China Election – A Dictatorship?

Oh dear, The Washington Post thinks that Xi Jinping is setting up Dictatorship rule in China because he wants to extend term limits for the Presidency.   It would appear that the esteemed WAPO is unaware that in Canada, the post of Prime Minister is not only an unelected post, but it’s term is fixed forever, or until the person holding the post decides they don’t want to be a PM any more… As of 2007, a caveat was created whereby a PM whose party fails the next election may be dismissed by the opposition party.   Of course it is the Governor General who appoints the Prime Minister to office, and the Governor General is appointed by the Queen at the advice of the Prime Minister… One Big Happy Family!

The previous Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, served for nine years.   Jean Chretien who was the 20th Prime Minister, was in office 10 years and went through 3 Governor Generals.   The only female Prime Minister was Kim Campbell who served for just 4 months.    But Canada doesn’t count, right?

Of course, all these term rules apply to all British Commonwealth nations under Queen Elizabeth, including;  Australia, Barbados, Jamaica, Belize, Bahamas, Antigua, Barbados, and Grenada.

In the US, the longest serving terms go to: John Dingle, Democrat who served 59 years; Robert Byrd, Democrat who served 57 years; Carl Hayden, Democrat who served 56 years; Jammie Whitten, Democrat who served 53 years.   The shortest tenure listed for the longest service was 36 years.  I guess these ‘terms’ don’t count…

But according to WAPO, that would make them Dictators…like China’s Xi Jinping…

Oddly, Japan follows similar rules as adopted by the UK Monarchy, with the Prime Minister appointment rather than election, and unlimited terms. So I guess Japan is a Dictatorship too…oops.

Apparently, the various mainstream news agencies are not aware that China is merely following in the footsteps of what numerous other countries around the world have been doing for centuries.   In China, all higher up officials are appointed by the National Peoples Congress who are directly elected by votes.   While in theory China considers itself a multi-party nation, in reality the Communist Party is the only one that holds power.

Does this make their system right and just?  No.  It simply highlights the hypocrisy.

There is speculation that the US is fundamentally a one party system ruled by Big Business and that Democrats and Republicans are simply pawns that essentially uphold that power as an illusion.   As Trump began to unravel The Swamp, the parties he trashed unveiled this fundamental illusion given that both Democrats and Republicans were implicated. Crossing lines, McCain, Graham, Rubio, and a host of others were quickly unveiled for their Democrat ties and leanings.

Adding to the push toward a one party system in the US is the ongoing redistricting, or gerrymandering, that is hurriedly being imposed by the joint efforts of Obama and Holder as they attempt to redefine political lines so as to create a majority party electoral.   Despite reports claiming this is an initiative being waged by both parties, Missouri, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Dakota, etc…, upwards of 18 states have begun redistricting proposals.   Unions are one of the larger funders, but George Soros has decidedly entered the fray as the Democrat position is ‘mandered’. Basically, this is an attempt to create a one party electoral/district majority.  One step away from a single party and two steps away from Communism.

In addition, states are moving to allow illegal immigrants voting rights which will most certainly sway the platforms considerably.

While there are those that would vilify Trump as the creator in house of the one party system in the US, that would be a rather difficult feat given that this concept has been in the making for decades as the US attempts to move closer to Communism through the illusion of Socialism. Often it takes having a conversation with those that escaped Communism in order to understand more clearly how it is implemented.

Martial Law, suppression of religion, regulation and absolute control are all pre-factors leading to ultimate oppression and Communism.   Trump advocates against all of these. Europe is currently endangered. The US gained a breather with Trump, but we are still undergoing an assault. The Dictatorship within the US still rules from the sidelines as Senators and House Reps comfortably numb snore through their sixth decade without ‘term limits’.

So is the China syndrome mean much of anything?  Not really, it just sounds good when vilifying another – as in the modicum of ‘not building bridges’ – a Liberal outcry that oft forgets to look in the metaphorical mirror.

SOROS – The Master Puppeteer: Who will be his successors?

