What's new

1500 Missing Children

The article I linked above puts a pretty nice face on the little conclave.

having money is a sort of problem for some. what to do.... what to do... what to do....

There is a kind of privilege that your critics might take as "arrogance".

I am on the polar opposite of virtually everything these people believe is "good".

Behind the massive relocation of world populations which has been ongoing, and relates the "missing children" issue, are deliberate policies being perpetrated under the advice and/or influence of Big Money.

With someone like Bill Gates, who sees world overpopulation as the most serious world problem, it seems that having cultures or religions that are negative on population controls like abortion, family planning, birth control means we have to break up those cultures. The way to do that is move'm out to a place where they are gonna be deciding to become modern secularists and such. In short, the migrations of catholic Mexicans (or Filipinos) or moslems to European or North America means they will change their birth rates. If you can do this fast enough, you can avoid the calamity of a 10B population plateau, limiting it to a mere 9B maybe. Maybe the margin of survival for planet Earth.

I think the opposite, if unchecked by organized programs to limit population, people will themselves of their own volition brake it down for economic reasons with or without religious beliefs, I think at about 20B. The real problem is education of the classical sort which teaches personal responsibility and individual initiative and creativity, which will inspire actual technological revolutions which will make the 20B actually less destructive of the Earth and it's resources than the 10B Sesame Street dumbasses these elites want to limit to a mere 9B.

Every big head thinker has his own kind of arrogance.

maybe I have mine.
 
thanks for the inclusion of source materials. While the label "partisan" might over-simplify the case, it is still true that you have(Red, Thriller) pretty consistent and/or persistent if not dogged stands. I'm not that "settled".

It is true that, for me, NBC, CBS, ABC..... the whole "Walter Cronkite" set with "And that's the way it is" reporting from the sixties and seventies represented and establishment voice even then, so far as I cared to see it. For me, "The Establishment" was socialist, divisive, statist, manipulative. I thought I knew a little of Armand Hammer, and Jon Huntsman. I was in and outta the house, so to speak. I thought I knew a little of the Eccles family influences. My cousin was a US House of Representatives Dem, Ed Firmage was another cousins father in law. I had a long personal knowledge of another old line Utah dem. But I got a book from a Library outtadate sale called "The Right People" which went over all the national scale wealth and the influence they had. At one time, I was married to a lady who was in a position to know personally all the Utah dems and wannabe movers and shakers, who literally had the list of who's who in Utah. But I went bad. I thought people outta have their own guvmint.

So, probably, unless you are indeed a populist, it will be my take that you are partisan somehow, maybe on your own thinking for all I know. If you believe in Sesame Street or imagine that the UN represents democracy I will see things different, no matter what your sources or connections.

I think the Kock bros might've been supportive of Ross Perot back in 1991, and while ostensibly "conservative" their interests fall outta line with Trump or Constitutional thinkers within the Reps as well as the blue dog dems/unionists/moderate dems of the Trucker/working class sort who elected Trump. It took the nightmare of another Clinton Presidency to create that little wave Trump rode.

Do you realize how Republican the Clintons are? You can't really get the light of day between a Clinton and a Bush. Bill Clinton (and Hillary) are total David Rockefeller bots. They totally betrayed the Dem party, took it away from ordinary Americans. Globalists to the hilt, yes, but of the David Rockefeller kind of Globalism first laid out by Lord Cecil Rhodes. Unspeakably racists, bro. The UN is an elaborate organization with all kinds of pretenses of a better world, inclusive of all kinds of governments around the world which are statist in one way or another. But it is really a divide and conquer network for pitting people one against another so no one can insert any contrary power into the scheme.

One the Agenda: one war after another between fundamentalist religions like Islam(under more or less the remnants of Ottoman Empire statists presenting today as extremists sympathetic to the locals) versus "The Wrong People" in power, whoever they might be at the moment.

Just before his death, David Rockefeller met with some of the people he thought might run with the program:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/31/new-york-billionaire-philanthropists

I don't know what my "dogged stands" really have to do with the issue here.
People who emphasize law and order, Trump being one such person, and the chief executive of my country, are sometimes willing to tolerate cruelty against the innocent. But this is a path to the baser instincts of our kind, and we risk our better angels in anointing leaders who want to take us down such a path. Trump is not a leader. He serves instead as the voice for the discontented. But to a degree of anger that elevates creating scapegoats for that anger.

In our country today, a good deal of that anger is directed against Hispanics entering our country from south of the border. They are the other. They are the scapegoats. And we have a president who's willing to be cruel to their innocent children fleeing violence. I wonder if all those angry Americans really want to hurt children. Their president is so willing.

