Migrants/Asylum Seekers/Refugees. ??

[Ivan Cloherty]

What I can't stand is the 'Bleeding heart' reporters, haven't heard one of them say 'Come live with me' but we are supposed to welcome them with open arms. Why are they leaving Turkey a moo slim country to come to Christian Greece and then risking their childrens lives in boats going from one Greek Island to another Greek island in winter seas, could it because they think that they are going to get free housing, Tv's, cars as well as benefits when they reach the promised lands of do gooders, but of course they will won't they, otherwise we'll all be called racialists.

[Jim Brady]

I see quite a number of country's are having second thoughts about their open door policy,Sweden has had enough and I think Mrs Merkel is now sorry for what she started.
Regards.
Jim.B.

[Captain Kong]

Don't forget Gadhafi`s immortal words before they killed him. He was the only politician to tell the Truth

"I sla m does not need to fight the West, We will take over with weight of numbers."

It has come true.
and all our politicians, Bishops, and daft do gooders are still too stupid to realise what is going on.
We are being colonised by slam.
Welcome to WW3
Brian

[Rodney Mills]

Ivan,

I honestly had never heard of Valerie Jarret.. I asked my wife if she had, she said yes, but she had never heard about her being "@#slim (God! this writing in code is so childish!).

I googled Valerie Jarret and found at least twenty sites spouting all sorts of nonsense about her. She was @#slim, she was a communist, she was Iranian...Whoa! there is no way a @#slim ,Iranian, communist is part of Mr.Obama's inner group or any American presidential group, she couldn't even be an advisor to Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran, as communism is not allowed and anathema to Shitte @#slims, and somehow I haven't heard a word about her in Mr. Obama's seven years in office. Nothing on TV news, ABC, Fox, NBC, NPR radio news, BBCnews, The Australian, The Wall street Journal, The Economist, Time magazine, The Washington Post? Impossible!

I pulled up a site that matched the quotation attributed to her, the main gist of it I have reposted following my comments.

I mentioned previously in a post to John in Oz about the U.S. political parties and how they stack-up Vis a Vis Oz and the UK. Obviously you must have missed it so I will repeat them briefly. The U.S. Democratic Party compares roughly to your Conservative Party. The Republican Party are further to the right. There are factional niches in both parties, further to the left in the case of the democrats, but nowhere even close to Mr. Corbyn of the British Labor Party and his philosophy.

There are various elements of the Republicans that move to the right of the parties main stream, the Tea Party wing is an example; however, there are groups that are ultra conservative to the extreme. The nonsense following is typical fringe, kook, and radical tripe one would expect from them. Ivan, let's reverse the program, If I asked you is it true that Mr. Cameron has a card carrying member of the Nazi party advising him on running the country, and found sites that stated so, and that he had been doing that for seven years yet the Dail Mail, Guardian, BBC, etc. had never raised a stink or even mentioned it. What would you think?



Anyway following is the typical ultra right wing b.s. that has used the quote you mentioned, and following on is a reply from "Snopes." laying out Valerie Jarrett's bio.



Claim: White House adviser Valerie Jarrett once said she seeks "to help change America to be a more Islamic country



Quoted from Valerie Jarrett:

"I am an Iranian by birth and of my Islamic faith. I am also an American Citizen and I seek to help change America to be a more Islamic country. My faith guides me and I feel like it is going well in the transition of using freedom of religion in America against itself."


Valerie Jarrett, Stanford University 1977

Origins: Valerie Jarrett was offered a role as a White House Senior Advisor at the very beginning of the Obama administration in January 2009 and now holds the position of Senior Advisor to the President of the United States. President Obama has said he consults Jarrett on every major decision.

The level of influence Jarrett holds with the Obama administration has prompted many detractors to complain she wields too much control over the President and decisions about who should have access to him, and one expression that detraction commonly takes is the assertion Jarrett is a foreign-born Islamic "mole" who is pushing for (or furthering) a ****** agenda through the executive branch. The quote cited above is a typical example, holding that while Jarrett was an undergraduate psychology student at
Stanford University in 1977, she proclaimed herself to be an Iranian who sought "to help change America to be a more Islamic country" and she felt "like it is going well in the transition of using freedom of religion in America against itself."