Most people in Europe are well aware of the name, George Soros. A good portion of the people elsewhere are somewhat familiar with his dealings. But it is only a fragment of the US population that would appear to have any idea of the magnitude of the Soros empire and it’s agenda.

There is a contingent of people who acknowledge that president Obama seems to be a ‘puppet’ waiting on any catastrophic event for guidance. Usually four days is the advance that Obama requires before speaking publicly about corruption, fraud, cover-ups, disasters, etc…

But even fewer seem to know the fringe circle of allies, Tom Steyer and Pierre Omidyar, whose power, political clout and money drive the decisions in Washington. Perhaps they are the a part of those who will succeed Soros as his legacy of Karl Popper, Communism, and Liberal Socialism continue to grow.

Pierre Omidyar: An Iranian American who founded Ebay, Pierre, like Soros, on the surface of edited bio’s appears to be a philanthropist who just wants to see good things happen. But as it happens, Omidyar was entrenched in financing the ‘regime change’ of Ukraine and helped organize the Maiden Revolution. He voluntarily hands over all available personal data on Ebay and PayPal subscribers to the government boasting that he has helped the police arrest thousands around the world. It is filtering process that helps to enforce the agenda.

It is said that he has buried several months worth of food supplies in Nevada, Hawaii, France, and Montana in anticipation of a pandemic. He invested in a company, Maui Land and Pineapple, which was busted by the US feds for being the largest human trafficking organization ever. He was investigated and sued by Congress for ‘spinning stocks’ and investing illegally in IPO’s with Goldman Sachs.

And he is an avid guest of the Obama’s at the White House.

In 2013 he started a new online journalistic front, First Look Media, which he claimed was going to be the front runner in independent and unbiased reporting. Glenn Greenwald and Ken Silverstein were his front team, Silverstein and a number of other team members have since quit citing a complete absence of management. But it is the lust for power and more money that would seem to drive the persona of Mr. Pierre. From microfinancing schemes in India in which profit was the sole motive, to land grabs for development and agriculture gains, to wielding a big stick in the US education system, to advocating First Amendment Rights when it comes to perhaps furthering ‘his’ personal agenda, the man is obsessed with power.

While his news agency, Intercept, is guided by principle, whose principle would seem to be the grinding wedge that has many questioning reality verses motive. In August 2014, the FBI stated it would be investigating the leaked, classified documents cited in one of Intercept’s article/blogs. Shortly thereafter, Intercept announced that all US military personnel were banned from reading its blog. A rather bold statement of censorship. Apparently, the target for much of the Intercept would seem to be the US military intelligence.

When probed, Glenn Greenwald declared that the personal donations, political views, etc… are no concern to him when writing for the man’s paper. In other words, ethics is of no concern. He has partnered with the Clinton’s in their foundation work, and established a $200 million fund to partner with the USAID, a US government organization. Omidyar’s foundation, Humanity United, shares a donor list similar to that of George Soros, including; Amnesty International, Center for American Progress, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and more.

Tom Steyer: Hedge fund manager and green advocate whose battles against the Keystone pipeline and the coal industry have earned him honors as a hypocrite. While advocating heavily against Keystone, Steyer’s hedge fund invested in the Kinder Morgan competitive pipeline, which links Alberta with Vancouver, BC, as well as the Cochin natural gas pipeline between Western Canada and the US Midwest.

Steyer made his fortune as the founder of Farallon Capital Management, a fund that invested heavily in fossil fuels and the Kinder Morgan Pipeline. Although these investments were sold sometime between 2012 and 2014 when he retired to pursue ‘politics’. However, the fact remains that this is where his billions began and where he accumulated his power.

He is a political activist who has petitioned the White House to ramp up the Global Warming Initiative and advocate for green energy. He too is involved in the Soros organization, Democracy Alliance which requires an annual membership fee of $200,000. Their candidate of choice would appear to be Elizabeth Warren whose politics and policies support greater funding of groups fighting issues on a state level – such as freedom of speech, ie blasting religious institutes and their causes. Their aim is to boost liberal ideals on a state level including their launching of The Center for American Progress and Media Matters. The purpose – to squash the founding Constitution and replace it with a new and improved Constitution.

