Jump to content


david wild

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, 41chevy said:

I often wonder what our country would have been if JFK served his full term.   Paul

Unfortunately we'll never know.  Many (including me) believe he was killed because he was in the process of doing away with the Federal Reserve.  

Excerpted from;  http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

"On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation." 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, grayhair said:

Unfortunately we'll never know.  Many (including me) believe he was killed because he was in the process of doing away with the Federal Reserve. 

I wouldn't call it a "virtually unknown" executive order as they put it. It's a viable theory though,



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump "would find it very, very difficult to throw out a family that has been here for 15 years and they have three children, two of whom are citizens. That is not the kind of America he wants."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani

On Sunday, Giuliani said that all 10 of Trump's immigration policies are largely directed only toward "criminal" illegal immigrants. [Apparently, they don't view entering the U.S. illegally as being a crime. I do.]


First of all, in my vision, any children born to illegal immigrants in the United States should NOT be granted citizenship.

Second, that any illegal immigrants can remain in the United States without being caught for 15 years is not only damning regarding the will and capabilities of U.S. authorities, but also begs the question of whether or not it is intentional.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2016 at 9:58 AM, kscarbel2 said:

People aren't killed without a reason.

Presidents, at that time, weren't targeted for assassination without a very big reason (this is pre-1980s Hinckley era)

He was in office from Jan 20, 1961 to Nov 22, 1963.

We'll never know what really happened, who decided to have him killed, how and why. But I certainly would like to.

It's impossible for me to believe that the FBI (J.Edgar Hoover) doesn't know what happened. Thus, it's shocking that the American people have not yet been told. That means, the "truth" is so powerful that it would undermine the very integrity of our government.

Speaking of Hinckley, while John Lennon's killer Mark David Chapman has been denied parole once more, why has the would-be killer of President Ronald Reagan been released? Both of these people attempted murder......one succeeded. There were numerous witnesses. Why weren't they executed within 48 hours? Why has the U.S. taxpayer been burdened with the costs of their confinement for decades?

Teddy had Marilyn killed, Fed Reserve had JFK and his assassin killed, Hoffa had RFK killed, Teddy had Hoffa killed, Obama had Scalla killed, Bill and Hillary had Foster killed. . . on and on and on

  • Like 2


 “Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely, in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy shit, what a ride!’


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump on Monday refused to rule out granting legal status to undocumented immigrants who remain in the United States, breaking with an immigration proposal he laid out just last week.

Asked Monday whether he could rule out a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants, Trump declined.

"I'm not ruling out anything," Trump said. "We're going to make that decision into the future."
Last week in Phoenix, Trump said undocumented [illegal] immigrants seeking legal status would "have one route and one route only: to return home and apply for reentry like everybody else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump spins 'horrible' news that won't go away at Ford

Nick Bunkley, Automotive News  /  September 14, 2016

Never turn a one-day story into a two-day story.

That was the crisis-management philosophy espoused by Don Canham, a marketing genius who transformed the University of Michigan football program into a world-renowned brand and money-printing machine over 21 years as the school’s athletic director.

Ford Motor Co. clearly doesn’t believe in that approach.

It’s managed to turn the fact that it’s moving small-car production from the U.S. to Mexico into a yearlong debacle, right in the midst of the most divisive presidential election in history. Republican nominee Donald Trump has been more than willing to take the bait, repeatedly bashing Ford as traitorous during rallies and debates.

Instead of just being transparent and explaining that the shift will allow hourly workers in Michigan to have better job security by building more popular, profitable pickups and SUVs instead, Ford decided to leak its plan in drips and drabs starting in the summer of 2015. Until Wednesday, Ford executives were inexplicably evasive about the subject every time it came up.


In July 2015, I and a number of other reporters wrote that Ford planned to move production of the Focus and C-Max from the U.S. to Mexico in 2018. Ford refused to say where the cars would be moved, even though it reportedly told the UAW they were headed to Mexico. Last November, Ford’s new contract with the UAW showed that production of nearly all cars would end in the U.S., with Mexico the expected destination. FCA’s UAW deal showed it had similar plans.

Early this year, reports indicated that Ford was planning a new assembly plant in Mexico. A spokeswoman dismissed the reports as “speculation.”

