On a recent broadcast
New York City Mayor, and 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful, Bill de Blasio told Sean Hannity he supports border security — just not the way President Trump wants it.
The Mayor claimed in an explosive interview last week on “Hannity,” that a border wall with Mexico is unnecessary but some reforms are needed,
“I support border security but not walls,” he said.
“I don’t think we need additional walls because, look, there are 11 million people here right now.” Adding, “There’s no invasion. There are people here already who are part of our community.”
At a May rally in the Florida panhandle, President Trump likened the influx of illegal immigrants to an “invasion.”
“When you see these caravans starting out with 20,000 people, that’s an invasion,” Trump said at the Panama City event.
Bad People Will Get In – “With or Without a Wall”
In his interview with Hannity, de Blasio also reacted to the import of illicit drugs and immigration of illegal aliens who are criminals, across the southern border.
“People get in with a wall or without a wall, that’s not how you do it,” he said.
“You create an actual border security mechanism. You have every tool you need and you create a reality in our communities where police and communities are working together.”
At one point, he pushed back on Hannity’s use of the words, “sanctuary city,” to describe municipalities that ignore federal immigration law.
“I don’t accept any of these terms,” he said.
Regarding illegal immigrants being granted access to health care services in New York City, the mayor argued the undocumented residents would cost the taxpayers money for their treatment either way.
“Folks go to the emergency room… who’s paying for it?”
Then the former city councilman from Brooklyn added, “These are human beings who are part of our economy and part of our neighborhood.”
Meanwhile, voters in his own City, aren’t too fond of Bill de Blasio as a mayor or as a presidential candidate, according to a poll released one day before his appearance on “Hannity”.
The poll conducted by Siena College found that the mayor is less popular with New Yorkers than President Donald Trump. De Blasio received a 26% favorability rating and 57% unfavorability, compared to Trump’s 35-62%. The poll was conducted between July 28 and Aug. 1, and included responses from 810 registered voters in New York State.
Nationally, among the over 20 candidates for the 2020 Democratic candidates, di Blasio has consistently polled at the bottom, rarely raising over 0% to a maximum of 1%.
A new poll has revealed that a two-thirds majority of Americans think that the United States government should not make cash reparation payments to the descendants of slaves.
According to the Gallup poll which was conducted in June and July, 67 percent of Americans opposed the idea of providing cash payments as a form of reparations to the descendants of slaves. The percentage of Americans who supported cash reparations stood at just 29 percent – up from 14 percent in 2002. The poll revealed that 73 percent of black Americans support cash reparations.
In June, the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing on reparation where the considered HR Bill 4 – a piece of legislation which calls for the establishment of an expert committee that would study the idea of reparations and make suggestions to lawmakers.
The sponsor behind the proposed bill is Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas. The legislation itself doesn’t propose how descendants of slaves would be compensated.
Democrats are starkly divided on the issue of reparations. While 49 percent of polled Democrats supported the idea of cash reparations, 47 percent opposed the idea. Democrats who support the idea is up nearly 100 percent from 2002, when just 25 percent supported it.
Independents, however, weren’t so keen on the idea, with 35 percent in support and 65 percent in opposition.
Among Republicans polled, just 5 percent were for reparations, up from 4 percent in 2002. Conversely, an astounding 92 percent of Republicans opposed the idea.
Lastly, the poll also revealed a bit of a racial divide on the issue. Among black Americans, 73 percent supported the idea, while just 16 percent of white voters supported it. Hispanics were more split down the middle, with 47 percent supporting the idea and 46 percent being against it.
With all the news about domestic shootings lately, potential conflict with Iran has been pushed out of the headlines. However, that does not mean that tensions between the US and the terrorist state do not continue to exist.. and mount.
While Iran is can puff out their chests and challenge the US in their rhetoric, they need to be aware what they would be up against should they face the world’s most powerful military and a Commander-in-Chief who is not afraid to use it.
The superior air power of the US could be particularly devastating to Iran, should war ever come between our two nations.
The B-2 Stealth Bomber could deliver a surprise punch to the Iran is that could mean their utter destruction
America’s Most Advance Weapon System
The B-2 Stealth Bomber is arguably the US’s most advanced and deadly weapon system. Originally developed in the 80s to take on an adversary much more powerful and dangerous than Iran – the then Soviet Union – it was originally conceived to infiltrate the Soviet air-defense network and attack targets with nuclear weapons.