Ivan for the complete text you can click on the link below.




FALSE: Valerie Jarrett: 'Help change America to be a more Islamic country' : snopes.com

"...Contrary to common rumor, however, neither Jarrett nor her parents are Iranian, nor (as far as we can tell) are any of them ******. Jarrett's parents, James E. Bowman and Barbara Taylor Bowman, were both American-born U.S. citizens from Washington, D.C. and Chicago, respectively; the couple merely lived in Iran for about six years in the late 1950s and early 1960s while James served as chair of pathology at Nemazee Hospital in Shiraz as part of a program that sent American physicians to work in developing countries.

Valerie was born in Shiraz during the Bowmans' sojourn in Iran; she returned to the U.S. with her parents in 1962 (when she was five years old), whereupon she attended prep school in Massachusetts, graduated with a B.A. in psychology from Stanford University in 1978, and earned a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981 before returning to Chicago to begin her working career. We've found no evidence Valerie Jarrett is (or ever was) ******, her only apparent connection to that religion being the

incidental one that she temporarily lived in a predominantly ****** country with her American parents for the first few years of her life.

The quote to attributed "Valerie Jarrett, Stanford University, 1977" about her "seek[ing] to help change America to be a more Islamic country" is an unfounded one that has no source other than recent repetition (primarily on right-wing web sites and blogs) and that in its commonly reproduced form is too stilted to be believable as the utterance of a fluent English speaker (e.g., "I am an Iranian by birth and of [sic] my Islamic faith"). No news article or document associated with Stanford University records Jarrett as having made this statement back in 1977; and if there were any credible evidence Jarrett had ever said anything remotely like this, it would have been a well-covered news story since shortly after the 2008 presidential election and not a obscure meme that didn't pop up until several years later."



I trust this answers your query fully Ivan.



Regards, Rodney

[John Pruden]

nato could have and should have done a hell of a lot more in the middle east? sort the problem on the home turf not sit back until its to late people don't want or needed to migrate professional people uprooting and walking hundreds of mile for safety in other lands ok they land on doorsteps often not welcome but that's the price of not stepping in before it got a grip isil will have to be taken out by any means possible and the people re homed on their own lands as regards taking over lands they have moved to there is always deportation and I am sure they don't want that? just my view.. jp

[Captain Kong]

I have just received this from a mate in Australia...............................
What is really going on.
Brian
.
.

The Middle East power play

The Middle Eastern conflict has grown around Syria for some time now. I’ve following the course of events since September 2014.

This whole mess boils down to politics, power and money.

To kick things off, it’s helpful to know about the main players.

The governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are controlled by Shi’ite ******s. While the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan are ruled by Sunni ******s.

When it comes to controlling energy, these groups have historically backed their own circle. That’s important when you analyse the world’s largest natural gas and condensate field — South Pars and North Dome. It’s shared by both Iran (Shi’ite ruled) and Qatar (Sunni ruled).

Both the Shi’ites and the Sunnis want to build their own gas pipeline networks. You can see this on the map below...


Source: passionforliberty.com

The Shi’ites want to use the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon-Europe route (Islamic pipeline in red).

The Sunnis want the Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Iraq-Syria-Turkey-Europe route (Qatar-Turkey pipeline in purple).

Here’s the catch...

Both groups need to build their pipeline through Syria.

You can see why Syria represents huge strategic value.

If either the Sunni or Shi’ite groups are going to get their gas piped to Europe, they have to go through Syria.

This is where it gets interesting. A lot of powerful outside parties also have chips on the table.

Russia and China (although China remains undeclared) are on the Shi’ites’ side (supporting Assad’s Syria). They’ve voted together on every issue regarding Syria at the United Nations. On the other hand, the US has its chips on the Sunnis’ side (with their old friends Saudi Arabia).

Geopolitical games 101

For many years, the US was an ‘oil importer’ and heavily relied on cheap Middle Eastern oil.

Now, having become an ‘oil producer’, the US geopolitical goal is to isolate Russia — it’s the only country (bar China) that really stands up to US international meddling.

The US isn’t used to being told what to do. It can’t handle the fact that it’s a declining empire — economically, geopolitically, financially, and socially.

As such, you can expect the US to keep doing whatever it takes to exert its authority over Russia.

