London’s Khan vs Trump: Drain The Swamp!

The feud between London’s Muslim mayor and Trump is expanding exponentially. The central point of the argument is the benefits vs the detriments of immigration on the economy. But the bullets within the point are not being truthfully described and analyzed. First, Trump is NOT against ‘immigration’, he is against terrorism and against those countries that advocate terrorism. His choice as the US President is to ‘LIMIT’ some immigrants who desire to come into the US a) illegally, and b)   with the intent of committing a terrorist act.

The argument takes on a perverse nature when the actual facts are distorted. Immigrants come from a wide variety of countries. They come legally, get jobs and pay taxes. Then we have illegal immigrants and we have potential terrorists who are also defined as ‘immigrants’.

We need to compare apples to apples instead of apples to wood.

In the UK, estimates peg the number of foreign born immigrants at about 13% of the population – actual numbers aren’t known because the government does not have a census. So it is a – guess.

BaddaBing!  The US has about 13.5-14% immigrants!  Sorry Khan…

In the UK, the increase in immigration between 2001 and 2015 has an interesting statistic. The largest increase has been from Poland. Interestingly, the Middle East does not represent a large, if any, increase in immigration whereas France, US, Pakistan, India and China have a significant increase.  This would correspond with Mayor Khan’s statement that the UK is open to a wide variety of immigrants, but it does not address the real issue – again, terrorism.

Nor does it address –illegal immigration.

Nor does it address the cost benefit thereof.

Reviewing past articles from 2013 and 2014, the UK was embroiled in a host of charges that they were ‘neglecting’ to report the real immigration statistics by a large margin. These miscalculations came under the heading of – David Cameron. Of course this was all a very innocent mistake… to the tune of over 350,000 during the period 2001 to 2011.

The top sending countries into the US have consistently been; Mexico, India, China, Philippines, Cuba, and Dominican Republic. That means that placing a temporary ban on specific Middle Eastern Countries would be a very, very small figure. And hardly worth all the media attention. When the fact, the purpose, and the effect is all about the reduction of potential terrorism, and the elimination of illegal entry.

From an economic standpoint, in the UK it is ‘estimated’ that 53% of Muslim men and 76% of Muslim women don’t work. About 24% claim disability. So, the rhetoric pounded by mayor Khan claiming that immigrants are a benefit to society, it may be an actual correct statement, it just doesn’t address the core point – Islamic terrorists, and illegals?   The argument again digresses into a war of propaganda, instead of a war of facts.

In addition, according to The Independent in the UK, Muslims claim to be subjected to the worst discrimination of any other minority… which makes Khans’s embracing statements rather false…

Statistic show that Muslim men were less likely to be employed than ‘white Christian British ‘ men… What a ridiculous claim. What were their qualifications? What was their experience? What was their knowledge of the language? What was their education? The absurdity of such baseless statistics is criminal.

Okay – the guy who speaks no English, has no education, has no experience, and hates all British citizens with a vengeance – has a less likely chance of getting the same job as a … fill in the blanks…

The report goes on to claim that they/Muslims are perceived as ‘disloyal and a threat’ – as in, I wonder why?

Of course, let us reiterate, these reports are based on the climate of immigration in the Mayor Khan’s – UK. Not the Trump’s US.

Research has the valuable import of pulling up historical information and integrating that into the political agenda so as to coordinate what is Truth. Unfortunately, many within our media, instead prefer to articulate a false statistic based on a pre-conceived end product.

Khan would be better informed to know the facts before spouting and pointing fingers, he only reveals his own ignorance. And Theresa May, she needs to stop being a politician and start being a human being, because as one of my followers has pointed out – she is looking more and more like – The Swamp.


Quick FYI:  The illegal immigration population in the UK is estimated to be about .4%.  The US illegal population is estimated to be about 3.5%.  Apples to – wood…

UK Election – Socialism Rising

While the press is diligently trampling Trump and staging fake news sets, an election in the UK has been slighted. Theresa May’s lead against Socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, has narrowed precipitously over the last month. Why is this important? To put it into perspective, a Corbyn win would be like a Bernie Sanders win… a complete reversal of policies and the institution of communist/socialism.

Surprisingly, the press is quite silent.

Corbyn supports vacating BREXIT. He is anti-capitalism, pro-globalization, and pro-immigration, as in they are just misunderstood and angry – give them a hug…   A Corbyn election win would derail relations with the US, and give the Soros agenda quite a boost in having control over the EU with France, Germany and the UK aligned.

An interesting viewpoint from the off-Guardian, suggests that a Corbyn win is a CIA decision, reuniting the EU, thus making them a pawn of the US and easier to rule as a single unit. That may have been the case under an Obama empire or a Hillary queendom, but the rules and the game have changed, shifted. And a united EU is more aligned with a Soros agenda –    Upon further investigation, the article was written by a woman connected to “True Publica” which has been cited as a Green organization with a bent toward leftist anarchist views.  It is another propaganda machine created in 2002 with the intent of subliminally altering opinion.