In the decades since, its mission has grown to include conventional precision attack. The B-2 is the most advanced bomber in US service, and the only one of three types that still carries a nuclear payload.
The B-2 was developed as a black program. It was developed with such a high level of secrecy, that until it’s rollout in 1988 few were sure exactly what the B-2 looked like. And, since it was built and tested in and around the area of Groom Lake and Area 51, there are those that believed, (and still do!) that it was reverse-engineered from alien technology!
The B-2 is sixty-nine feet long and seventeen feet high. It has a wingspan of 172 feet. It has a speed of 680 miles an hour, and had a maximum altitude of 50,00 feet. It has an unrefueled range of 6,000 miles, and has midair refueling capability.
There is nothing in the Iranian Air Force that can match it.
The B-2 has two weapons bays built into the belly section that together can hold up to 60,000 pounds of ordnance. Each bay carries eight bomb racks, and in the nuclear role the bomber can carry an assortment of up to sixteen B61-7 bombs (10–360 kilotons), B61-11 bombs (400 kilotons) or B-83-1 thermonuclear bombs (1.2 megatons). The Spirit will also carry the new B-61-12 bomb with a “dial-a-yield” configuration, giving it a yield of .3, 1.5, 10 or 50 kilotons.
It can also be fit to carry nuclear cruise missiles, should the Commander-in-Chief authorize the use of such ordinance in a time of war.
Battle Proven Conventional Weaponry
While the B-2 has never yet been called upon to deliver the kind of nuclear devastation it is capable of, it has seen extensive use in the conventional role. The B-2 first dropped bombs in anger in the 1999 Kosovo War, followed by the Iran War in 2003. B-2s were among the first to drop bombs on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11, and bombed Libyan forces in 2011.
The bombers are restricted to flying from a handful of locations, due to their need for special climate-controlled accommodations to protect their radar-absorbent coatings. Flight time from the home of the Spirit fleet, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, to Iran is thirty-eight hours and would require 4–5 aerial refuelings. Small numbers of B-2s can also operate from Andersen Air Force Base on the island of Guam in the Pacific and RAF Fairford in the UK.
B-2 bombers would almost certainly take part in any attack on Iran’s renewed nuclear program, which would almost certainly be a part of, or escalate to a larger war between Iran the US and our allies. The B-2 would likely be sent after the Iranian leadership itself, dropping Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs on hardened and underground Iraq’s command and control systems, ideally disrupting its ability to issue orders to launch missiles, and hopefully killing top military and/or government officials.
In a lengthy response to last week’s mass shootings which claimed the lives of 31 people in Ohio and Texas, Barack Hussein Obama laid out his case for who it is that we all should blame. The former President, who most Democratic presidential candidates would prefer not to have their name associated with, attributed the country’s violent culture on President Trump, ‘white supremacist websites’ and guns.
The former president, in a message shared to Twitter, called on U.S. lawmakers to enact more gun control measures to prevent more mass shootings, as if that would do anything at all.
In the statement, Obama wrote, “Until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws, these tragedies will keep happening.”
In a fashion no different than any other liberal politician, Obama laments that “no other nation on Earth” has the degree of violent gun crime as the U.S. does. Of course, he fails to take into account the other kinds of extreme violence other countries like the UK or Germany suffer from, but that’s beside the point I guess.
From his letter, the former president seems to think that we can just legislate this problem away.
Obama also called for increased censorship of so-called ‘what nationalist websites’ to help combat ‘radicalization’.
He writes, “There are indications that the El Paso shooting follows a dangerous trend: troubled individuals who embrace racist ideologies and see themselves obligated to act violently to preserve white supremacy.” Obama then goes onto draw false parallels between the radicalization of ISIS terrorists and the radicalization of white nationalists. “That means that both law enforcement agencies and internet platforms need to come up with better strategies to reduce the influence of these hate groups,” he adds.
Although Mr. Obama didn’t call out President Trump’s rhetoric by name, he urged Americans to “soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments.”
Additionally, he condemned rhetoric designed to “demonize those who don’t look like us” or which suggests immigrants are a threat to America. He suggested that this kind of rhetoric has been the source of his worst events in human history.
“It has no place in our politics and our public life. And it’s time for the overwhelming majority of Americans of goodwill, of every race and faith and political party, to say as much — clearly and unequivocally,” he concluded.
While it is still early in the presidential marathon, we may be seeing the beginning of a trend that was predicted here – several times – over recent months. Just days ago, I wrote this:
“There are probably enough radical or gullible people in the country to keep either Sanders or Warren as a threat to Biden – but not both of them. There may be enough to actually overtake Biden and give the nomination to Warren. In that case, the big winner will be President Trump.”
