UN’s Global Compact for Safety, Orderly and Regular Migration | Armstrong Economics

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

Austria and Hungary have now joined Trump in backing out the United Nations migration deal. The UN’s Global Compact for Safety, Orderly and Regular Migration, which is not actually legally binding on any country lacking jurisdiction or power in the UN over the entire world. This deal was finalized and it is widely seen as pro-migration and unrealistic. The greatest problem with this proposal is that the industrialized nations of Europe and America are in fact SOCIALIST states so migrants get benefits for coming that they would not get at home. The problem is that when mass-migration took place from Europe to America in the 19th century and the first near 50% of the 20th century, that migration was to freedom economically and the opportunity to work. The migration into Europe is by no means of the same quality. They go there with no prospect of employment, understanding or speaking the language, and live far better on state welfare that would possibly have at home. The incentives are completely reversed. Trump pulled out of that deal and no both Austria and Hungary have joined as they are inundated with migrants who just have their hand out and drain the economy rather than adding to it. The UN’s Global Compact for Safety, Orderly and Regular Migration, is simply unrealistic and fails completely to understand that there is a huge difference between subsidized migration and migration for an opportunity. In the USA, Trump carried Florida with the legal Mexicans voting for Trump because they had to prove they could speak the language and had skills. The same took place in Britain where the Indians voted for BREXIT for most who migrated to Britain also had to have a skill set which was most commonly in the field of medicine. Those in power do not understand that those who learned skills to migrate are now upset at this idea of just opening up the doors under the welfare model. It undermines what they had to go through to make it to a new homeland.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/refugees/uns-global-compact-for-safety-orderly-and-regular-migration/

You can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

They now want to Reduce Dog & Cat Ownership to Stop Global Warming | Armstrong Economics

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

Well, it was only a matter of time that when you read between the lines concerning pet population of dogs and cats, the solution is to REDUCE their numbers – which is really what they argue for behind the curtain concerning humans. I have written previously how they really want to starve humans to reduce the population. I have previously told the story about attending a White House dinner in Washington back in 1996 and being seated with the entire Environmental group. It was a Washington elite political dinner and because I attended with my friend Dick Fox who was Chairman of Temple University and I was an adviser to the University, whoever it was that made the seating arrangements for these tables of 10 seated us with the environmental groups. This was in the mid-90s. Dick was the one who kept trying to drag the truth out and there it came. These were the heads of the top three environmental organizations. They admitted that the real goal was to reduce the human population by making it difficult to expand and build houses. Labeling everything wetlands would reduce the ability to expand housing and thus shrink the population. When Dick got them to admit that he moved in for the bottom-line question and asked: “So who’s grandchild are you trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?” They now are targeting your pets. They already are taxing farmers per cow because they fart and are causing Global Warming. Now they are honing in on your dog or cat. The argument is that pets constitute about 25–30% of the environmental impacts of animal production in terms of the use of land, water, fossil fuel, phosphate, and biocides. Their solution: Reducing the rate of dog and cat ownership, perhaps in favor of other pets that offer similar health and emotional benefits would considerably reduce these impacts. What’s next? Quotas on having children? That did not work so well in China.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/they-now-want-to-reduce-dog-cat-ownership-to-stop-global-warming/

Gender and Race Politics

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

The Democrats are fielding women and people of color in the next election cycle. At the same time, they are attacking white men in particular. The politics of division are in play.

The Obama presidency was proof that corruption and ineptness knows no color. The Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s stint as Secretary of State proved that a woman can be corrupt and inept.

The masses may not be able to learn from even the most recent history. The most qualified person should get the job, regardless of gender, color, nationality, sexual identity, or religion. To do otherwise will give us an uneven  playing field., and unknown results in regard to success and competence.

In politics, this could mean a person getting their job by one of these above criteria having the power of life or death over members of our military and other members of society. Do we want to take this chance based on any of the above criteria, alone?

To anyone with a normal level of critical thinking skills, I would guess the answer would be no.

Left vs Right?

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

Strangely enough all of the violence and hatred seems to have origins on two of the costal regions in our country. The East and West coast are very crowded and over populated. In many areas, people literally live on top of each other. The federal government is on the East coast as are most of the media corporations,and financial centers. The big tech companies and Hollywood are on the left coast.

Life in the center of the country is less crowded and less complicated in many respects. I have lived on both coasts for a period of about three years on each. It was nice being close to the ocean, but after that consideration, not much else was good.

The cost of living is much higher, it is more crowded, traffic is bad, pollution is prevalent, and people just aren’t as friendly. Perhaps because there are too many squeezed together.

We just do not buy into the anger and divisiveness generated on the coasts by politicians and media moguls. There are no violent demonstrations with antifa and far right groups. Many people here are legally armed , on their person and in their vehicles. That makes those who would use violence think twice. This goes for criminals, and all other bullies in society.

There is a quiet confidence of people who live here that makes life very nice. You have the choice to defend yourself and your family if you choose. An armed society is a polite society. It is not that you have to use a weapon to protect yourself of your family that is important. It is the fact that you can, if needed.

There is no reason to fear a legal gun owner, unless you have bad intentions toward them. The gun control politicians have bad intentions toward us when they try to disarm us and take away our freedom of self defense.