AKA, Soros.

For the article, the off-Guardian presents a photo of Corbyn which is somewhat telling as he seems to take a Hail Caesar posture.   Praise is lavished upon his ideologies, and the same mechanics of media exploitation of Hillary comes to mind. The photo is reminiscent of those of Obama with a golden halo behind his head…

Security concerns and the ISIS attacks are named as the apparent drivers of the election schism.   David Cameron’s advisor is asking May to step down and relinquish her post. Sounds decidedly similar to the impeachment screams coming from Maxine Waters in her bid for Trump to ‘stand down’.

The US and UK media is decidedly anti-May and Pro-Corbyn, which also would suggest that the manipulation and propaganda are hard at work to tilt the election.

So, what if Corbyn is elected, how could that skew the global political personalities?

With the EU firmly tied to a Socialist agenda, and the support of greater immigration, they would in effect be creating their own internal destruction. The US and some of the Eastern European countries would be isolated and left to ‘choose sides’, not just politically, but economically as well. The alternate side being – Russia.

Asian countries would come under the mercy of China, the EU would become a defacto subdivision of the Middle East, and Canada, under Trudeau, would align with the EU. South America has been nearly completely destabilized and therefore has no position, and Africa remains a common ground of war. The point of the game is to create ever larger ‘units’ in order to ultimately align all units into the Globalization super power.

For the UK, bringing it to it’s knees was the back to back ISIS attacks…  Conveniently crafted during the one month before the election.

France’s election of Macron, the Rothschild poster boy, was a coup. But if Corbyn were to win the UK, the entire world map will shift.

And yet, the media is oddly silent. The stage is set, the actors are playing their parts, and we have entered into Act III without the audience ever having attended the play, the auditorium is empty.  

The election is in play, and nary a whisper…

Paris Climate Agreement: SHAMEFUL SHAM

Does anyone know exactly what the Paris Climate Agreement says? Because, if you are like me – the answer is “No”.

So, I decided to read/skim through the Agreement in order to see what all the fuss is about:

  1. It utilizes words like ‘aim’ and ‘goal’ quite a bit to define its terms.
  2. It seems to address catastrophic events quite a bit, which would be more like a universal FEMA.
  3. As with all good intentions, so far, the US is one of only a spattering of countries that has actually anted any money via cash and/or commitment, amounting to about 1/3 of the total so far.
  4. In fact, France, US and Japan are the ONLY developed countries that have put their money where their mouth is.
  5. As with all such contracts, the UN, in all their bloated transparency, would be the ‘accountant’ and ‘distributor’ of funds.
  6. Every nation’s aim or goal is not subject to any legal requirement at all, the only legal requirement is that each country report their progress.
  7. The ‘emission cut targets for 2016’ were 3’, verses the 2’ required by the Agreement, so right off the assembly line, it reports a failure rate of 50%.
  8. Bottom line – everything is ‘voluntary’ – no incentive, no consequence.
  9. Everybody ‘should’ cooperate, everybody ‘should ‘share’, everybody ‘should’ be transparent…and nice.   Sounds like a Kindergarten lesson plan.
  10. And this one is scary! “The Conference of the Parties, the supreme body of the Convention, shall serve as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement.”

“Supreme Body”, sounds like a Communist takeover.

Aims and goals can be funny things from a purely business standpoint. Imagine the Saudi’s wrote a contract with Boeing to provide $5 billion in aerospace and military equipment. They would aim to pay at the time of delivery. They take delivery and decide their aim was not realistic and so they defer payment for another 25 years…

That’s what an aim looks like in the business world, and that’s why this Paris Agreement is worthless.

In addition, there are three parties that have not signed, 2 of which the media notates regularly, Syria and Iraq. The third is The Holy See.

Of the 195 countries signing the Agreement, 20 are responsible for a greater than 1% contribution to the global emissions with China, the EU and the US representing about 48%.  That means, that the combined largest polluters are going to raise more than $100 billion annually to fund a bunch of UN jobs to oversee the money and distribute it to countries that have little to no effect on global emissions.  What the HEY?

That is our UN hard at work!

The Agreement further denotes ‘Capacity Building’. Meaning the UN and developed countries will ‘enhance’ developing countries to take action to change the effects of climate change on their ‘Party country’.

Sounds like a global initiative to come in the backdoor and take control of a country, telling them what to do, how, where and why, when the country isn’t even contributing to climate change in the first place…

Fishy is as Fishy does.

Appears more likely that the Paris Agreement is a detractor cover for a global seizure of small countries so as to incorporate them into the larger country – the UN because it has nothing to do with ‘climate’ and everything to do with building out these smaller countries so that they can be mined and owned.   Like the African Land Grabs – only on a global scale.