This means, hitting Russia where it hurts — cutting off its oil and gas money.

Russia is the biggest supplier of natural gas to Western Europe. This grants the county a lot of power. If necessary, it can turn off the gas or raise prices, as it has done during northern winter months in years past.

The US doesn’t like this power play, and to neutralise Russia’s influence over Europe, the US has backed the Qatar-Turkey pipeline (Saudi Arabia).

Russia clearly has an interest to make sure this doesn’t happen. What’s more, it holds long term exploration and development rights to a large part of Syria’s offshore waters.

If Russia can find gas and oil in the region AND have influence over a pipeline to Europe, it can gain more control over all the gas that flows into Europe.

There is a lot at stake here — wealth, prestige and power — for a lot of historically stubborn and confrontational nations.

Geopolitical tensions are heating up.

And all the dangerous ingredients for a Middle Eastern proxy-war are in place.

This is coming whether you like it or not

With Russia and China watching from behind the scenes, Barrack Obama has had no choice but to enforce his ‘no boots on the ground’ policy.

Over the past couple of years, the US spent nearly US$500 million training Syrian rebels to fight IS.

The US realised that this plan had failed long ago. This is why US forces conducted more than 7,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria over the last 12 months.

But this plan has also been a complete failure. And Russia and China kept watching on the sidelines.

Out of ideas, Obama and his mates recently pushed the Russians too far. CNBC reported that the Pentagon put ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria, assisting the Kurds on 16 September. The nature of the special operations was not disclosed.

Russia then started bombing the Islamic State on 30 September.

It took them 72 hours to do what US forces couldn’t — destroy significant Islamic State territory and personnel.

Supported by Russian airpower, Iran has now sent thousands of troops into Syria and Iraq to assist with its army’s offensive on IS. The coalition has even taken back important oil refineries captured by IS in September last year.

Meanwhile, the US military strategy appears paralysed.

The oil stock to watch

It’s likely that the entire campaign will shift to Iraq, where the Iranian military just recaptured prized oil fields.

According to the Financial Times, estimates by local traders and engineers put crude production in IS held territory at about 34,000-40,000 barrels per day.

The oil is sold for between US$20 and US$45 a barrel, earning the militants an average of US$1.5 million a day.

While, according to CNBC, the US Rewards for Justice program has ‘offered anyone US$5 million for tips on disrupting IS oil’.

But that’s hardly a long term solution. Iraq is eventually where the US will either need to confront Russia for control over the region, or simply pack up and leave.

It’s unlikely that the US will leave quietly. Especially with US relations with Russia at lows not seen since the Cold War.

That said, we should see Syria pushed into the background for a little while.

The geopolitical story is now moving to the South China Sea, where the US is deploying a number of its war ships in defiance to Chinese authorities.

If you keep following this geopolitical story, you’ll see the switches between Ukraine, the South China Sea and Syria — the three hot-spots that could erupt into a full scale war.

The world is watching who will make the first move. It will take some time before we see a full on confrontation.

Yet at the moment, the stage is being set for the next World War.

While I don’t want this anymore than you do, legendary commodities investor Jim Rogers’s puts it this way:


‘Wars start when bureaucrats make mistakes and then other bureaucrats react to those mistakes and then next thing you know, you have eight or ten bureaucrats sending 18 year old kids to kill each other, and it’s very worrisome what’s happening.’

A mistake is a real possibility. If this happens, Jim explains:


‘Having said that, war is not good for anything, anything at all, except commodities. I’m not going to say buy commodities because you don’t want to start a war, but if there’s going to be a war, it usually means commodity prices go higher.’

Indeed, it takes one mistake to send commodity prices higher.

And I’ve been watching this unfold with growing concern for some time now.

On 3 December 2014, when crude was trading at US$63 per barrel, I wrote to readers of my research letter Resource Speculator:


‘Crude oil prices won’t stay low forever. In fact, expect to see crude oil prices rocket into 2016/17.

‘As economies keep falling apart, geopolitical risk will pick up into 2016/17. You’ll see conflict and social unrest rise around the world at an alarming rate.’

But before the oil price takes off, crude is likely to fall further — hitting my forecast of US$34 per barrel by early 2016.

