July 8th, 2014
By Barry Secrest
In a story which surfaced today on the Rush Limbaugh Show, two Southern California callers reported that their local Catholic Church, at the request of the government, has asked its parishioners to actually house illegal aliens in their homes.
The couple, one of whom identified himself as a retired medical Doctor, further asserted that the Catholic Church maintained that the government's request should be kept secret, so that the media would not become involved.
The caller, whose name was Ann, stated the following:
"We live in Southern California, and we're active Catholics in our community, there was a town hall meeting last evening, an emergency meeting called by our local parish priest, ordered by our bishop (unintelligible) and the Archdiocese of San Bernardino."
"They have made the decision that they're going to absorb the immigrants that are coming through because the federal government called the bishop's office on Monday and they're gonna be busing these immigrants to our communities and asking us to open our homes and to house them for up to a month.
Stunning enough as it is, the Caller's account became even more fascinating, as follows:
"The church will reimburse us for any out-of-pocket expenses and we were told not to talk to anybody about it, especially the media. I'm not especially happy about it. My husband is a retired doctor, and he will share his concerns with you regarding this matter. "
The caller who identified himself as Eddie, the retired Doctor, then joined in:
" I'm very concerned about the health care crisis that we're facing and these illegal aliens that are coming into the United States. Doctors are being asked not to talk to the media, they're on gag orders, both doctors and nurses, and we got a big problem because there are a lot of diseases that can come through this border bringing all kinds of stuff --"
After the doctor warned about the possibility of even the Ebola virus being introduced, in addition to a host of other plagues, his wife Ann went on to strike an interesting question involving FEMA Camps:
"We have a FEMA -- at Norton Air Force Base, which is a designated FEMA camp. This is an emergency. They[the illegal aliens] need to go there."
After the extraordinary phone conversation had nearly concluded, Rush went on to try and explain why the Obama regime has not sealed off the border, even under what could be termed as a National Emergency obviously taking place along the border:
"The idea for them is to get as many people across the border and then transferred where they want them to live in this country as they can, as quickly as possible. That's why gag orders are being issued. "Don't talk to anybody in the media and tell 'em about the diseases! Don't talk and tell 'em about anything to do with these arriving kids, or whoever else is also." It's not just kids, folks, the 300,000. "
"These are government numbers: 300,000 since April. It's not just kids. So it's clear here, from the Democrat Party standpoint, the idea is to get as many people here across the border and then transferred out all over the rest of the country where they're going to live, as quickly as possible. FEMA might slow that down. Legitimate health inspections might slow that down. So you process 'em quickly."
July 8th, 2014
The only problem with this unfortunate but realistic scenario, is that it assumes a Functioning and competent US leadership.
Quite frankly, nothing could be further from the truth, speaking to the President's tactical engagement willingness, and in virtually every branch of the government.
The only war that Obama and his cabinet seems interested in meaningfully pursuing is the President's ongoing domestic battle with the Regime's political opposition....
By David Axe
The bad news first.
The People's Republic of China now believes it can successfully prevent the United States from intervening in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or some other military assault by Beijing.
Now the good news. China is wrong — and for one major reason. It apparently disregards the decisive power of America's nuclear-powered submarines.
Moreover, for economic and demographic reasons Beijing has a narrow historical window in which to use its military to alter the world's power structure. If China doesn't make a major military move in the next couple decades, it probably never will.
The U.S. Navy's submarines — the unsung main defenders of the current world order — must hold the line against China for another 20 years. After that, America can declare a sort of quiet victory in the increasingly chilly Cold War with China.
How China wins
The bad news came from Lee Fuell, from the U.S. Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, during Fuell's testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commissionin Washington, D.C. on Jan. 30.
For years, Chinese military planning assumed that any attack by the People's Liberation Army on Taiwan or a disputed island would have to begin with a Pearl Harbor-style preemptive missile strike by China against U.S. forces in Japan and Guam. The PLA was so afraid of overwhelming American intervention that it genuinely believed it could not win unless the Americans were removed from the battlefield before the main campaign even began.
A preemptive strike was, needless to say, a highly risky proposition. If it worked, the PLA just might secure enough space and time to defeat defending troops, seize territory, and position itself for a favorable post-war settlement.
