The ‘fire and fury’ of US President Donald Trump has translated into many memorable phrases that have baffled, amused or infuriated observers. RT looks at the top quotes from the first year of his presidency. January 2017: ‘You are fake news’ Trump had famously sparred with the media throughout his campaign. He reserved his ire […]
(Photo Courtesy of https://cloudatlas.wmo.int/homomutatus.html)
You might wonder what the hell a Homomutatus is.
(Photo Courtesy of https://theunabombermanifesto.bandcamp.com/album/homomutatus)
Homomutatus Cloud: Caused By Human Activity
Now for stupid question of the day…
Who are we supposed to trust enough with our lives, to just sit back and let the likes of Bill Gates and several other nazi-types decide what they are going to pollute us with????
Radical plan to artificially cool Earth’s climate could be safe, study finds
Experts worry that injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could put some regions at risk
Emily Holden in Washington
Mon 11 Mar 2019 15.09 EDT Last modified on Fri 15 Mar 2019 16.45 EDT
Study co-author says: ‘There is the possibility that solar geoengineering could really substantially reduce climate risks for the most vulnerable.’
A new study contradicts fears that using solar geoengineering to fight climate change could dangerously alter rainfall and storm patterns in some parts of the world.
Published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change, the analysis finds that cooling the Earth enough to eliminate roughly half of warming, rather than all of it, generally would not make tropical cyclones more intense or worsen water availability, extreme temperatures or extreme rain. Only a small fraction of places, 0.4%, might see climate change impacts worsened, the study says.
Many climate experts have warned that cooling the Earth but keeping twice as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as before industrialization could put some regions at risk.
One scientist who read the paper published on Monday said it was not comprehensive enough to conclude that solar geoengineering – most likely involving spraying sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, thereby mimicking gas from volcanoes and reflecting the sun’s heat – would be safe.
Some climate advocacy groups argue that banking on an unproven technology could hamstring efforts to reduce carbon dioxide still spewing from power plants and cars.
But study co-author David Keith, a Harvard professor who works in engineering and public policy, said researchers should not rule out geoengineering yet.
“I am not saying we know it works and we should do it now,” he said. “Indeed, I would absolutely oppose deployment now. There’s still only a little group of people looking at this, there’s lots of uncertainty.”
Keith said the study’s main message was that “there is the possibility that solar geoengineering could really substantially reduce climate risks for the most vulnerable”.
Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet’s most important stories
The findings come as Nairobi hosts a United Nations Environment Programme meeting on limiting climate change. A UN-approved report last year – the 1.5 degree report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – said that geoengineering by injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere may be necessary but would come with major uncertainties.
Keith hopes to dispel what he believes may be unsupported worries. Another scientist, however, said he was overstating the new study’s findings.
The analysis used climate modeling to project what could happen if the heat of the sun was turned down. Alan Robock, a geophysics professor and researcher at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said it did not examine the potential effects of doing that with the most likely method: spraying aerosols into the atmosphere.
“They focus in this paper on temperature and water availability in different regions,” Robock said. “Those are only two things that would change with stratospheric aerosols.” He added that previous studies have made similar conclusions.
Robock said one of his studies contains a list of 27 reasons why Earth-cooling aerosols might be a bad idea. And he added that the technology could cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year and would pose complicated ethical questions, such as whether people have a right to see a blue sky.
“We’re not able right now to say whether, if global warming continues, we should ever decide to start spraying this stuff into the stratosphere,” Robock said. “Would solar-radiation management, would geoengineering make it more dangerous or less dangerous?
“That’s the question we have to answer, and we don’t have enough information.”
Not One Inch… The Battle Cry For Property Rights
Posted at 12:14h in Featured, National Heritage Areas, Property Rights, Sustainable Development
by Tom DeWeese
I have been pushing hard lately to let people know that, no matter how big and powerful the opposition, the assault from big government forces can be stopped. That’s why I want to tell you about a recent major victory in Louisiana where a wonderful, determined group of residents rose up and stopped the implementation of the Caddo Lake National Heritage Area. By the way, this is the second NHA we’ve stopped. The Crooked Road NHA in Virginia was successfully shut down by us a few years ago.