Speaking specifically of the policy announced by Sessions earlier this month, to basically punish parents crossing the border illegally by taking their children away for an indeterminate period of time. Sure, the parent or parents are responsible for crossing, and bringing a child with them. But it's the kids most likely to be traumatized by the policy, and you tell me why I should condone doing that to children as the punishment of choice for the parents. If that's Trump and Session's policy, it says something ugly about them, and by extension my country, not the undocumented. They're only fleeing violence, no shame in that. The shame is on Trump. Shame on him for implementing it, and shame on him for showing the world that this is what our country is about under his administration.

We elected a man who epitomizes our worst instincts. I can point to many of the policies of this administration, for myself environmental and public land decisions stand out, which I oppose to the extreme. Not to mention the growth of the swamp, not the draining, represented by henchmen like Scott Pruitt. But, really, it's the character of Trump the man that is an affront to a better America that I always believed in, and still think has a life ahead of it. And this willingness to traumatize children can hardly be a clearer example of just what it means to hate the other to the degree our president does. If this is what my country really wants to be, I'd rather move. If anger and hatred of the other wins out, I will owe no allegiance to that.
 
That both parties want to appeal to just enough people to win, while still representing the moneyed interests that support them?

I was referring to your example people, not parties though results through them obviously matter. Moneyed interests aren't all aligned and many of them genuinely believe they are doing good. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Huntsman Sr. And his Cancer Institute, saying he wanted to die broke, Jack Welch, all the billionaires who signed off on Buffett's request to pledge at least half their fortune to charity.

These people don't think alike so the donations and influence naturally balance out.
 
I don't know what my "dogged stands" really have to do with the issue here.
People who emphasize law and order, Trump being one such person, and the chief executive of my country, are sometimes willing to tolerate cruelty against the innocent. But this is a path to the baser instincts of our kind, and we risk our better angels in anointing leaders who want to take us down such a path. Trump is not a leader. He serves instead as the voice for the discontented. But to a degree of anger that elevates creating scapegoats for that anger.

In our country today, a good deal of that anger is directed against Hispanics entering our country from south of the border. They are the other. They are the scapegoats. And we have a president who's willing to be cruel to their innocent children fleeing violence. I wonder if all those angry Americans really want to hurt children. Their president is so willing.

Speaking specifically of the policy announced by Sessions earlier this month, to basically punish parents crossing the border illegally by taking their children away for an indeterminate period of time. Sure, the parent or parents are responsible for crossing, and bringing a child with them. But it's the kids most likely to be traumatized by the policy, and you tell me why I should condone doing that to children as the punishment of choice for the parents. If that's Trump and Session's policy, it says something ugly about them, and by extension my country, not the undocumented. They're only fleeing violence, no shame in that. The shame is on Trump. Shame on him for implementing it, and shame on him for showing the world that this is what our country is about under his administration.

We elected a man who epitomizes our worst instincts. I can point to many of the policies of this administration, for myself environmental and public land decisions stand out, which I oppose to the extreme. Not to mention the growth of the swamp, not the draining, represented by henchmen like Scott Pruitt. But, really, it's the character of Trump the man that is an affront to a better America that I always believed in, and still think has a life ahead of it. And this willingness to traumatize children can hardly be a clearer example of just what it means to hate the other to the degree our president does. If this is what my country really wants to be, I'd rather move. If anger and hatred of the other wins out, I will owe no allegiance to that.

So I looked over the reporting on this story a bit.

nah, you got it all wrong. I keep trying to tell you that the DNC-synced Press just won't tell you the truth.

An AG standing at a podium on a beach, not far from the border, trying to broadcast a message for people south of the Border, in a flat voice.... and without any sign of "hate" or prejudice.... is trying to solve a problem.

The problem is we have a lawless border on the Mexican side, where gangs have established power the Mexican government can't or won't even try to enforce. Obama gave these gangs thousands of guns, and the lawless violence exploded.

So we have at least nine areas completely "owned" by the gangs, some of whom do drug running, but some do mainly human trafficking.... well.... lessee.... they provide "safe passage" for thousands of high-paying clients who want to get to the United States. Sure, they harvest some for sexual trafficking as well. And sure, they kill cheaters who try to cross their turf without paying. But they do get a lot of folks across the border, on purpose, because then those illegal immigrants will work and pay their debts to the traffickers and sent money home to the family/relatives.

All this is because Obama did not stand at a podium on a beach and broadcast to the world "We will enforce our Laws", and in fact encouraged the traffickers in their enterprise.

The fact is, you are partly responsible for this human suffering because you're.... well.... bewitched by your kiva spirits I suppose, if not by some of Soro's and Obama's little political operatives. You shouldn't blame anyone for wondering if you're a Marxist as long as you follow the Open Border camp. "No More Borders" is established Marxist doctrine from Marx, ya know. The idea has a place in the Revolution as some imagine it, because it's necessary to break down nations and interests and societies in every way in order to make way for the new. But it's been over a hundred years, almost two hundred in fact,and everywhere that imagined utopia has had any sway has failed. In all the worst ways imaginable. Look at North Korea and Venezuela today. The worst imaginable tyranny.