But if China failed to disable American forces with a surprise attack, Beijing could find itself fighting a full-scale war on at least two fronts: against the country it was invading plus the full might of U.S. Pacific Command, fully mobilized and probably strongly backed by the rest of the world.
That was then. But after two decades of sustained military modernization, the Chinese military has fundamentally changed its strategy in just the last year or so. According to Fuell, recent writings by PLA officers indicate "a growing confidence within the PLA that they can more-readily withstand U.S. involvement."
The preemptive strike is off the table — and with it, the risk of a full-scale American counterattack. Instead, Beijing believes it can attack Taiwan or another neighbor while also bloodlessly deterring U.S. intervention. It would do so by deploying such overwhelmingly strong military forces — ballistic missiles, aircraft carriers, jet fighters, and the like — that Washington dare not get involved.
The knock-on effects of deterring America could be world-changing. "Backing away from our commitments to protect Taiwan, Japan, or the Philippines would be tantamount to ceding East Asia to China's domination," Roger Cliff, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, said at the same U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission hearing on Jan. 30.
Worse, the world's liberal economic order — and indeed, the whole notion of democracy — could suffer irreparable harm. "The United States has both a moral and a material interest in a world in which democratic nations can survive and thrive," Cliff asserted.
Fortunately for that liberal order, America possesses by far the world's most powerful submarine force — one poised to quickly sink any Chinese invasion fleet. In announcing its readiness to hold off the U.S. military, the PLA seems to have ignored Washington's huge undersea advantage.
(Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Adam K. Thomas/U.S. Navy via Getty Images)
The Silent Service
It's not surprising that Beijing would overlook America's subs. Most Americans overlook their own undersea fleet — and that's not entirely their own fault. The U.S. sub force takes pains to avoid media coverage in order to maximize its secrecy and stealth. "The submarine cruises the world's oceans unseen," the Navy stated on its Website.
Unseen and unheard. That why the sub force calls itself the "Silent Service."
The Navy has 74 submarines, 60 of which are attack or missile submarines optimized for finding and sinking other ships or blasting land targets. The balance is ballistic-missile boats that carry nuclear missiles and would not routinely participate in military campaigns short of an atomic World War III......
July 7th, 2014
Texas Governor Rick Perry has refused to meet with Obama and shake the increasingly viewed as incompetent, if not disconnected, President's hand on a hot Texas tarmac this week.
Obama will be attending a Democrat fundraiser in both Dallas and Austin, but has stated that he has no plans to visit whatever remains of what used to be referred to as the US border.
According to the Huffington Post, Gov. Perry responded to Obama's tarmac invitation in a letter with the following words concerning the deteriorating border situation:
“I appreciate the offer to greet you at Austin-Bergstrom Airport, but a quick handshake on the tarmac will not allow for a thoughtful discussion regarding the humanitarian and national security crises enveloping the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas,” Perry wrote Monday in a letter to the president. “I would instead offer to meet with you at any time during your visit to Texas for a substantive meeting to discuss this critical issue.”
On ABC News program "This Week, " Perry further enumerated many Americans' suspicions with regard to Obama and the ongoing debacle unfolding across the entire US border:
"I have to believe that when you do not respond in any way, that you are either inept, or you have some ulterior motive of which you are functioning from."
July 7th, 2014
ABC News / GILLIAN MOHNEY via WORLD NEWS
CR Notes: The office of the President to the United States of America has traditionally been regarded with a certain amount of respect--to honor the power of the office. However, THIS president has so trounced the Constitution and the People, it really is NO surprise that this type of protest should occur. A certain level of respect, Dan Marvin, towards THE PEOPLE and the CONSTITUTION should be maintained by any sitting President. Obama has not shown that respect. So, last I checked, though hanging on with a tenuous grasp, the First Amendment is still alive and well. This is the People's rebuttal.
Following is a MSM report [BIASED]of the INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE float that has caused such an uproar with its BLATANT PROTEST of the current administration.
A Fourth of July parade float has sparked controversy with its depiction of President Barack Obama.
Photos of the float on social media and used by ABC News affiliate KLKN-TV in Lincoln, Neb., show a smiling President Obama wearing overalls outside a building that looks like an outhouse and is labeled the Obama Presidential Library.