In April, Ford finally confirmed the $1.6 billion plant, but it wouldn’t say what vehicles would be built there.

UAW President Dennis Williams, who had known about the plans for at least nine months at that point, took the opportunity to publicly flog Ford for the “very troubling” move.

Poster child

And all along, Trump eagerly made Ford into a poster child for companies shipping good American jobs south of the border. He called the new plant in Mexico “an absolute disgrace.”

Only today did Ford, finally, confirm what anyone following the issue had known all along. “Over the next two to three years, we will have migrated all of our small-car production to Mexico and out of the United States," Ford CEO Mark Fields said during a presentation to investors.

Because this was the first time any Ford executive had acknowledged that Mexico is indeed, the Focus’ destination, the story went viral -- again.

USA Today, Fox News, CNN, NBC News, the Daily Beast, Breitbart News and dozens of other outlets jumped on it, even though many had already reported virtually the same news months ago. “Ford moving small car production to Mexico,” read a link right in the middle of the Drudge Report, a widely read conservative news site.

Fields’ statement put Ford’s plan back in the news eight weeks before the election -- and just hours before Trump was campaigning in nearby Flint, Mich.

“More bad news for Michigan today,” Trump said during an appearance at a Flint church. “It was just announced that Ford is moving all small-car production -- all of it, 100 percent -- to Mexico over the next two or three years. This just happened. We shouldn’t allow it to happen. … It’s horrible.”


Remember when Ford gained a loyal following of consumers who applauded its decision to decline a federal bailout and avoid filing for a taxpayer-supported bankruptcy? Now, some of those same supporters are seeing Ford constantly in the news, being accused of prioritizing profits over patriotism.

Everything about this “breaking news,” as some websites labeled it, is old. Yet it’s the most prominent headline emerging from Wednesday’s investor meeting, overshadowing four hours of presentations aimed at laying out Ford’s path to future success as the industry rapidly evolves.

Ford has complained about constantly being picked on by Trump, yet it keeps bringing the Mexico story back to life. If Ford continues to get pummeled on the campaign trail over the next 55 days, it only has itself to blame.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jason O, that letting the police "go to lunch" might provide an opportunity for some "attitude adjustment"😁 But having grown up in Mcmurray PA, it might be" something in the water"! Would it not be acceptable to disagree with what the flag stands for by posting a sign,and not destroying the symbol that so many died for? Personally I agree with the late singer and sausage magnate Jimmy Dean, when told of Abbie Hoffman burning and urinating on our flag said "I believe that old boy needs a good West Texas butt kickin'"!😁

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With one crass decision, the greedy men who run Ford have betrayed everything Henry stood for - and run Hillary right off the road

Piers Morgan  /  September 15, 2016

I heard a loud noise in my London office today.

It began at a cemetery in Detroit, swirled around America, then reverberated across the Atlantic and clattered angrily into my airspace.

It was the sound of Henry Ford turning in his grave.

The greatest industrialist in the history of the United States would surely have been sickened by breaking news this morning about the world-renowned car company he created.

Ford announced it is moving its small-car production from U.S. plants to Mexico.

Not some of it, ALL of it.

This will create 2,800 new jobs, not in America but in Mexico.

Ford’s CEO Mark Fields told investors proudly: ‘Over the next two to three years, we will have migrated all of our small-car production to Mexico and out of the United States.’

Isn’t that, with 93 million Americans currently unemployed, an astonishing thing for the boss of a major U.S. company to boast about?

Presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has long railed at precisely this kind of corporate activity, instantly branded the move ‘horrible’ and an ‘absolute disgrace.’

He also declared that if he becomes President then he’ll impose a 35% import tax on any Ford cars built in Mexico.

This, he explained, will either force them to bring production back home, or they will end up paying America a lot of money.

‘When we send our jobs out of Michigan, we’re also sending our tax base,’ he said.

He’s right.

Make no mistake, Ford has done this from no motivation other than pure capitalist greed.

The company is stinking rich and raking in cash, with assets worth $224 billion and reported pre-tax profits of $3 billion for the second quarter of 2016 alone.

By moving small car production to Mexico to appease the equally grasping Wall Street speculators, it can squeeze that gigantic dollar lemon just a little tighter.

But at what cost to America and Americans?

Domestic manufacturing has collapsed this century in the United States, decimated by a combination of new technology and out-sourcing factories abroad.