Essentially, what happens to former Vice President Joe Biden’s lead as the field narrows and all those progressive votes begin to converge. I will be a problem for him.
Initially, it looked like Vermont’s socialist Senator Bernie Sanders would be the beneficiary. After all, he was the guy who almost took down the anointed one – Hillary Clinton. Based on that, and the fact the Democratic Party has moved to the left, Sanders had every right to feel that the voters would “feel the Bern.”
Instead, he now appears to have become old news – with emphasis on “old.” He could not have anticipated that an equally radical challenger would come on the scene – and in the form of a younger (not much, however) woman from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.
Let’s look at the numbers.
According to the Quinnipiac polls, Warren has started to move away from Sander and is creeping up on Biden. In last months poll, Biden held a 34 to 15 percent lead over Warren – with Harris at 12 percent and Sanders at 11.
In the most recent poll, Biden drops to 32 percent and Warren moves up to 21 percent. Sanders actually moves up to 14 percent, but now far behind his main competition. That’s right. At this stage, it is not Biden who will end Sanders’ dream of residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is Warren.
Sanders was not the only big loser. In the presidential game of Whack-A-Mole, the once highly touted Kamala Harris joined the legion of single-digit candidates by dropping from 12 percent to 7 percent. Ouch!
Despite their popularity on the left-wing media circuit, such presidential hopefuls as Mayor Peter Buttigieg (moving from 6 to 5 percent), the frenetic Beto O’Rourke (holding at 2 percent) and Senator Cory Booker (doubling his scored from 1 percent to 2 percent) lead a field of candidates striving for a humiliating one percent.
It has been obvious from the start that once the predominately left-wing candidates start dropping off or losing gravitas, one of the radical progressives will benefit. There are enough far-left votes scattered among the contenders to swamp Biden. He may find that his floor is his ceiling. Time will tell.
So, there ‘tis.
Our government may actually be a cryptocracy vs. a democracy. Cryptocracy is a term that still has not made it into the standard dictionary. Don’t believe me? Just go and check dictionary.com. This word is shrouded in mystery but Stewart Swerdlow is a man who has experienced mind control at the highest level where even sex magic has been used to help condition certain minds for specific types of covert missions and activities. Stewart would define the cryptocracy simply as secret society.
Stewart Swerdlow’s great uncle was Yacov Sverdlov who happened to be the 1st president of the Soviet Union. Stewart’s grandfather was sent to the United Kingdom to start the communist party. He later was sent to the United States to start a communist party there as well. Stewart’s grandfather was a Soviet spy during WWII. Many people are unaware that the US and Russia of the Soviet Union were allies at this time. Swerdlow was born a clairvoyant with great mental gifts. He has experience alien abductions as well as government tampering, to say the least, through various forms of physical manipulations.
Stewart was part of the Montauk Project from 1970 to 1983 which involved time travel as well as forward viewing to other planets, etc. He has worked on many projects with the US government as well as some foreign governments. His knowledge of mind-control is unparalleled based on his first hand experience and involvement.
Stewart Swerdlow mentioned in an interview with George Noorey from Coast To Coast in 2016 that we are witnessing the Book of Revelations’ script being played out right in front of our eyes. This agenda is being pushed forward by the Illuminati/government, he said. Stewart stated that this cryptocracy is attempting to cause the end times via war, financial collapse, and drastic earth changes. He said this will lead into the staged alien invasion.
Stewart revealed that in the outer reaches of our solar system, “there is massing there a fleet of beings both from other parts of this universe as well as interdimensionally,” who are plotting to get rid of the Illuminati. This is exactly why the Illuminati have boosted their efforts to control the world and usher in a global government, the second coming of Christ and the acceptance of a new world religion.
These people, beings, entities feel that humanity would be doomed without mind-control. I feel that mind-control is prevalent in our world today. The oldest record of mind control was recorded by Marco Polo the great explorer back in 1298 while traveling through Asia. Here he encountered the Ashinshin group in Persia.
Everything from the food we eat to 5G technology has been put in place to totally manipulate, control and reprogram or pre-program society. To find out more about this topic I would suggest getting your hands on some of the books the Steward Swerdlow wrote so that you can travel your mind deeper into the rabbit hole. You’ve been warned!