National Heritage Areas are one of the most despicable stealth land grabs in the nation. Here’s why. Americans love history. And we love preserving significant places that played an important role in the making of our unique nation. So when we hear of a new plan in our area presented offering a chance to preserve some of our local heritage we are interested and even supportive.
But, in this day of massive government control over so much of our land, our economy, and our basic ability to live free lives, we must be cautious and look at the details of plans, no matter how innocent or well meaning they may seem.
National Heritage Areas are such a concern because they are sold to residents as simply a means to honor historic or cultural events that took place in a specific locale. We are told that they will preserve our culture and honor the past, that they will preserve battlefields where our forefathers fought and died for freedom, and that they will preserve birth places, homes, buildings and hallowed grounds for posterity. Most importantly, we are assured that NHAs will help build tourism and boost local economies.
The residents affected by the Caddo Lake NHA were suspicious because so little information was being released about the project. Who was behind it? Where was the money coming from? Above all, what specific areas were going to be affected? So some determined residents did their homework. They learned the promises of increased tourism and boosts to the economy were, at best, empty. Rather, they learned NHA’s are little more than pork-barrel earmarks that endanger private property rights and local governmental powers. And a very specific danger is that Heritage Areas have very definite boundaries that come with very definite consequences for folks who reside within them. That’s because funding and technical assistance for Heritages Areas is administered through the National Park Service, a federal agency with a long history of hostility toward private landowners.
Private organizations and planning groups are the actual recipients of most of these funds supposedly earmarked for the Heritage Area. These entities operate as the promoters of the NHA in partnership with the Park Service. Eventually they form a commission or a “managing entity” to enforce the “vision” to implement the Heritage Area.
Typically such commissions consist of strictly ideological special interests groups. In the mix of these groups one will find all of the usual suspects: environmental groups, planning groups, historic preservation groups, all with their own private agendas – all working behind the scenes, creating policy. The managing entity then sets up non-elected boards and regional councils to oversee policy inside the Heritage Area that stretches over numerous communities and counties.
In many cases, these groups actually form a compact with the Interior Department to determine the guidelines that will make up a land use management plan and the boundaries of the Heritage Area itself. The management plan is their goal for how they envision the territory inside the boundary to be run. The plan will include guidelines for development goals, energy use, bike trails, undefined conservation controls, tourism, and anything else they want to control.
Now, after the boundaries are drawn and after the management plan has been approved by the Park Service, the management entity and its special interest groups are given the federal funds, typically a million dollars a year, or more, and told to spend that money to get the management plan enacted at the local level.
Here’s how those special interest groups operate with those funds. They go to local county boards and city councils and announce that Congress has passed legislation designating the Heritage Area and that the community is now within those boundaries. They pull out maps and announce the properties they have identified to be significant for preservation.
However, as the managing entity, they don’t have the power to make laws but the local elected officials do and so the partnership is born, fed by the federal money. Now the managing entity will help create tools, legislation, guidelines and whatever regulatory procedures are needed to make the management plan come into fruition.
Incredibly, proponents argue that National Heritage Areas do not influence local zoning or land-use planning. Yet by definition this is precisely what they do. Found right in the language of most Heritage Area legislation, the management entity is specifically directed to restore, preserve, and manage anything and everything that is naturally, culturally, historically, and recreationally significant to the Heritage Area.
This sweeping mandate ensures that virtually every square inch of land within the boundaries is subject to the scrutiny of Park Service bureaucrats and their managing partners.
Of course, as with so many other invasive planning schemes, we are always assured that these are local initiatives, and that these are something citizens want in order to bring an honorary federal designation to help drive tourism into their regions. That simply isn’t the case. The private, non-governmental organizations and planning groups are the ones who want the plan because they get to enforce their private agendas and then get to live off the grant money as they implement them. As proponents talk about historic preservation inside the Heritage Area, one will also find the catchwords “resource conservation” and “resource stewardship,” for example. That’s the clue to watch for.