This should keep the oilers share prices somewhat contained.

In this case, I see no rush to buy any established oilers today — even if they look great on paper. If you buy today, you won’t be buying at the best price.

As such, I’d like to provide you with a recommendation for a top-rated oiler that you should put on your watch-list.

It’s a company you can expect to make big gains on soon...but not quite yet.

This is the best strategy to take, heading into the final stretch of the resources bear market.

You can get my full analysis on this Australian oil stock by checking out this recent issue of my investment newsletter Resource Speculator.

It’s a no-obligation deal, so you have nothing to lose by taking a look.

Simply click here to access this full issue of Resource Speculator

Sincerely,

- - - Updated - - -

I have just received this from a mate in Australia,
makes you wonder what is really going on.
Brian.....................................
.
.

The Middle East power play

The Middle Eastern conflict has grown around Syria for some time now. I’ve following the course of events since September 2014.

This whole mess boils down to politics, power and money.

To kick things off, it’s helpful to know about the main players.

The governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are controlled by Shi’ite ******s. While the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan are ruled by Sunni ******s.

When it comes to controlling energy, these groups have historically backed their own circle. That’s important when you analyse the world’s largest natural gas and condensate field — South Pars and North Dome. It’s shared by both Iran (Shi’ite ruled) and Qatar (Sunni ruled).

Both the Shi’ites and the Sunnis want to build their own gas pipeline networks. You can see this on the map below...


Source: passionforliberty.com

The Shi’ites want to use the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon-Europe route (Islamic pipeline in red).

The Sunnis want the Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Iraq-Syria-Turkey-Europe route (Qatar-Turkey pipeline in purple).

Here’s the catch...

Both groups need to build their pipeline through Syria.

You can see why Syria represents huge strategic value.

If either the Sunni or Shi’ite groups are going to get their gas piped to Europe, they have to go through Syria.

This is where it gets interesting. A lot of powerful outside parties also have chips on the table.

Russia and China (although China remains undeclared) are on the Shi’ites’ side (supporting Assad’s Syria). They’ve voted together on every issue regarding Syria at the United Nations. On the other hand, the US has its chips on the Sunnis’ side (with their old friends Saudi Arabia).

Geopolitical games 101

For many years, the US was an ‘oil importer’ and heavily relied on cheap Middle Eastern oil.

Now, having become an ‘oil producer’, the US geopolitical goal is to isolate Russia — it’s the only country (bar China) that really stands up to US international meddling.

The US isn’t used to being told what to do. It can’t handle the fact that it’s a declining empire — economically, geopolitically, financially, and socially.

As such, you can expect the US to keep doing whatever it takes to exert its authority over Russia.

This means, hitting Russia where it hurts — cutting off its oil and gas money.

Russia is the biggest supplier of natural gas to Western Europe. This grants the county a lot of power. If necessary, it can turn off the gas or raise prices, as it has done during northern winter months in years past.

The US doesn’t like this power play, and to neutralise Russia’s influence over Europe, the US has backed the Qatar-Turkey pipeline (Saudi Arabia).

Russia clearly has an interest to make sure this doesn’t happen. What’s more, it holds long term exploration and development rights to a large part of Syria’s offshore waters.

If Russia can find gas and oil in the region AND have influence over a pipeline to Europe, it can gain more control over all the gas that flows into Europe.

There is a lot at stake here — wealth, prestige and power — for a lot of historically stubborn and confrontational nations.

Geopolitical tensions are heating up.

And all the dangerous ingredients for a Middle Eastern proxy-war are in place.

This is coming whether you like it or not

With Russia and China watching from behind the scenes, Barrack Obama has had no choice but to enforce his ‘no boots on the ground’ policy.

Over the past couple of years, the US spent nearly US$500 million training Syrian rebels to fight IS.

The US realised that this plan had failed long ago. This is why US forces conducted more than 7,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria over the last 12 months.

But this plan has also been a complete failure. And Russia and China kept watching on the sidelines.

Out of ideas, Obama and his mates recently pushed the Russians too far. CNBC reported that the Pentagon put ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria, assisting the Kurds on 16 September. The nature of the special operations was not disclosed.

Russia then started bombing the Islamic State on 30 September.

