people who had been working part time through the holidays, who weren’t included in those numbers, but who are shortly to become part of the next quarter’s statistics. There’s just something about a human life being reduced to a mere “statistic” that seems so, well, dehumanizing. What are they going to do? I couldn’t help but reflect on the millions of jobs which were exported overseas, under the auspices of NAFTA, but always for the sake of the additional profit the company would make a the expense of someone’s livelihood and the millions of dollars some corporate executive enjoyed. And now that many have criminally mismanaged their companies, they have turned to Washington for “handouts” in the billions of dollars from the very same people who have been denied jobs, pensions, and healthcare---you and me. Napoleon once said that religion was the only thing which kept the poor from murdering the rich. Perhaps it is well that people turn to religion during times like these. Religion is indeed the “opiate of the masses”.

Words like “greed” and “audacity” really don’t quite express my disgust for these corporate execs, or for the members of Congress who gave them the money over the objections of the American People. And when asked what they were doing with money, they’ve told Congress it was none of their business. It seems that in the hurry to curry favor with their corporate masters, Congress neglected to include language which would require these “billionaire paupers” to disclose how the money was being spent. Now, we’re hearing that the retail, auto, and airline industries are wanting to be bailed out, and yet who is going to bail out the 2.6 million souls facing sudden poverty—and for many, through no or little fault of their own? Who watches over them? Which member of Congress is going to tell seniors to suck it up and put on another sweater because heating assistance is being cut? Which on of them will decide for seniors which prescription to fill and which meal to skip since many can no longer afford to both? Who among them is going to look in a child’s eyes and tell them there’s nothing to eat today or explain what a shelter is since mommy and daddy no longer have a house for them to live in?

I thought of those who still have jobs. They too are casualties of this economic disaster. How so? While they have jobs, many are faced with short term layoffs without pay; shorter hours; pay cuts; and the loss of healthcare (again, I’m reminded of the children). Then there is the added stress of simply not knowing. Will they have a job tomorrow? How about next week? And what about the added pressure of being required to do more work? Some, though not all, employers are taking advantage of the current economic conditions to load up on workers. I can envision turning on the evening news one day soon and watching a report of how someone simply “snapped” and killed their wife and family, or maybe their co-workers. There would of course be all those who would come forward and tell the camera of how “so and so” just wasn’t that kind of person or how they knew “something” was wrong. I wondered too how much more people could…would…take; when would we say “enough”? Or perhaps we did by electing Obama, but will that alone be enough?

So much is riding on Obama that he dare not fail. I didn’t vote for him for any other reason than his lack of experience. The presidency was never my idea for on-the-job training. But I am encouraged by his energy. The pressures facing him are almost unimaginable. Privately, I bet John McCain has thanked his Maker a thousand times over for not winning the election. I am encouraged by the American People, for whom I have tremendous respect. We are an amazingly resilient people. We seem to have collectively acknowledged that we’re in “deep do-do” and the only way out of this is by coming together, and we did this without Washington or the Media thank you very much. I hope too that this translates into more tolerance and compassion, especially for more vulnerable among us, namely our seniors, the handicapped, and most of all, the children.

I walked back into my house, thankful it was still “my” house…for now, and deposited the newspaper, which too has cut back on its content while not changing its price, on the kitchen table. The news I thought to myself was as numbing as the cold, but it was time for me to shuffle off to work. Still, I couldn’t help but wonder if today would be “my” day as it was for all those others who shuffled off to work for the final time. But then, perhaps not.

GOP: Future Denied?
Before reading any further, I suggest you check out the following article which recently appeared the Courier Journal:

Click here: courier-journal | Louisville Opinion | The Courier-Journal

The tiny Republican minority (approximately 10%) mentioned in this article, namely the moderates and liberals (which constitutes about 1% of the party) are systemically being purged the GOP. However, it was this very group which dominated national politics since the creation of the Grand Old Party. Its leaders have included Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H. Bush. Some would include Barry Goldwater, who, although was the “father of conservatism”, is considered a “moderate” by modern standards.

These leaders were responsible for some of the most progressive legislation of their generation, such as pro-labor laws, laying the foundation for the Civil Rights movement, creating national parks and protecting our wetlands, as well as creating agencies to protect workers and the environment. Yet, despite their rapidly declining numbers, many in the Republican Party are trying to blame them for the electoral recent losses. Based on numerous recent articles I’ve read from conservative and Republican websites, the move is on to move the GOP further to Right in more to create a more ideological “pure” party.