It’s all about control. Control of the land, control of resources, control of decision making. How does that fit with their stated purpose of preserving American culture – which, of course, was built on the ideals of free enterprise and private property? In fact, it does the opposite by making government more powerful and dictatorial.
Proponents of NHAs also claim that they are “locally driven” projects. Nothing could be further from the truth. Landowners within the boundaries of proposed Heritage Areas are left in the dark throughout the entire process. For example, the final official map for the Caddo Lakes National Heritage Area, revealing its official boundary, was not to be released to the public until after the actual Congressional legislation was passed.
In addition, Heritage Area proponents refuse to supply a simple written notification to property owners that their land will be inside the boundaries. Seemingly the Park Service and their management “partners” are not too eager to share all the good news with the local citizenry.
I have personally been in meetings with congressional staffers to discuss Heritage Areas. I asked them if they intended to notify affected landowners living inside the boundaries of a specific Heritage Area. They looked at me like I had two heads.
They shuffled their feet and looked down at the table and then said, “There’s no way to do that.” “It would be too costly.” “How could we reach everyone?” I then suggested that they research a little know federal agency called the U.S. Postal Service. Mailmen appear too deliver to each and every one of the homes in the designated area every day.
The fact is, they don’t want to tell you in advance. You might object. And that would disrupt the “process.” No matter how noble a project may sound, alarm bells should go off when proponents want to enforce their vision in secret.
National Heritage Areas depend on federal tax dollars because they lack local interest— and not a single Heritage Area has ever succeeded in attracting that interest throughout their entire infinite lives. The federal money is the villain. If you just wanted to honor an area for its historic or cultural achievements, a simple resolution from Congress and a plaque at the county line could do that. The local Chamber of Commerce could then pick it up from there and build the expected tourism.
But of course, it’s not about that. It’s about control and money – lots of money in the pockets of private groups promoting their own agendas. Including taking control if people’s land.
There are 49 National Heritage Areas across the country so far – with more, now being considered around the country. Caddo Lake NHA, if legislated, would affect 900 square miles of private property, businesses, and whole communities. That’s a massive area to cover.
Along the Mississippi River there are two Heritage Areas, Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area and Mississippi Gulf Coast National Heritage Area. Now here is a region rich in history. There must be all kinds of good things happening along the mother of all rivers in the name of heritage preservation.
Well, today you won’t find people participating in one of the grand historic traditions of the river – living on riverboats. There were once whole generations of river people living on such boats. Talk about American heritage – right out of Mark Twain!
But, back in the 1990s, those living on houseboats were moved off the river. Certain other boat traffic and river activities were also curtailed. It was all in the name of environmental protection, of course. In addition, the traditional flood plain designations were moved back to an extreme distance from the river, making it impossible for existing homes built inside the original flood plains to get flood insurance, thereby stopping any further building along the river. This was called land use planning. Where was the preservation of the heritage of those homeowners whose families had lived along the river for generations?
So, the Heritage Areas were used to honor what? Certainly not life on the river. They are essentially putting the Mississippi River in a museum.
In West Virginia we find the National Coal Heritage Area. Introduced in 1996 by former Congressman Rahall, it was sold as a way to honor the coal industry. Apparently, Rahall thought that since the miners had lost their jobs due to environmental regulations on the coal industry, perhaps, he could make up for it by throwing a few extra bucks their way by giving tours of their bankrupt area and closed mines.
I will make this challenge – just try to mine a single lump of coal inside the National Coal Heritage Area. Not on your life. Restricted. Taboo. In short, they put West Virginia coal in a museum.
What about property rights protections? When property owners express concern that their property could be taken in the process – proponents have a ready-made answer. Don’t worry, they say – they quickly point to language in the Heritage Area bills that assure property rights protections.
Written into each and every Heritage Area bill is this line: “Nothing in this subtitle…abridges the right of any property owner… including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the National Heritage Area. . .” In other words, say proponents, homeowners are assured that they actually have the right to opt out of the Heritage Area – so there is absolutely no threat to your property rights. Wow!