I think it's time to dump the progressive bs and just make America great again, let's make America the best country ever.... well, keep it that way anyhow. I love freedom of speech, and economic freedom. A lot of people will take extreme risks to get here just so they don't have to live in a socialist/progressive hellhole anymore.

But I don't believe you wanna leave this country at all, no matter who is Pres. It's good here. A whole lot of people know that. That's why we vote for people who will enforce our laws.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think it all evens out? Rhetorical question; we both know where that discussion leads.

I think comparing the number of mega donors on the left or right is silly. There are plenty on both sides. The vilifying of one sides donors without the others is nothing more than political games to me.
 
I think comparing the number of mega donors on the left or right is silly. There are plenty on both sides. The vilifying of one sides donors without the others is nothing more than political games to me.

I have to admit that I think a line is involved somewhere. What @One Brow said about moneyed interests is very true in the case of the Rockefellers. Who do you think were behind generation skipping trusts and all the ******** tax evasion schemes back in the day of when the guy thought to be the richest person in history was alive? Now enter @babe . There's a reason behind his skepticism that most laugh off without considering.

I don't appreciate the heavy hitters but most don't donate as much as you'd think. $1200-2700 seems standard range to a candidate, big woop. I do find it amusing that the Koch brothers just endorsed a Democrat that they campaigned against 6 months ago. That reeks of foul play as much as any DNC or RNC obstruction.
 
Wow. Elect a bunch of Nazis don’t act surprised when they commit Nazi actions. Methinks there are a lot more “disappeared” children than we know of. And it’s only going to get worse with this immoral administration.
Yeah, this **** is straight horror show. This is not the nation I signed up to protect with my life. I believe in freedom and liberty. Not taking children from their parents because they want to be part off what we are. It's disgusting. I don't mean that lightly. This is shameful.
 
Yeah, this **** is straight horror show. This is not the nation I signed up to protect with my life. I believe in freedom and liberty. Not taking children from their parents because they want to be part off what we are. It's disgusting. I don't mean that lightly. This is shameful.

Yep. Probably one of the worst things I've seen our country do in my lifetime.

Even widely regarded historic misfires in foreign engagement in eastern Asia and the Middle East I can at least understand. We were trying to make certain places safer by fighting communism, fighting terrorists, getting rid of dictators, and establishing democracy. In our hearts we were trying to make the world a better and safer place. In retrospect some engagements might have not gone according to plan. I get that. But ultimately you should be able to understand and sympathize with our intentions.

But this? This is completely different. It's something very dark. I don't like to think about it much. But it's almost like this is satisfying the fantasy of a segment of our population that looks admirably at what Germany did in the 1930s and 1940s. It's sadist. It's dark. It's evil. And it's scary where this is leading...

These aren't people trying to cross the border and "sell drugs." These are families seeking asylum. And we award them by tearing apart their families? "Losing" their children?

Aside from Trump's typical authoritarian tendencies, I feel like this has the potential for a long lasting stain on how we view ourselves and how others view us.

Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?
 
Yep. Probably one of the worst things I've seen our country do in my lifetime.

Even widely regarded historic misfires in foreign engagement in eastern Asia and the Middle East I can at least understand. We were trying to make certain places safer by fighting communism, fighting terrorists, getting rid of dictators, and establishing democracy. In our hearts we were trying to make the world a better and safer place. In retrospect some engagements might have not gone according to plan. I get that. But ultimately you should be able to understand and sympathize with our intentions.

But this? This is completely different. It's something very dark. I don't like to think about it much. But it's almost like this is satisfying the fantasy of a segment of our population that looks admirably at what Germany did in the 1930s and 1940s. It's sadist. It's dark. It's evil. And it's scary where this is leading...

These aren't people trying to cross the border and "sell drugs." These are families seeking asylum. And we award them by tearing apart their families? "Losing" their children?

Aside from Trump's typical authoritarian tendencies, I feel like this has the potential for a long lasting stain on how we view ourselves and how others view us.

Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?

Agreed. I could not sleep last night after reading the article @Zombie linked to. It made me sadder then at any time since Trump assumed power. Sad for the kids, sad for their parents, and sad to think this is what we are coming to. There are things happening that assume primacy in the news cycle, and then drop out of sight. The disaster in Puerto Rico, where the death toll was close to 5000, and maybe higher, from the hurricane. The media reports it, and then it drops out of sight, and out of consciousness. And this horrific situation. It should be the headline every single day until something is done to stop it. And I do indeed think of the German people as the Nazis rose to power, and the sin of complacency. And how can we allow ourselves, as a nation, to come to this.