Where do these individuals and organizations go? Why is it important?

George Soros is old. He needs to hand over the baton. Both Steyer and Omidyar are relatively young – in their 40’s and 50’s. He needs minds that are similar, money that is engorged, and youth that can carry the One World Order to the next level. Regime Change is a part of that agenda. Civil chaos is a part of that agenda. And while both Steyer and Omidyar appear to be proponents of charity and philanthropy on the surface, so did Soros before the unraveling began.

Imagine such a world. John Lennon did.

Obama’s Putin Game Plan

I always find it amazing when a person or a country acts so righteously incensed when a person or country they have regularly maligned and slandered isn’t nice back. It is one of those self consumed moments of narcissism that alludes their sense of ethics. Personally, I have both witnessed and been the brunt of such bizarre attacks. It is as though some sense and sensibility mechanism in the brain has shut down or simply doesn’t exist.

Enter Putin. He is continually characterized by the western media as a heinous monster. These mediaites typically cite as justification the atrocities committed by Lenin and Stalin. This same thought pattern should then be imposed on Merkel and Hitler? Of course not! But for some reason, the media can not seem to make this differentiation logic.

So why is Obama suddenly doing an about-face and claiming that the US needs to be buddy-buddy with Putin’s Russia?

Personally, I don’t trust the agenda. And I doubt Putin does either.

Russia got smacked by Europe, Australia, the US and Canada. We wiped out people’s income, their jobs, their economy, their livelihood. And now we are incensed that the Russians don’t so much like us any more. Instead of bowing at the knees, and begging for forgiveness, Putin acted like, well, a president. He immediately went into restoration mode, putting his finger in the dyke of sanctions. Since the sanctions began, he affirmed economic trades with China, India, and South America, shifting the agenda and putting the stability of the dollar in a precarious position. He loaded up on gold in anticipation of future ramifications. He ramped up the military and began the process of economic diversification. He did not – back down or crawl into a corner.

And now, Obama wants to reignite friendship.

The new and improved US/Ukraine government is posturing toward communism as it flagrantly murders its own citizens, considers martial law and has announced a moratorium on the repayment of debt. And these are the ‘folks’ we prefer to be in power and control? It is for this power government that we jeopardized world relations and set in motion a panic of world war.

So why would Obama shift?

What is behind the olive leaf? Perhaps it is the knowledge that the BRICS have the potential to bring about a currency change that UN nations aren’t ready for. The fall of the US dollar as the national monetary would forever change the face of this world. Countries never ‘come back’. Once imposed, the deed is done. Look no further than the Roman Empire, The Ottoman Empire, The UK, and we can see that the baton once passed, cannot be erased, edited, rewritten or returned.

The fear, that over-riding emotion that can make mice of men, is beginning to extend into the roots of power in the US. Too many enemies. And the BRICS, whether through propaganda or not, are rising above the colossal regime change and civil warring. The media is ‘sort-of’ catching on, but the reporting is still silent.

Reading articles from 3-5 years ago, the idea that the BRICS would extend their power and rise to the forefront was considered ludicrous. It is said that 80 countries have now joined the BRICS, and growing. The idea that the US was the penal system of the world has isolated these countries who seem more inclined to spend their time advocating working together rather than punishing.

China, the largest holder of US debt, has dumped about 10% since 2013. Their alliance with Russia and India against the US, is not without consequences. Does Obama want to remedy this, or was this his agenda in derailing the US? We can speculate, but given the incredible level of corruption, lies, and fraud that have defined this administration, it is generating – fear. He, is generating fear. He is instigating racism and violence. And we must take note of the source.

Did Obama and his shadows miscalculate their enemy? The Art of War clearly states that underestimating one’s enemy is the equivalent of death. Whether Russia was ever the enemy is certainly subjective. Creating an enemy where an alley once existed is a dangerous game. I seriously doubt ‘regime change’ can be had in either Russia or China. A bloated ego concept at best. So, if you can’t change the regime, can you befriend it and manipulate it from afar?

