Tag: Biden

Biden and the New World Order

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

bidensmirkIn a speech, given last week, before the Import-Export Bank ,which has now gone viral, United States Vice-President “Crazy Uncle Joe” Biden said,

The task we have now is to actually create a new world order. Because the global order is changing again, and the institutions that have worked so well in the post-World War II era for decades, they need to be strengthened, and some have to be changed. So we have to do what we do best, we have to lead. We have to lead. We have to update the global rules of the road. We have to do it in a way that maximize benefits for everyone, because obviously, it’s overwhelmingly in our interest, this is not a zero sum game, it’s overwhelmingly in our interest that China prosper, that Mongolia prosper, that nations big and large, east and west, in Latin America and in Africa, prosper, because you know that old expression, they asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, he said ‘that’s where the money is.’ We want everybody to have a little money to make sure they can buy American products. So the paradox — so we don’t view, the President and I and Fred [Hochberg, President of the Export-Import Bank], we don’t view economic growth as a zero sum game here, that somehow we grow and it’s not in our interests if other powers grow as well. That’s the paradox of this new global order. So much of our success depends on the success of those with whom we compete.

Many political pundits have been  quick to respond with the explanation that he was talking about a competitive Global Economy, and how that competition is good for everybody involved.

Because they know that the “tin-foil hat crowd” will be quick to jump on that phrase with all kinds of conspiracy theories.

The question to be asked is: Can there ever be a “New World Order”?

I mean, the UN is already looking to stick its nose into the state of our firearms. What’s next?

The term “Globalization” describes the reality of increased technological, economic, and cultural inter-connectedness between nations. In a globalized economy, economic activity is unrestricted by time zones or national boundaries. Labor forces, ideas, knowledge, products, and services are shared between nations. This trend has been growing exponentially since the 1980s, as technological advances (most importantly involving the growth of the internet and advances in telecommunications) have made it very simple for people to travel, communicate, and do business internationally.

Proponents of globalization make the case that, since the 1980s, every nation that has grown in manufacturing output has also seen its per capita income increase. Nations open to trade tend to be much more prosperous than nations with closed economies and the increased wages created by globalization lead to reduced poverty and improved living conditions for all. (supposedly)

The most impressive example of this can be found in East Asia.

With this brave, new, inter-connected world, theoretically, it would only take one mega-maniacal billionaire to totally screw up the Global Economy.

For example…

George Soros set up the now famous Quantum Fund as one of the world’s first Hedge Funds. It took money from the wealthy and invested in risky but potentially highly profitable international deals.

It did very well out of the collapse of fixed exchange rates in the 1970s and the deregulation of global capital markets. By 1980, George Soros was worth more than £16.5 million and his fund £67 million. The stage was set for his intervention in the Exchange Rate Mechanism, a system established in 1979 for controlling exchange rates within the European Monetary System of the European Union(EU) that was intended to prepare the way for a single currency.

Around spring 1992, Soros had decided that the pound would have to be devalued because it had been pushed into the Exchange Rate Mechanism at too high a rate.

He knew that the Bundesbank was in favor of a devaluation of both sterling and the Italian lira and believed it would have to happen because of the disastrous impact that high British interest rates were having on asset prices.

Soros spent the next few months in preparation to profit from that devaluation. He borrowed sterling heavily, reportedly to the tune of £6.5 billion, and converted that into a mixture of Deutschmarks and French francs.

On Black Wednesday, September 16, 1992, Soros won his bet.  The UK Conservative government was forced to withdraw the Pound from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) due to pressure by currency speculators, most notably Soros, himself.

In the following days, he took care of business, paying back what he borrowed and ending with a profit of around £1 billion.  At the same time, Soros bought as much as £350 million of British shares, gambling that equities often rise after a currency devalues.

He later admitted that his actions had benefited no one but himself.

With America’s economy struggling to recover, and American industry being taxed into oblivion, our American Corporations (you remember them, the ones who actually hire people?) have been hightailing it out of the country, to friendlier foreign locations. Even so, several European nations are worse off economically, than we are, and on the verse of anarchy.

With all of the instability in the world’s economic picture, it is not quite the rosy picture that Biden and his boss, The Lightbringer, want to paint it as.

The Book of Revelation warns us what is coming. How many will listen?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Gun Control by Executive Order? Constitution Ignored.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

gun rightsA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

– The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Yesterday, the Vice-Idiot, errr, I mean President, gave Americans a warning, that his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is about to ignore the Constitution of the United States.

The Weekly  Standard reports the story:

Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns.