That language is nothing but a flimflam to keep you calm and ease your concerns, because it is physically impossible to opt out of an official government boundary that has been created by federal legislation and federal funds. It is also impossible to simply declare that you are going to opt out of any of the land-use regulations, down-zoning, or other restrictions that result from the Heritage Area designation.
When I addressed an audience of 400 residents who live inside the proposed boundaries of the Caddo Lake NHA I asked for a show of hands from everyone who wanted to opt out of it. Every hand in the room went up. As the restrictions on property are steadily legislated into place due to the NHA, opting out is simply not an option.
As I and others worked to oppose Heritage Areas, we asked proponents in Congress if they had commissioned property rights experts to look over the legislation to find any dangers. We said, “Have you put these bills before experts, specifically public interest property rights attorneys?” The answer we received was “No, and we don’t plan to.”
Real private property ownership lies in one’s ability to do with your property as you wish. Zoning and land-use policies are local decisions that have traditionally been the purview of locally elected officials who are directly accountable to the citizens that they represent. But National Heritage Areas corrupt this inherently local process by adding federal dollars, federal mandates, and federal oversight to the mix, along with an army of special interest carpet baggers who call themselves Stakeholders.
It must be understood that the Heritage Area affects all the land in the designated boundary areas, not just recognized historic sights. The federal designation, made from congressional legislation, creating federal regulations and oversight through the National Park Service, require a form of contract between state and local governmental entities and the Secretary of the Interior. That contract is to manage the land-use of the region for preservation. That means federal control and zoning, either directly under the terms of the “management pact” or indirectly.
Such “indirect” control is the real danger. In spite of the specific language in the bill which states property rights will be protected, the true damage to homeowners may well come from the private non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and preservation agencies which receive public funds through the Park Service.
The experience with at least 49 such Heritage Areas now in existence nationwide clearly shows such groups will convert this money into political activism to encourage local community and county governments to pass and enforce strict zoning laws.
Heritage Areas proponents like to hold up a report from the Government Accounting Office that says “National Heritage Areas do not appear to have affected private property rights. . .” And this is why that report is meaningless.
While the tactic makes it appear that home rule is fully in force removing blame from the federal designation, the impact is fully the fault of the Heritage Areas designation. The result being private property owner’s rights are diminished and much of the local land-use brought to a standstill.
In their own words, proponents say their feasibility study for the Caddo Lake Heritage Area is to “identify and evaluate alternatives for managing, preserving, and interpreting nationally important cultural and historic landscapes, sites, and structures existing under and around Caddo Lake.” For everyone of those descriptions there is an NGO that makes it their mission to impose it, and there is a federal grant to enforce it. That leads to a lot of control you’ve never experienced before.
Property that is locked away for preservation is no longer productive and no longer provides the community with tax dollars. Some roads most assuredly will be closed (to protect the integrity of the historic area). That means land is locked away from private development, diminishing growth for the community. It also means hunting and recreational use of the land may well be curtailed.
Eventually, such restrictions will take away the community’s economic base. Communities with sagging economies become run-down and uninviting. Preservation zoning and lack of jobs force ordinary people to move away. Experience has shown tourism rarely materializes as promised. And it’s never enough to save an area economically.
These are the reasons why the specific language in the Heritage Area legislation designed to protect private property rights is basically meaningless to the actual outcome. While the land may not be specifically locked away in the name of the federal designation, its very existence creates the pressure on local government to act. The result is the same.
The fact is the Heritage Area designations are completely unnecessary. Most of the historic sites are already under the control of the National Park Service. Most Presidential birthplaces and significant historic sights are also well preserved.
Every step of land in America had something from the past occur on it. Proponents of Heritage Areas are using our great love of history as an emotional sledgehammer to impose a massive federal porkbarrel scheme that enriches the pockets of private advocacy groups by helping to impose draconian controls over the dreams of average American homeowners.
In short, the greatest threat from the Heritage Area is that it creates a pipeline of federal money – and, consequently political power – to these national organizations to promote their specific agendas over your community and its development.
The proposed Caddo Lake Heritage Area includes the classic ingredients of all other Heritage Areas now enforced across the nation. It is massive in size. It is being pushed by the same special interests.