The Nebraska Democratic Party roundly condemned the float.
"There is a level of respect for the office of the Presidency which should not be crossed," Dan Marvin, NDP Executive Director said according to KLKN-TV. "It's beyond disappointing the City of Norfolk, Neb., it's [sic] officials and citizens would allow such a thing."
Liz Guthrie, originally from Norfolk, told ABC News the crowd was laughing and clapping as the float went by. Her boyfriend Lance Harvey said he thought the float was simply political satire.
Another woman, Glory Kathurima, told the Lincoln Journal Star she was "scared" by the display and kept repeating "That's not OK," as the float passed her.
Norfolk city councilman Dick Pfeil told the Omaha World-Herald he was displeased.
"The City of Norfolk doesn't condone that," said Pfeil, who clarified the floats are approved by the Odd Fellows organization, not the city.
ABC News' calls to the Norfolk City Hall, the mayor's office, and a number listed as the Odd Fellows were not immediately returned on Sunday.
Parade committee member Rick Konopasek told the Lincoln Journal Star the parade was not meant to be any more offensive than a political cartoon.
Konopasek said the float was the most popular of the parade and had been awarded an honorable mention.
"We don't feel it's right to tell someone what they can and can't express," he told the Journal-Star. "This was political satire. If we start saying no to certain floats, we might as well not have a parade at all."
ABC News' calls to Konopasek were not immediately returned. The float did not identify a sponsor and was listed as entry 29, according to the World-Herald.
July 6th, 2014
NEW YORK – In recent weeks, both General David Petraeus and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have woven into public speeches the theme of combining the United States, Canada and Mexico into a single, North American Union.
“After America, there is North America,” explained Petraeus, the former U.S. military commander and former head of the CIA, to a panel entitled “After America, What?” held at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty on June 18, 2014, hosted by the Center for Policy Studies in Great Britain.
In his presentation to the conference, Petraeus proclaimed the coming of the “North American decade,” a vision he explained was founded on the idea of putting together the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico, some 20 years after the creation of North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
“In each of these economies there are four revolutions going on,” Petraeus continued, naming the following: an energy revolution, in which the United States is leading the world in the production of natural gas and shale oil, combined with Canada’s enormous resources in the Alberta tar sands and Mexico opening up the state-owned Pemex to international oil companies; an information and technology revolution led by Silicon Valley; a manufacturing revolution; and a life sciences revolution.
“The forces unleashed by these four revolutions with all three countries being as highly integrated as they are, with Canada and Mexico being our two top trading partners, I believe we can argue that after America comes North America,” Petraeus explained.
The syllabus for a similarly themed class Petraeus teaches at the City University of New York entitled “The Coming (North) American Decade(s)” includes the following course description: “This seminar will seek to answer the question, ‘Are we on the threshold of the new (North) American decade(s)?’ To do so, we will: survey the global economic situation; examine the ongoing energy, manufacturing, life sciences, and information technology ‘revolutions’ in the United Sates; assess the implications each revolution has for the U.S. and the global economy; and determine the policies, practices, regulations, and laws needed to enable the U.S. to capitalize on the opportunities presented by the revolutions and thereby to contribute to the global economic recovery from the Great Recession.”
An examination of the assigned reading specified in the course syllabus shows Petraeus has derived much of his thinking from global economic sources in trying to project the future of North America in competition with major regional forces including China, the EU, as well as Russia, India and Brazil.
Pelosi sees U.S. and Mexico as “one nation”
Speaking at the U.S. border with Mexico on June 28, Pelosi addressed the crisis of thousands of unaccompanied children and teenagers from Central America illegally crossing into the United States.
Referring to the United States and Mexico, Pelosi said, “This is a community with a border going through it. And this crisis – that some call a ‘crisis’ – we have to view as an opportunity.
“What we just saw was so stunning. If you believe as we do that every child, that every person, has a spark of divinity in them and is therefore worthy of respect, what we saw in those rooms was [a] dazzling, sparkling array of God’s children, worthy of respect. So … we have to use the crisis – that some view as a crisis, and it does have crisis qualities – as an opportunity to show who we are as Americans, that we do respect people for their divinity and worth,” she said.