“The president is going to act,” said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that “it’s critically important that we act.”

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. “As the president said, if you’re actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”

Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill.

Yeah. Crazy Uncle Joe is a legend in his own mind.

While researching this post, I found some truth from a very unexpected source: Pravda.

(That’s pretty bad when Pravda is telling the truth and America’s Main Stream Media is not. But, I digress…)

Before the Revolution in 1918, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on Earth.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Wow. I never thought that I would see our country, the Home of the Free and the Brave, in this situation.

Pop quiz, Hot Shot.

a) Has the avarice of the 47% so stupefied their minds that they cannot see rampant Marxism about to sublimate them into servitude?

b)Has their greed taken the place of their love of freedom?

c) Or, have they been so indoctrinated over the last 4 years, that they don’t give a rat’s rear end if they live the rest of their life in a Marxist nation…as long as the freebies keep coming?

d) All of the above

Of course, the answer is d).

What we are witnessing is a result of the indoctrination of a generation. 

Russian Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin said:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.

Elections have consequences.

Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. – Galations 6:7 (ESV)

Until He Comes,

KJ

BenghaziGate: Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

 New revelations are coming to light every day, concerning the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans at the hands of Muslim Terrorists.

The White House has thrown the entire U.S. Intelligence Community under the bus with their latest excuse:

The State Department security officials who testified before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s panel Wednesday never said they had made their requests to the president, Rhodes pointed out. That would be natural because the State Department is responsible for diplomatic security, not the White House, he said. Rhodes also pointed out that the officials were requesting more security in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. “In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST [Site Security Team] extension.’ I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway.”

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department’s reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

“We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met,” testified Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August.

Issa released the unclassified cables containing those requests.

At Thursday night’s debate, Rep. Paul Ryan seemed to suggest that the requests were for Marines to go to Libya, which was not the case. The requests were to extend the tours of a Mobile Security Detachments [MSD] and the Site Security Team [SST] at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, which are teams of military personnel, not Marines, who can help protect an embassy and its personnel.

“What we should not be doing is rejecting claims for calls for more security in our barracks, in our Marine — we need Marines in Benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security,” Ryan said. “There were requests for extra security. Those requests were not honored.”

In his prepared testimony, Nordstrom said that “because of Libyan political sensitivities, armed private security companies were not allowed to operate in Libya.” Instead, the Benghazi mission, through a British company, hired unarmed Libyan guards to work inside the compound and a local Libyan militia patrolled the exterior of the compound.

Ryan also erred when he criticized the State Department for assigning Marines to protect the ambassador in France but not Amb. Chris Stevens, who died in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

“Our ambassador in Paris has a marine detachment guarding him, shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi?,” Ryan said.

According to the U.S. Embassy Paris website, there is a Marine Security Guard Detachment in the embassy, but they are there primarily to protect classified information and are not part of the ambassador’s personal security detail.

Let’s go back to the Vice-Presidential Debate, where the folllowing statements were made by the one, the only Jar Jar Biden:

MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that’s exactly what we were told —

MS. RADDATZ: By who?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That’s why there’s also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat in the — from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there were any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again. But —

MS. RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. That’s why I said, we will get to the bottom of this.

You know, usually when there’s a crisis, we pull together. We pull together as a nation. But as I said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference — was holding a press conference. That’s not presidential leadership.

On October 3rd, Yahoo News (Reuters) ran the following story:

Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.

Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.

It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.”

The existence of the early reports appears to raise fresh questions about the Obama administration’s public messaging about the attack as it seeks to fend off Republican charges that the White House failed to prevent a terrorist strike that left a U.S. ambassador and three others dead.

“What we’re seeing now is the picture starting to develop that it wasn’t a problem with the intelligence that was given, it’s what they did with the intelligence that they were given,” Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said in an interview on Tuesday.

“This picture is still a little fuzzy but it is starting to come into focus and it appears that there were, very early on, some indications that there was jihadist participation in the event,” he said.

The Obama administration has strongly defended its public accounts of what happened in Benghazi, and said its understanding has evolved as additional information came in.

“At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information, they updated Congress and the American people on it,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

Some officials said U.S. spy agencies tried to avoid drawing premature conclusions about how the violence began and who organized it.

“Unless you have very good reports that strongly suggest who was behind the attack for sure, it is prudent to be careful, because placing emphasis publicly, even tentatively, on any one group or groups too soon can lead everyone down the wrong path,” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

So, which is it, Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Company?