The media are like fireflies seeking the brightest light in an era where Trump's words and actions create new bright high focus stories daily. For days now it's been Trump acting as if he were trying to make Russia great again, then it's Trump trashing the Canadian PM, and Trump spokesmen treating Trudeau as if he were the enemy of America. This week, it will be the summit with North Korea. And we just get swamped with one high profile Trump story after another. The media should never have let the Puerto Rico story fade from view. And the media should not let this horror story off the front page either.

Theirs, and our, attention span is simply too short. We are allowing ourselves to forget the values we have always associated with ourselves to die, when we allow this story to recede from our public awareness. This horror show is happening every single day, but if it is not kept in the news cycle, it happens outside the consciousness of the people, and our nation becomes what it never should become.

This is how it happens. This is how, decades from now, the history books debate "this is what happened in America in the Trump era. How was it allowed to happen?" Instead, it should be front and center every day, so those same history books say "and this is how the American people stood up and said no, this must stop now."
 
Yep. Probably one of the worst things I've seen our country do in my lifetime.

Even widely regarded historic misfires in foreign engagement in eastern Asia and the Middle East I can at least understand. We were trying to make certain places safer by fighting communism, fighting terrorists, getting rid of dictators, and establishing democracy. In our hearts we were trying to make the world a better and safer place. In retrospect some engagements might have not gone according to plan. I get that. But ultimately you should be able to understand and sympathize with our intentions.

But this? This is completely different. It's something very dark. I don't like to think about it much. But it's almost like this is satisfying the fantasy of a segment of our population that looks admirably at what Germany did in the 1930s and 1940s. It's sadist. It's dark. It's evil. And it's scary where this is leading...

These aren't people trying to cross the border and "sell drugs." These are families seeking asylum. And we award them by tearing apart their families? "Losing" their children?

Aside from Trump's typical authoritarian tendencies, I feel like this has the potential for a long lasting stain on how we view ourselves and how others view us.

Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?
 
Yep. Probably one of the worst things I've seen our country do in my lifetime.

Even widely regarded historic misfires in foreign engagement in eastern Asia and the Middle East I can at least understand. We were trying to make certain places safer by fighting communism, fighting terrorists, getting rid of dictators, and establishing democracy. In our hearts we were trying to make the world a better and safer place. In retrospect some engagements might have not gone according to plan. I get that. But ultimately you should be able to understand and sympathize with our intentions.

But this? This is completely different. It's something very dark. I don't like to think about it much. But it's almost like this is satisfying the fantasy of a segment of our population that looks admirably at what Germany did in the 1930s and 1940s. It's sadist. It's dark. It's evil. And it's scary where this is leading...

These aren't people trying to cross the border and "sell drugs." These are families seeking asylum. And we award them by tearing apart their families? "Losing" their children?

Aside from Trump's typical authoritarian tendencies, I feel like this has the potential for a long lasting stain on how we view ourselves and how others view us.

Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?

Were we really doing those things in the Middle East or were we just protecting our interests in oil and the big money made off of the wars for Halliburton and others?
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/upshot/liberals-immigration-children-border-misinformation.html

Some morons are just so dishonest it is disgusting, but at least the NY Times cares about facts more than I woulda thought they ever would. I can't believe Red or Bullet missed this, though.

Dems in the Legislature, along with RINO Republicans, are the holdouts who won't fix our laws and end the bad policy Obama set up.

What's funny is that in the very first post I made the distinction between the two issues.
 
So here is what the Judge said in the case L.V.M. vs Orr:

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-roasts-feds-for-order-detaining-immigrant-children/

The Trump lawyer looked weak in defense of what the Trump head of ORR has done, making the defense based on faulty statistics, saying statistics lie, essentially. It doesn't look like the kid was treated right, or even that the Trump admin has any argument to dispute the alleged facts of his mistreatment.

At the end of the article, there is a reference to another case docketed in California by the ACLU.

This is a good time for Dems to get reasonable and help the Trump admin get a better law on the books for how we handle these kids. I don't like any kind of mass detention center. If parents are being detained or processed for any reason, we need to set up a system for the kids to be held in something like "homes". Maybe a private charity could mobilize some volunteer help. Maybe we could get some foster parents enrolled in some program specifically for these kids.

And maybe we could do something effective to stem the mass migration. Places like El Salvador get millions in US aid, but nobody there seems to be getting any help except some corrupt gov officials and their friends.

The most effective thing we can do about these problems involves reforms in the home nations. Make our foreign aid effective for helping people. End the drug trafficking and the gangs will die off. End the human trafficking. Second doesn't happen until we do Number One.

effective border control is essential to both.
 
Top