There are an estimated 12 million U.S. manufacturing jobs today, down from a peak of 19 million in 1979, with most of the fall happening since 2000.

This extraordinary drop-off has wrecked many communities in the process, causing huge financial and social hardship for millions of Americans.

Ford insists no American jobs will be lost as a result of this move, as production of larger vehicles will be moved to its Wayne plant in Michigan.

This may or may not turn out to true.

But what’s undeniable is that this decision will directly boost Mexico’s jobs market and not America’s.

This cuts to the very core of Trump’s message about job preservation and creation in America.

He passionately believes, and I’ve had this conversation with him for many years so I know it to be a sincere view, that big American companies are selling out the country and its people by sending production overseas to save a few bucks.

Ford’s by no means the only culprit in the U.S. car market.

General Motors and Fiat Chrysler have also expanded fast in Mexico.

There are now 675,000 auto jobs in Mexico, a 40% increase from 2008.

The total number of auto jobs has also risen in America over the same period, but by a far smaller amount of 15%.

How many more could have been created if the out-sourcing hadn’t happened?

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Starbucks recently committed to building new factories in the U.S. even though it would be far cheaper for them to make all their cups abroad.

CEO Howard Schultz did it because he thinks it’s imperative to save America’s manufacturing industry from further obliteration.

As would Henry Ford, a man whose whole ethos was based around empowering Americans to rule the world in manufacturing by making things in America.

Of all the many brilliant ideas that Ford had, perhaps his greatest was the $5-a-day wage he introduced for all his employees in 1914.

This would be equivalent to $120 today and it nearly doubled the existing rate of most of his workers.

Why did he do it?

Ford wanted to pay his people well enough so they would be able to afford to buy the cars they made.

A more powerful incentive to guarantee high quality work and care it would be hard to imagine.

The move was stunningly successful.

It instantly attracted the best mechanics from all over Detroit, which raised productivity and lowered training costs.

This, in turn, kick-started the depressed local economy.

So it benefited everyone, not just Ford employees.

Ford made more money and so did America.

It was the perfect fusion of profits and patriotism.

What Ford is doing now betrays everything Henry Ford stood for.

The company’s announcement today is another massive blow to U.S. manufacturing and will merely serve to encourage other major U.S. companies to take more their jobs abroad.

When they do, the crumbling middle class, on which the power of America’s economy so vitally depends, will get further pulverised.

Short-term greed will inevitably lead to longer-term impoverishment.

It’s the perfect real life illustration of Aesop’s fable, “The Goose With The Golden Eggs”.

Of course, there is one aspect of this move that even Donald Trump may find very pleasing.

Ford’s greedy antics aren’t just anti-American, they may also have just helped hand him the presidency.

‘States that make cars like Donald Trump’, he said today.

The latest polls, showing a surge in his support in those very states like Ohio, confirm this view.

If Trump wins those states come November, he wins the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ABC News  /  September 18, 2016

GOP vice presidential candidate Mike Pence said his role model for the number two spot is the last Republican to hold the job -- Dick Cheney.

“I frankly hold Dick Cheney in really high regard in his role as vice president and as an American,” Pence said on ABC’s "This Week."


With those remarks about Cheney, Pence has lost all credibility.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford tries to fire back at Trump, citing Ohio-made trucks

Bloomberg  /  September 19, 2016

Ford Motor Co., attempting to push back against criticism by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for moving work to Mexico, is highlighting its booming business in big trucks after shifting production to an Ohio factory from south of the border.

The automaker has sold 10,160 of its F-650 and F-750 trucks this year through August, up 59 percent from the same period in 2015 and the highest sales of those models since 1997, the automaker said in a statement today. The big trucks are used as commercial vehicles, including beer haulers and tow, moving and dump trucks.

Ford is firing back at Trump, who last week called the automaker “a disgrace” after CEO Mark Fields told investors that the second-largest U.S. automaker is moving North American small-car production to Mexico, where labor costs are lower than in the U.S. After Trump threatened to levy a 35 percent tariff on Ford’s Mexican-built cars, Fields said the company is “absolutely not” cutting U.S. jobs to move small-car operations south because the Michigan plant currently building them will manufacture other models.