Were you kept in the dark by your Intelligence Agencies (which I highly doubt, since you sign their paychecks) or was telling the truth about the Muslim Terrorist attack in Benghazi so abhorrent to you that, instead of allowing it to sabotage your mission of support for the  burgeoning “Muslim Democracies” (a contradiction in terms) brought about by the barbaric violence of “Arab Spring”, you flat out-and-out lied to the American Public and the United Nations about the nature of the murder of Ambassador Stevens and the other 4 Americans at the hands of those bloody barbarians?

If, as I, and the majority of the rest of Americans suspect, it’s the later, you should be impeached…and ridden out of town on a rail.

Well, at least we can accomplish the “ridden out of town” part on November 6th.

Campaign 2012: Chain of Fools

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

Just when you thought that he couldn’t say anything more inapproriate or stupid, Herr Gaffemeister, Vice-President Joe Biden, has done it again.

Unchain My Heart…

Realclearpolitics.com has the story:

Vice President Joe Biden told supporters that Republicans would “put y’all back in chains,” during a campaign speech Tuesday in Danville, Va.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: They’ve said it. Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the—he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules–unchain Wall Street. They’re going to put y’all back in chains. He’s said he’s going to do nothing about stopping the practice of outsourcing…

Per businessweek.com:

The Romney campaign said the remarks show that President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign wants to steer voters away from concerns about the economy.

“Whether it’s accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon, having been responsible for a woman’s tragic death or now wanting to put people in chains, there’s no question that because of the president’s failed record he’s been reduced to a desperate campaign based on division and demonization,” said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman said in a written statement.

The Obama campaign’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, defended the vice president’s remarks, saying that Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, and House Speaker John Boehner, both Republicans, “have called for the ‘unshackling’ of the private sector from regulations that protect Americans from risky financial deals and other reckless behavior that crashed our economy.”

And, realclearpolitics.com adds this quote:

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter says the campaign has “no problem” with Vice President Joe Biden’s comment about putting people back in chains.

“I think he probably agrees with Joe Biden’s sentiments,” Cutter said on behalf of President Obama. “He’s using a metaphor to talk about what’s going to happen.”

“I appreciate the faux outrage from the Romney campaign,” Cutter said in reaction to a statement from the campaign. “If you want to talk about the use of words then take a look at Mitt Romney’s stump speech where he basically calls the president un-American.”

“The bottom line is that we have no problem with those comments,” Cutter said.

Uh-huh. Stephanie, precious, the sound you’re hearing as the result of Obama’s failed economic plains? That’s “The Sound of the Men Working on the Chain Gang”.

Remember a couple of weeks ago, the hue and cry from the concerned about a special pair of tennis shoes?

The London Daily Mail reported at the time, that

Adidas has come under fire for creating a pair of trainers with ‘shackles’.

Critics have compared the ‘JS Roundhouse Mids’, to be released in August, to the chains worn by black slaves in the 19th century.

The firm unveiled the trainers on its Facebook page. They feature plastic orange ‘shackles’ attached to the ankles by chains in the same colour.

The shoes have sparked an angry debate online. More than 2,000 Facebook users have commented, with many calling the design ‘offensive’ and ‘ignorant’, saying the firm has ‘sunk to new lows’ with its ‘slavewear’ product.

One, ‘Kay Tee’, said: ‘It’s offensive and inappropriate in many ways… How would a Jewish person feel if they decided to have a shoe with a swastika on it and tried to claim it was OK in the name of fashion?’

Dr Boyce Watkins, writing for Your Black World, said: ‘Shackles. The stuff that our ancestors wore for 400 years while experiencing the most horrific atrocities imaginable.

‘Most of which were never documented in the history books and kept away from you in the educational system, all so you’d be willing to put shackles on your ankles today and not be so sensitive about it.’

The Professor at Syracuse University said he accepted some people would accuse him of overreacting.

But he added: ‘There is always a group of negroes who are more than happy to resubmit themselves to slavery.

‘I’m offended by these shoes as there is nothing funny about the prison industrial complex, which is the most genocidal thing to happen to the black family since slavery itself.’

Others have likened the shoes’ orange ‘bracelets’ to the shackles worn by prisoners across the America, or said the firm is ‘promoting slavery’.

Kay Tee added: ‘Regardless if the company was saying the shoes are so hot you have to chain them to you, or they were capitalising on the whole prison style popularity.

‘But corporate business has a social responsibility above all to consider these perceptions before releasing a product like this.

Adidas has not yet commented.

So…when VP Biden alludes to slavery it’s okey-dokey, but producing a pair of tennis shoes with orange chains on the top of them is egregious?

Sounds like the Libs are singing the same ol’ “Unchained Melody”.