Like Nero who fiddled while Rome burned, Obama may have fiddled away our country, but there are many who still hold to morality, ethics and charity. The many just don’t need late night television to applaud them.

Globalization – Agenda’s vs. Ideals

There are different definitions for Globalization. It depends if you are talking with an idealist or a realist. The idealist perceives a world of peace, of living in harmony, a world without borders, a world without poverty wherein resources are shared equitably. The idealist sees a single monetary unit, and either no religion or a united religion. They see the sharing of wealth and of ideas in a Utopian society.

Globalization is a theoretical model. The realist sees a system on paper that may or may not be perfect, but whose existence is managed by a flawed and imperfect humanity. While the concept may be logical, when subjected to the frailties of human greed, corruption and graft, it will fail. The human component destroys the value.

We have watched the marching army of globalization expand exponentially despite its historical failure. Why? Why do we continue to propel forward a failed philosophy?

Because the ‘we’ that propels is the same interest that is gaining financially. Proponents of globalization typically include the uber wealthy elite; Gates, Soros, Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc… who see the expansion of their wealth as a means for greater power. Power wields control. And control requires an agenda of Communism. Communism is the relinquishment of all property to the state, the state being those uber elite. It is a common man working when he can and being paid what he needs. But need is undefinable. Need for one person may mean five cars, and for another one.

The initial purpose of globalization was to reduce world poverty. So how has it faired? According to one study, poverty in the US since 1980 has expanded radically. And according to the OECD, most of the reduction of world poverty has been in China. According to the World Bank, despite economic growth in much of Africa, extreme poverty remains at 50%. Why? Because the economic growth is skewed to belong to a select few. Inequality still reins. In a 27 year span ending in 2008, poverty in Africa declined 4%. Whether this number is true or not is a part of the problem as governments of Africa, India and China have been charged with releasing corrupt data to lift their statistics. So if glob alization has done virtually nothing to eliminate poverty, what has it accomplished?

Globalization has created greater wealth for the few.

As I have said before, statistics are only so good as the agenda of the person using them. If we measure a countries progress simply by their GDP growth rate, we fail to dig into the entire picture. GDP is a measurement of the ‘flow of goods through the economy’. Globalization opened investments from the ubers, but that flow remained in the hands of the ubers instead of being distributed to the people. Thus, the wealth growth is a relative statement.

While economic globalization has been the trend, is it possible to separate economic policies from political, cultural and societal policies?

No. At least, not any longer. They are so completely interwoven that they can not exist as separate entities. But the gears have been in a forward propulsion for more than a decade, so how do you de-globalize? It’s much like trying to de-Obamacare. The train wreck is inevitable, all we can do is be ready with a box of band-aides. The train wreck for globalization would be the continued displacement of wealth to a select few, undermining even the middle class until the system is fully exponentiated and we have two classes – poor and wealthy.

As the cries are rising for some global boundaries, the ubers moved quickly to hedge their bets buying into agriculture, not land on paper, but land that you can touch and feel! Land and water will be the last vestige for control.

On a world level of economics, politics and culture, globalization requires total control. And it is this fear that drives greater skepticism. It requires leaving behind inherent cultural values. It requires a redirection toward a singular goal – money. It requires being put in a box that defines who and what you are much like the communist proletariat. This collectivism then squeezes out individuation, and the rebels rise.

On paper, Communism was a doctrine that was conceived on a belief that it was the right thing to do for the good of society. That it was ‘Wise’. It held to a Utopian theory. In its infancy, it was created to abolish poverty and to instil peace. But the cost was order and control. Absolute control discards freedom. It was the loss of freedom that brought down communism. Humans thrive on freedom, they die when trapped, confined, and controlled.

So, where we are going on our current trend can have catastrophic consequences if we don’t wake up and get our heads out of mainstream drivel. They feed our brains with baseless information and self pleasure until we no longer notice our loss of freedom – until it is too late.