Property owners located around the lake have proven themselves to be the best stewards. That’s why it’s beautiful and teeming with wildlife. And that’s why those who seek to enforce the Heritage Area covet to control it. There is already a thriving tourist industry and there are lots of environmental protections on and around the lake. The Heritage Area only serves to create another layer of bureaucracy and massive grant money.
The property owners inside the proposed boundaries of the Caddo Lake did their homework and realized that if they owned property on the shore line most likely they would see their use of that land pushed back from the edge of the lake. They would most likely lose their private boat docks. Worst of all, decisions over natural habitat would take precedent over their own, even though they had lived in harmony with the environment and encouraged a thriving local flora and fauna for two hundred years. That’s how it works. Little by little, the restrictions set in.
So the people in the Caddo Lake area saw the storm that was headed their way and they said no! They stood up to the behemoth of the partnership of government and powerful private NGOs determined to force their “vision” on them. They called themselves “Caddo Lakes Last Stand!”
The residents attended meetings, asked questions, researched, handed out reasonable arguments, and they never allowed the proponents to dismiss them or their opposition. They fully understood that they were engaged in a battle to preserve the unique American system that our Founding Fathers worked so hard to guarantee. That is true heritage preservation.
Above all, they understood that the only way to make sure government doesn’t abuse its power is to not grant it in the first place. Those resident know they have only won the first round. The special interests will be back to try again. They always do. That’s why the battle cry of the Caddo Lake’s Last Stand is “Not one inch of this ground will be put in a National Heritage Area.” That kind of determination wins battles.
It’s the battle cry every property owner in the nation must take against the many efforts to destroy this precious land. Not one inch.
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.
Below is a quote from one of my blog followers who lives in Nevada, what he, his friends and neighbors go through daily. The statement was not edited by myself except to clean-up some very slight typo errors, which were few. Despite the picture Democrats try to paint, that the Wall is not needed and […]
A. L. Luttrell
A. L. Luttrell
Below is a quote from one of my blog followers who lives in Nevada, what he, his friends and neighbors go through daily. The statement was not edited by myself except to clean-up some very slight typo errors, which were few. Despite the picture Democrats try to paint, that the Wall is not needed and the national emergency is manufactured; don’t take the word of political BS and instead get the truth from OUR CITIZENS (FELLOW AMERICANS), who experience it everyday. Nevada is not directly on the border but near enough a high population of illegals exists. Texas and Nevada with highest rates of illegals. I encourage all of you to repost this message.
I LIVE HERE!!! My neighbors and friends who have their properties in Nevada ABSOLUTELY have no time for “discussions” or “arguments” over BUILDING our crucially important WALL FOR PROTECTING us, the US CITIZENS: WE LIVE HERE!!! Even if you live in Las Vegas, which is not immediately next to the Southern border you better protect yourself and your private property from roving illegals… I do not know anyone among my many friends who have not been violated/harmed by the illegals: horrific car accidents, robberies, home property violations, but the illegals have been “punished” by the State by “sending” them “back home”… . My two personal friends have been literally crashed in-car accidents and now they are invalids for life!!! By the way, they are professional highly trained structural engineers… Unlike most of our people here, I do not want to buy a gun for protection, and I moved into the GATED community paying much more than I can afford to be protected by 24 hr roving armed guards. Those demagogic very SICK Morons “argue” and “explain” that the Protective Wall we desperately need on our Southern Border is “economically” incentive !! They, mad “economists”, wish not to compare some numbers: for instance: the wall construction is about 16 billion, must be compared to more than $16 billion in U.S. taxpayer money wasted not-once but annually (!!!!) on truly hellish, useless and psychotically motivated animal testing. 16 billions of our tax money is wasted on these hellish experiments on animals in governmental labs!!!!!! DEAR USA CITIZENS, we must take these DEM CRIMINALS to public courts. They must take RESPONSIBILITY for their crimes and misleading “info”, and sent to jail for violations and manipulations regarding our very Constitutional rights! Some of these DEM-agogs deserve to be kept in mental institutions for life, before they destroy our country. Unquote. – Simone
Thank you Simone.