The responses from the left-wing media to President Trump’s address following the shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio were characterized by the word “but.” That is a conjunction word that is used to negate everything that was stated previously.
In this case it was used in such positive statements as “Trump did call out white supremacy, but …” “he did call these acts ‘domestic terrorism,’ but …
For the most part, Trump said everything they had hoped (with crossed fingers) he would say. It was both a compassionate speech and one that addressed both problems and measures to be taken. It was what we would expect of a President in such times.
The #NeverTrump media could not give up their obsession to spin all reports on Trump to the negative. They continued with their politically biased narrative that he was the culpable culprit. Within the bubble-encased east coast media, Trump caused, encouraged, incited, provoked, promoted the shooting in El Paso. That is their story, and they are sticking to it.
Trump could not have used better words in his role as counselor-in chief. He expressed the pain of the nation in well chosen words. He was unequivocal in his condemnation of the killers, the malignant causes they proclaim and the groups who really do encourage and condone such heinous acts of violence – and he did so by name.
He offered up the first steps of resolution by ordering the FBI to increase its effort to identify and disband the hate groups that radicalize these demented individuals. He called for greater effort in identifying the mentally ill who succumb to the violent enticement of hate groups – with measures to prevent them from obtaining a gun and expedited procedures to take guns away.
He called on the social platform industry to increase its efforts to remove those embedded sights that promote and incite hateful speech and actions. Tangentially, he pointed a finger at the producers of bloody violent games that are an amusement for most, but a stimulant for those with sociopathic propensities.
Trump noted his administration’s past actions against gun violence which included red flag laws to get guns away from the mentally ill and his Executive Order banning the sale of bump stocks.
All of this was largely brushed aside but the reliance on “but” reporting – segueing back to the old anti-Trump narratives. Folks like Beto O’Rourke – who has seen the tragedy in El Paso as his ticket to greater public attention – Trump is an existential threat to the nation. America will not survive if he is elected to a second term. That is Chicken Little on steroids.
Many reports and pundits conceded that Trump said he was open to legislative restrictions on guns – as long as they were not symbolic and would have positive results. BUT … he was not specific. To the biased media and the partisan Democrats, that meant he was not serious.
Trump’s lack of specificity allowed his media adversaries to continue that attack on guns, gun owners, the National Rifle Association and Republicans. Yes, the media did say some positive things about Trump’s speech, BUT they swept all that aside by piling on with negative interpretation and old narratives. It is no wonder that nothing gets done.
So, there ‘tis.
Nigel Farage told readers of the Telegraph that the Conservative Party will be ‘annihilated’ at a general election in the case that Boris Johnson fails to deliver Brexit to the British people.
In his piece, Farage warns that Prime Minister Johnson could try to pass a version of Theresa May’s unpopular withdrawal treaty in the House of Commons. He also reminded readers that “Johnson twice voted against the Withdrawal Agreement but then fell at the final hurdle by voting for it at the third time of asking, back in March”.
Although the UK’s next General Election is scheduled for 2022, the Brexit Party leader said he would announce 150 candidates to run if Johnson fails to deliver Brexit by the October 31st deadline or seeks to pursue a soft exit like his predecessor did.
Farage’s Brexit Party is said to be making arrangements to run candidates in a general election in Labor heartlands in the north of England, the Midlands, and in Wales where about five million Labor voters backed Brexit.
“Having betrayed them, Labour certainly does not represent them any longer,” Farage wrote.
Even though Prime Minister Johnson has boosted no-deal preparations, he asserts that he can still negotiate a more favorable withdrawal agreement with the European Union.
Farage has lauded Johnson’s performance since taking office at Downing Street, but he has remained wary of the Prime Minister’s commitment to delivering a hard Brexit. He told readers of the Telegraph that they too should remain skeptical about Johnson’s ability to deliver a no-deal Brexit.
“Mr. Johnson did not intend to depart the EU by Halloween but was seeking to improve Britain’s negotiating position over the Withdrawal Agreement,” Farage wrote.
Farge then added: “It must not be forgotten that Johnson voted for it at the third time of asking. If passing this is now his ambition for Brexit, my party will vigorously oppose him.”
Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán has warned his people and the people of Europe that the migrant crisis is far from over and that European nation-states need to be ready and willing to take action to rectify the globalist-led EU’s mistakes, failings, and years of recklessness.
As he spoke on the Good Morning Hungary show on Kossuth Rádió, Orbán observed that “There were many mistakes in the past five years, which Brussels let slip”. The Hungarian leader also mentioned that his Fidesz party – currently holding almost 60 percent of the seats in the Hungarian parliament – would not let up on its efforts despite its recent success at both the national and European levels.