‘American jobs’

“It’s really unfortunate when politics get in the way of the facts,” Fields said in a September 15 interview on CNN. “And the facts are, Ford’s investment in the U.S. and commitment to American jobs has never been stronger. I mean, we’ve created more than 28,000 jobs in the U.S. in the last five years.”

Ford began producing the F-650 and F-750 at its assembly plant near Cleveland a year ago after the company spent $168 million converting the factory from building Econoline vans. They previously had been produced in Mexico in a joint venture with Navistar International Corp. known as Blue Diamond Trucking Co., which disbanded in 2014. The automaker now builds its full-size van, known as the Transit, at an assembly plant in Claycomo, Mo.

The company is focusing on building high-margin trucks, vans and SUVs in the U.S., where labor costs are more expensive than in Mexico. Ford derives most of its profit from its F-series truck line, Morgan Stanley has said. And the largest vehicles in the line generate the biggest return, according to analysts. By going it alone in the big-truck market, Ford no longer has to share profits with Navistar.

After parting with Navistar, Ford redesigned the F-650 and F-750 to offer them in a variety of body styles and with either gasoline or diesel engines. General Motors exited that segment of the truck market following its 2009 government-backed bankruptcy.

“We’re seeing growing interest in the new tractor from beverage and hauling fleets,” Kevin Koester, Ford’s marketing manager for the models, said in a statement. “Towing and rental customers have embraced the gas engine.”


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering if the false rumors of Ford shutting Michigan Assembly down will force Ford to formally announce the Ranger and Bronco products for that plant before the election. My guess is that Ford plans to make that announcement at the NAIAS after the first of the year to begin the usual couple years build up before production starts, but Ford may have to make their PR moves sooner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

I've been wondering if the false rumors of Ford shutting Michigan Assembly down will force Ford to formally announce the Ranger and Bronco products for that plant before the election. My guess is that Ford plans to make that announcement at the NAIAS after the first of the year to begin the usual couple years build up before production starts, but Ford may have to make their PR moves sooner.

I plan to purchase both a global Ranger and Everest (rebadged as Bronco) after US production begins. However, this all hinges on Ford not destroying what is now a superb product, when they reconfigure them for the US market. Ford has a long history of doing so, from the superb Mk1 and Mk2 Capri to Merkur and the Kuga (Escape).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/13/2016 at 8:56 AM, kscarbel2 said:

That Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the nominees for (drum roll here)...................President of the United States, is final proof that it's all merely a charade.

There is no way that the aristocracy, the powerful and very sharp people intensely focused every day on maintaining and increasing their wealth, would allow either of these dysfunctional people to run USA Inc.

Would they allow them to hold the silver briefcase with the red button? NOT.

As it was in the beginning with the founding fathers, the elite quietly push the buttons and pull the levers, while letting the masses "think" that they participate in the process.

Look at it this way. If what you see is "actually" what we have, for example a dysfunctional congress of mostly 70+ year old men that can't make (good and timely) decisions, well............then the writing is on the wall.

Now, assuming that you believe it's all real and not merely a show arranged by the modern day aristocracy to make the masses believe they're participating in their government..............you now are forced to question a system which can put before you two nominees who couldn't be more unqualified for the office of president. 

As of today, Pence, Giuliani and the Republican party have slammed their man to the ground for redefining the word "disgusting", and Clinton's years of shady two-faced deeds have come back to haunt her with a vengeance.

Who would any ordinarily prudent and rational person vote for now?

Answer: "None of the above".

Both nominees have now suffered irreparable damage.  But does the system have a provision for this circumstance? What happens when we come around the last bend and realize "both" nominees are unqualified to hold office. Surely, we don't foolishly go forward and elect one of the two anyway.

Meanwhile, people around the globe are laughing at us over the Trump and Hillary show. Our country's image is sinking to new lows. Government elections are not suppose to take on the face of a weekly reality show.

News Flash: A truly great nation requires a truly great leader.

If I'm wrong, and what you see is "actually" what we're working with...............well, we're going to be in serious trouble "within" our lifetime.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

Surely, we don't go forward and elect one anyway.

But if Obumma makes sure Hiltabrute gets elected, in December he can then indict  her for the email security breach and declare himself king for the next one or four years until another election can happen.