Thursday, February 07, 2019 by: Mike Adams
(Natural News) Mere hours after I appeared on the Alex Jones Show yesterday to reveal the truth about Jack Dorsey’s criminal fronting for Bitcoin and deep state money laundering, Twitter suspended all Health Ranger / Natural News accounts without explanation, simultaneously, mere hours after my appearance on Alex’s show.
Importantly, the Health Ranger Twitter account (twitter.com/healthranger) tweets news stories that are more than 95% focused on health, nutrition, medicine, food science and similar topics. There is absolutely nothing in the HealthRanger twitter feed that could justify being banned by Twitter. It’s clear this censorship order came from the top and was initiated to punish me for appearing on the Alex Jones Show.
As I mentioned on the show (see video below), Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, recently appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience, hyping Bitcoin as the currency that would take over the internet. According to Hacked.com, Joe Rogan is being paid off to the tune of $300,000 per month via the Cash mobile app — owned by Twitter, of course.
During the Joe Rogan interview, Joe utterly failed to ask Dorsey any tough questions at all, and the entire interview turned into an apparent fraud fest of “pump and dump” front men (Dorsey and Rogan) pushing a massive crypto scheme onto Rogan’s listeners, utterly without disclosing the severe conflicts of interest held by both Rogan and Dorsey. “In a version of what could have been an SEC enforcer’s wet-dream, we have the CEO of a Bitcoin-specific payment app talking up the potential of Bitcoin, on a podcast which he also pays to advertise said payment app,” reports Hacked.com.
What Dorsey and Rogan also failed to mention is that Jack Dorsey is an investor in the Lightning Labs project that’s working to push a new protocol onto Bitcoin. Thus, Dorsey has a huge financial stake in the future success of Bitcoin. As I pointed out in my interview, Bitcoin is a creation of the deep state that is used to surreptitiously transmit payoffs and bribes to left-wing Democrats, for example, who are being bribed by Mexican drug cartels to oppose the border wall.
Apparently, Jack Dorsey does not want any independent journalist talking about the criminal dark side of Bitcoin, since he’s pumping it up with the help of (paid off) Rogan.
In banning Natural News / Health Ranger accounts, Twitter did not cite any reason at all, utterly failing to points out any tweets that violated Twitter community guidelines. It’s clear that Natural News / Health Ranger Twitter accounts were banned solely because Adams appeared on the Alex Jones Show and dared to comment on the Joe Rogan / Jack Dorsey Bitcoin fraud.
Watch the full episode in this Brighteon video. I join Alex at 38:18, and the comments on Jack Dorsey and Joe Rogan take place a few minutes later:
Joe Rogan and Jack Dorsey appear to be running a massive financial fraud scheme and using censorship to silence whistleblowers
What’s clear in my mind from recent events is that Joe Rogan and Jack Dorsey are running a massive crypto fraud scheme while using the power of censorship to silence whistleblowers who are exposing their giant con. As Hacked.com reports:
Criticism of the Bitcoin core narrative was being censored on Reddit long before the hammer fell on the likes of Alex Jones. Dorsey’s vision of a future Bitcoin-dominated internet doesn’t address this point; and it’s a point that only seems more scandalous in light of Twitter’s similar predilection for censoring those who deviate from accepted scripts.
Jack Dorsey is just one of many tech giant CEOs that has now turned to the tyranny of censorship to silence critics for off-platform behavior. Twitter has not cited any violations of community guidelines as justification for suspending the Natural News / Health Ranger accounts. Instead, the actions were taken solely due to my appearance on the Alex Jones Show.
I think Jack Dorsey is running a massive financial fraud scheme, and he’s paying off people like Joe Rogan to shill for his crypto profit schemes while selectively silencing anyone who might raise legitimate questions about the dishonesty and deception of his entire operation.