Specifically, their objective to bring together the remnants of the “Moral Majority”, the Christian Fundamentalists, Reagan Republicans, along with single issues groups such as the anti-gay and pro-life camps to create a neo-theocratic party while kicking out the so-called heretical moderates and liberals from the party. While they claim the moderates somehow “hijacked” the party, it is interesting to note that many of the party’s core, namely the libertarians, “freedom movement”, state’s rights, and Constitutionalists have long abandoned the GOP, or to put it more accurately, was pressured out of the GOP. In fact, most of the children from the illustrious gentlemen above have left the party; if not in name, at least in their support.

Life seems to move in cycles, whether it’s our physical lives or the economy. Politics is no different. Historically, we seem to swing or shift from the Left to the Right and back again roughly every 30 years. Many, if not most sociologists and political scientists are now saying we are shifting from the Right which reached its high water mark under Reagan and now we're beginning swing to the Left. Instead of embracing and encouraging a return to the fold, the GOP leadership is trying to circle it wagons, but not from the Democrats. Rather, from its core that brought it so much success over the years. Given the current swing by the voting public away from the conservative agendas of the likes of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or Anne Coulter, this may prove to be the undoing of the Republican Party as a major national player. In fact, I would even suggest that by the time we begin to shift back to the Right, there may well be a third party capable of the absorbing the center right, which at this point has to either gravitate to the Democratic Party; join one of the many growing third parties; or become a member of the rapidly increasing Independent movement.

Maybe this is as it should be. After all, the Republican Party came together essentially as third party from the remnants of the Whigs and several other smaller parties and interests groups such as the “Know-Nothing” movement, Free-Soil Party, and the abolitionists. Perhaps then its future should follow the same course of breakup and realignment into something which reflects the current needs of the American People.

The Radical Center

I would like to take a moment to thank Mark Satin, editor of the Radical Center (http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_vision2009.htm) for a great run. Mark is great author and spokesperson for those of us who are “independently” minded. Mark also named Another Opinion as one of the top 25 radcial center blogs in America. After several years, Mark is hanging it up. Mark’s insights will be greatly missed.

Book Review

Of all the dangers facing us as a nation, be it the indiscriminate murderers of radical Islam, the economic meltdown, global warming, famine, global pandemics, perhaps none are such an immediate threat to us as Hugo Chavez, the president and dictator of Venezuela. Chavez has the ways and means through the national oil company, CITCO, to inflict damage on the American economy in ways Bin Laden. Kim and Ahmadinejad can only dream about. He has challenged US interests at every step, including supporting drug cartels, narcoterrorists, and acting as a conduit for our enemies, including providing a “training base” for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah in Venezuela. At the same time, Chavez has worked hard, using his deep pockets of petrodollars to “buy friends and influence nations” while striving to assume the mantle of his childhood hero, Fidel Castro.

Nowhere better is the story of Hugo Chavez lay bare than in “The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America” by Douglas E. Schoen and Michael Bowen. The authors, both highly versed in international intrigue, have written a finely detailed description of Chavez’s childhood and rise to power through corruption, intimidation, and blind luck and know better than anyone what his intentions toward the West are. Like another dictator, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez has never hidden his hatred for democracy, be it in the West or the US in particular. With his deep seated ambition to dominate the Western Hemisphere, Chavez uses CITCO as his weapon of choice rather than bombs. The chief difference between Chavez and his predecessors, as the authors point out, are vast oil reserves at his disposal and our near total dependence of foreign oil. If Hitler, Stalin, or Castro had a “CITCO” at their disposal, the world would be a very different place today.

If you want to know more about this powerful, but rarely reported on enemy of democracy, or if you simply have an interest in geopolitics, I urge to read “The Threat Closer to Home” by Douglas E. Schoen and Michael Bowen. It will be eye opening.

Poll Results

The last time I asked you two questions. The first was who you thought was responsible for the economic crisis. The second was did the economic crisis occur. In response to the first question, 41% of you said that Bush, Congress, Wall Street and both political parties were responsible. 25% of you thought it was mainly Bush and Republicans while 25% thought it was the Democrats. Isn’t that interesting? The rest of you thought the culprit was either Congress or none of the above.

In response to the second question, 42% of you thought the reason for the economic crisis was a lack of government oversight while 30% thought it was old fashion corporate greed. 25% of you thought it was either the failure of Capitalism or all of the above. The rest of you thought the answer lie somewhere else.

Personally, I think the answer to the first question, as to who was responsible, was “all of the above”. I think it was a combination of government and Wall Street. As for the second question, again I think this was to wide spread to be the failure of just one individual or group. Clearly this was another “all of the above”. Thanks for participating!