  • Like 1


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump and the declining prestige of US democracy

Gideon Rachman, The Financial Times  /  October 9, 2016

The presidential debates are a poor advert for the western system

How did it come to this? The presidential election debates should represent US democracy at its finest. Instead, the second Clinton-Trump debate centred around sordid allegations of sexual assault, threats, lies and mutual contempt.

At one stage, Mr Trump boasted that Mrs Clinton would “be in jail” if he were in charge of the legal system. Political rivals to the president get imprisoned in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. America is meant to live by different standards.

Sunday night’s spectacle is not just embarrassing for the US. America is widely regarded as the “leader of the free world.” So the rise of Mr Trump threatens to damage the prestige of democracy everywhere.

The damage is not restricted to the world of ideas. Authoritarianism and anti-Americanism are on the march, led by increasingly confident governments in Beijing and Moscow. A strong and impressive US should be central to rallying the response of the world’s democracies. Instead, we had the depressing and degrading spectacle of the second Trump-Clinton debate.

Even in their current sorry state, the presidential debates have shown some of the drama and energy that distinguish US politics. Millions of people around the world watched and discussed the confrontation. The next session of China’s National People’s Congress will not attract a similar audience.

It is also true that neither Xi Jinping of China nor Vladimir Putin of Russia would ever be subjected to the kind of brutal interrogation to which American politicians are subjected on a routine basis. Instead, last week, the Russian Duma sent Mr Putin 450 roses to mark his birthday.

Yet, even so, the second presidential election debate was a desperately poor advertisement for US democracy. In some respects, Mr Trump has actually introduced some of the malign features of Russian and Chinese politics into the US. One of the strengths of the western democratic system is that a free press and open debate are meant to expose falsehoods. Yet Mr Trump sprays out lies like a skunk trying to repel its enemies. His method seems to be to create such confusion that the truth simply gets buried amid a mass of falsehoods. This is characteristic of the current Russian propaganda system described in an aptly titled book by Peter Pomerantsev: Nothing is True and Everything Is Possible.

The Chinese challenge to America’s democratic ideology is more subtle and perhaps more dangerous because China, unlike Russia, can make a good claim to be a well-governed country. China is the largest economy in the world measured by purchasing power parity. The Chinese argue that their system selects leaders on merit, after decades of rigorous assessment. President Xi only made it to the pinnacle of state power after many years of work in the provinces and in different government jobs. He has been judged by his peers, not the voters, to be qualified to run the country.

The Chinese do not yet argue that their system should be applied around the world. But they do increasingly condemn — as agents of America, seeking to “sow chaos” — those who make the case for a more liberal political system within the Sinic world, for example in Hong Kong or Taiwan. Beleaguered liberals in Russia or China need a well-functioning US democracy as a support and an inspiration. Instead, they see a system that produces Mr Trump, a man whose political style owes more to President Putin than to President Obama.

In Beijing recently, I was told that many Chinese officials quite like the idea of Mr Trump as US president “because he makes America look so bad”. By contrast, US allies around the world would be dismayed to see the Oval Office occupied by an erratic “America First” narcissist like Mr Trump.

Of course US politics has thrown up villains and melodrama before. The first great US political scandal that I followed as a child was Watergate — which also featured a “bad guy” making scandalous remarks on a secret recording. The Watergate tapes introduced the American public to the phrase “expletive deleted”. Many Americans were scandalised by the profanity and cynicism of Richard Nixon, their president. But the way that the US system — the courts, the press and the Congress working together — dealt with Nixon was ultimately very impressive. And for all his flaws, no one doubted that Nixon had the experience and the intelligence to be president.

By contrast, Mr Trump is manifestly unqualified and has thrown the US system into confusion, leaving the press and the Republican party floundering. The fact that more than 40 per cent of Americans, and a majority of whites, are probably going to vote for him suggests that the US is in deep trouble. We can, by now, all list the ingredients that have helped create this sickness — economic stagnation, inequality, illegal immigration, the rise of social media — but the outcome threatens the prestige of democracy worldwide.

If Mrs Clinton makes it to the White House there will be relief across the west and a certain disappointment in Moscow and, perhaps, Beijing. But it will be very hard to erase the memory of this campaign. It has presented an image of a troubled, divided and deluded US to the rest of the world. As a result, it has already dealt a serious blow to the prestige and power of the west.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...