During the interview, Orbán emphasized his strongly held belief that Europe can’t be strong unless it has strong nation-states – an indirect rejection of federalist tendencies of globalist bureaucrats in Brussels, which favors further the extreme centralization of power and increased integration between member states – the United States of Europe model, if you will.
The vast majority of people who are outside of the Brussels’ globalist establishment – meaning most Europeans – are opposed to this model.
Viktor Orbán, Matteo Salvini, and Marine Le Pen are all prominent voices who’ve been able to clearly articulate a clear alternative to this globalist-led United States of Europe model.
“While the right respects nationhood, the left pursues an internationalist agenda. Respect for our country, the representation of national interests, and fighting for our rights is a matter of obligation on the right,” Orbán said.
Orbán’s tone was more pessimistic when he was asked about migration.
“The pressure of migration will only grow further in the coming decades. The European population has been on the decline, while the opposite is the case in places like Asia or Africa. This situation will necessitate a much stronger border control system. Millions will arrive, and one of our most important tasks will be to defend our people,” he explained.
“European politicians want to legalize immigration, thinking that’s the right solution. We see it otherwise” Orbán continued, asserting that creating a social environment where families can flourish is a better way to stop Europe’s population decline than is the policy of replacement migration that leftists and centrists push.
“The question remains: how will we implement the allocated budgets? When will European parties realize that pro-migration has more disadvantages than benefits?”
“We will only be able to celebrate our success once the problem of terrorism, public security and migration have been resolved,” Orbán insisted.
In 2017, a vast cloud of nuclear radiation spread over a good part of continental Europe. Its source was never truly known – until now!
An international team of scientists have now traced the cloud to a previously undisclosed nuclear accident in southern Russia.
The nuclear experts say that the cloud of radiation detected over Europe in late September 2017 could only have been caused by a nuclear fuel-reprocessing accident at the Mayak Production Association, a nuclear facility in the Chelyabinsk region of the Ural Mountains in Russia. The scientists say the accidental venting of gas had to have occurred sometime between noon on Sept. 26 and noon on Sept. 27.
At the time, Russia confirmed that a cloud of nuclear radiation was detected over the Urals, just as it was later over Europe, but the country never took any responsibility for a radiation leak, and if a nuclear accident indeed took place at Mayak in 2017, as the scientists deduced, then the Russians covered it up.
According to a report in “Live Science,” the lead scientist on the team, nuclear chemist Georg Steinhauser of Leibniz University in Hanover, Germany, said that “more than 1,300 atmospheric measurements from around the world showed that between 250 and 400 terabecquerels of radioactive ruthenium-106 had been released during that time.”
Worse Than Fukushima
Ruthenium-106 is a radioactive isotope of ruthenium, meaning that it has a different number of neutrons in its nucleus than the naturally occurring element has. The isotope can be produced as a byproduct during nuclear fission of uranium-235 atoms.
Although the resulting cloud of nuclear radiation was diluted enough that it caused no harm to the people beneath it, the total radioactivity was between 30 and 100 times the level of radiation released after the Fukushima accident in Japan in 2011, Steinhauser told Live Science.
Steinhauser and his team concluded that the radioactive cloud had to have come from the Russian nuclear plant, because of the high amount of Ruthenium-106 within it.
“During the reprocessing of nuclear fuel — when radioactive plutonium and uranium are separated from spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power reactors — ruthenium-106 is typically separated out and placed into long-term storage with other radioactive waste byproducts,” he said.
That meant that any massive release of ruthenium could only come from an accident during nuclear fuel reprocessing; and the Mayak facility was one of only a few places in the world that carries out that sort of reprocessing, the chemist explained, and in close enough proximity, for an accidental release of the chemical cloud to drift to Europe.
His report, which was published in a recent edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, went on to say that, “advanced meteorological studies made as part of this new research showed that the radiation cloud could only have come from the Mayak facility in Russia. They have done a very thorough analysis and they have pinned down Mayak — there is no doubt about it,” Steinhauser said.
The researchers concluded that the cloud was caused by a leak, or simple release of radioactive gas, and not by a fire, or an explosion at the plant, which the Russians would have had a harder time hiding.
Despite the evidence in the report, Russia has not acknowledged that any accident occurred at the Mayak facility, maybe because plutonium is made therefor thermonuclear weapons program.