As more and more people are now noticing, the tech giants that dominate the world are now quite literally being run by financial fraudsters and censorship goons who despise freedom of expression precisely because independent journalists are exposing their frauds and cons. Any independent journalist who attempts to warn the public and expose the truth about the massive Bitcoin crypto con is targeted for selective censorship and defamation. Meanwhile, techno-schemers like Dorsey funnel money to front men like Joe Rogan to keep pushing the propaganda that hypes up their personal enrichment Ponzi schemes.
It’s sick. It’s even criminal, according to SEC rules. When will the SEC raid the offices of Jack Dorsey and Joe Rogan and charge them with securities violations for pushing a massive financial fraud, completely absent any honest financial disclosures are required by regulatory authorities? If Rogan and Dorsey were pumping Wall Street stocks in the same manner, they would have already been arrested and charged with securities fraud. Why do they get a free pass when they’re pumping the very same crypto con that has already caused innocent participants around the world to lose hundreds of millions of dollars?
Read more about the Bitcoin crypto fraud at Bitraped.com and check out important news on the evil of the tech giants at TechGiants.news. Read Natural News for updates on whether Twitter decides to reinstate our channels or ban us permanently, utterly without any legitimate reason.
Watch more here about why the people of Earth must declare war on the tech giants and defeat them like we defeated the Third Reich:
photo by: Johnny Simon Respect, not a word Nancy Pelosi knows the definition. Possibly a copy of Trump’s SOTU address she is referring back to because she couldn’t comprehend it when spoken……. “What did he freaking say?”. And Nancy, how did that tongue taste last night, you were seen chewing on it quite often. It’s […]
Welfare for Refugees Cost Americans $123 Billion in 10 Years
By Neil Munro
Americans spent almost $100 billion to support 606,000 poor refugees in the 10 years up to 2014, according to a State Department report.
The $96.6 billion cost rises to $126 billion when officials count the extra cost of paying for the refugees’ spouses and children, including U.S.-born children.
The $126 billion bill is just for programs managed by the Department of Health and Human Services. It excludes additional taxpayers’ spending via state programs, as well as federal spending on Social Security, education, and housing programs, plus tax credits, says the State Department’s annual report to Congress on the refugee program.
The one-agency, $126-billion firehose of cash, however, was a huge taxpayer subsidy to the refugee groups which delivered the refugee to cities and towns. It is also a huge subsidy to the low-wage employers who hired the refugees in place of higher-wage Americans, and to the grocery stores and apartments who sold food and rented apartments to the new arrivals.
The huge cost adds up to $670 per working American, not counting the hard-to-assess costs of crowded schoolrooms, flooded labor markets, civic diversity, and shifts in political power away from Americans.
The massive spending will continue because the vast majority of the 606,000 refugees remain in the United States, mostly in low-skilled jobs, and will age into retirement. Since 2014, former President Barack Obama imported an additional 155,000 refugees.
The expenses are high because few of the refugees have the skills to earn a good living. The report noted:
Education level: Respondents age 25 or older averaged 8.7 years of education before arrival; about half did not have a high school diploma upon arrival; and 29 percent of refugees age 25 or older listed their prior educational attainment as “none.” Among respondents age 18 and older, 16 percent were pursuing a degree of some kind, with most seeking high school equivalency.
English language proficiency: Respondents improved their English over time, but large deficits remain. Among refugees age 18 or older who had lived in the United States between 4.5 and 6.5 years, 53 percent spoke English “not well” or “not at all,” based on self-assessments.
Employment: 59 percent of respondents ages 16 to 64 were employed, lower than the 67.5 percent employment rate for native-born members of the U.S. population. Male respondents were employed at a rate roughly on par with the U.S. population after being in the United States for only two years. Employed refugees age 18 or older earned $12 per hour on average.
Public benefits use: Two percent of respondent households reported public assistance as their only source of income; 27 percent received cash welfare of some kind, most often Supplemental Security Income (SSI); and 56 percent received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Among respondents age 18 or older, 57 percent reported having health coverage throughout the previous year, while 34 percent reported no health coverage. Among those with coverage, about half received Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance.
President Donald Trump has dramatically braked the inflow to 53,000 refugees in 2017 and has promised to accept a maximum of 30,000 organized-inflow refugees in 2019.
Also, the Department of Homeland Security has announced a new regulation to deny visas and green cards to foreigners who poor, unskilled, or old. For the moment, the rule does not apply to refugees.
Trump’s slowdown has reduced the impact of refugee migration on Americans cities, such as Lewiston, Maine, or Kansas City, Kansas.
Breitbart News reported:
The JBS meatpacking company has raised salaries by 25 percent to help persuade more people to work in a Texas slaughterhouse, according to the Washington Post.
But that good news, however, is buried by the Post‘s endorsement of the meatpackers’ business strategy, which uses federal immigration programs to recruit replacements for injured or exhausted American (or migrant) workers and to minimize investment in labor-saving automation …
Overall, the Post‘s article is wrapped up in a self-serving view of immigration held by many progressives who justify the importation of a subservient class into the United States by promising that the immigrants’ children will advance in society. The article concludes with [Stan] Corbin’s progressive promise that “their children will grow up to be engineers … [but now] there is a great need for laborers.”
In this view, the U.S. meatpacking industry is a social service agency for the world’s poor which also provides liberals with cheap restaurants plus the satisfaction of helping distant foreigners. This “telescopic philanthropy” allows urban liberals to feel good about their generosity to foreigners while they ignore the costs they impose on nearby American communities, including the American blue-collar workers who see their salaries cut and the American children who are forced into overcrowded and dysfunctional classrooms.
The State Department’s report provided a chart showing how the HHS agency spent the money:
The report detailed which migrants were treated as refugees:
HHS estimated expenditures from the major HHS programs assisting refugees and asylees and their dependents over the 10-year period 2005-2014. For purposes of its analysis, HHS included individuals who entered the United States since 1980 as refugees, asylees, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders and their spouses and unmarried children under the age of 21, Cuban and Haitian entrants, certain Amerasians from Vietnam, victims of a severe form of trafficking who have received certification or eligibility letters from ORR, trafficking victims family members with T nonimmigrant visas, and some victims of torture. Individuals who later changed their immigration status to legal permanent resident or naturalized as U.S. citizens are included as well.
Four million young Americans will join the workforce this year, but the federal government will also import 1.1 million legal immigrants, and allows an army of at least 2 million blue-collar and white-collar visa-workers to work U.S. jobs, alongside asylum-claiming migrants and illegal aliens.
Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.
That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because investment flows towards the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.
Published on June 12th, 2018 | by I Am Awake
This is not Donald Trump’s desired border wall between the USA and Mexico, nor is it Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán’s fence which stops the flow of migrants into Europe – this is a 764 kilometer wall between Turkey and Syria, funded by none other than the European Union.
Turkey shares an 822 kilometer border with Syria, a country which has suffered bombardment from all angles since 2011, including several EU member states. The wall runs through the provinces of Sanliurfa, Gaziantep, Kilis, Hatay, Mardin and Sirnak and incorporates physical, electronic and advanced technology layers.
The physical layer includes modular concrete walls, patrol routes, manned and unmanned towers and passenger tracks.
While the EU and its loyal followers persistently preach that any form of borders are racist, many will be shocked to learn that the construction of this wall was largely funded by the 28-member state union.
According to DER SPIEGEL:
“The EU states have provided the government in Ankara with security and surveillance technology valued at more than 80 million euros in exchange for the protection of its borders.
This included the transfer of 35.6 million euros by Brussels to the Turkish company Otokar as part of its IPA regional development program for the construction of armored Cobra II military vehicles, which are now being used to patrol the border to Syria.”
Additionally, in 2016, the EU pledged €3 billion to Turkey under the guise of humanitarian aid to the Syrian refugees in the country. In reality, this deal served to trap the existing 3.5million refugees in Turkey and left those hoping to flee their war torn country at even further risk.
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER FOR MORE GREAT CONTENT!
Once these resources are to be used in full, the EU will mobilise an additional €3 billion to the end of 2018, as confirmed by a press release of the European Commission.
Next time an EU politician is giving an ethics lecture in regards to immigration and the Syrian conflict, keep this in mind.