It took them 72 hours to do what US forces couldn’t — destroy significant Islamic State territory and personnel.

Supported by Russian airpower, Iran has now sent thousands of troops into Syria and Iraq to assist with its army’s offensive on IS. The coalition has even taken back important oil refineries captured by IS in September last year.

Meanwhile, the US military strategy appears paralysed.

The oil stock to watch

It’s likely that the entire campaign will shift to Iraq, where the Iranian military just recaptured prized oil fields.

According to the Financial Times, estimates by local traders and engineers put crude production in IS held territory at about 34,000-40,000 barrels per day.

The oil is sold for between US$20 and US$45 a barrel, earning the militants an average of US$1.5 million a day.

While, according to CNBC, the US Rewards for Justice program has ‘offered anyone US$5 million for tips on disrupting IS oil’.

But that’s hardly a long term solution. Iraq is eventually where the US will either need to confront Russia for control over the region, or simply pack up and leave.

It’s unlikely that the US will leave quietly. Especially with US relations with Russia at lows not seen since the Cold War.

That said, we should see Syria pushed into the background for a little while.

The geopolitical story is now moving to the South China Sea, where the US is deploying a number of its war ships in defiance to Chinese authorities.

If you keep following this geopolitical story, you’ll see the switches between Ukraine, the South China Sea and Syria — the three hot-spots that could erupt into a full scale war.

The world is watching who will make the first move. It will take some time before we see a full on confrontation.

Yet at the moment, the stage is being set for the next World War.

While I don’t want this anymore than you do, legendary commodities investor Jim Rogers’s puts it this way:


‘Wars start when bureaucrats make mistakes and then other bureaucrats react to those mistakes and then next thing you know, you have eight or ten bureaucrats sending 18 year old kids to kill each other, and it’s very worrisome what’s happening.’

A mistake is a real possibility. If this happens, Jim explains:


‘Having said that, war is not good for anything, anything at all, except commodities. I’m not going to say buy commodities because you don’t want to start a war, but if there’s going to be a war, it usually means commodity prices go higher.’

Indeed, it takes one mistake to send commodity prices higher.

And I’ve been watching this unfold with growing concern for some time now.

On 3 December 2014, when crude was trading at US$63 per barrel, I wrote to readers of my research letter Resource Speculator:


‘Crude oil prices won’t stay low forever. In fact, expect to see crude oil prices rocket into 2016/17.

‘As economies keep falling apart, geopolitical risk will pick up into 2016/17. You’ll see conflict and social unrest rise around the world at an alarming rate.’

But before the oil price takes off, crude is likely to fall further — hitting my forecast of US$34 per barrel by early 2016.

This should keep the oilers share prices somewhat contained.

In this case, I see no rush to buy any established oilers today — even if they look great on paper. If you buy today, you won’t be buying at the best price.

As such, I’d like to provide you with a recommendation for a top-rated oiler that you should put on your watch-list.

It’s a company you can expect to make big gains on soon...but not quite yet.

This is the best strategy to take, heading into the final stretch of the resources bear market.

You can get my full analysis on this Australian oil stock by checking out this recent issue of my investment newsletter Resource Speculator.

It’s a no-obligation deal, so you have nothing to lose by taking a look.

Simply click here to access this full issue of Resource Speculator

Sincerely,

[Ivan Cloherty]

Rodney, thank you for #114 I knew I could rely on you to fathom out the true facts. Based on what you have told me I guess in some eyes I must also be a moo slim as I lived four years in Pakistan and also four years in the UAE, we all have a cross to bear but of course being a moo slim I wouldn't be carrying a cross, would I.

Again thanks for coming up with the facts as usual, it is appreciated. Rgds Ivan

[j.sabourn]

#114... As regards the first part of this post re about a person I to know nothing about, as regards Mr. Obama having nothing to do with, it is not ever used as it shouldn't be but it is known that his own half brother is a muskin. They the politicians must have come to an agreement amongst themselves not to flaunt this as would be unfair as indeed it would be. JS

[j.sabourn]

#115... John the only thing that western forces have done correctly in my eyes was after the bombing of the twin towers was to go into Afghanastan after the perpetrators. However when they failed in this mission to get the chief wally they should of withdrew their forces within a couple of months. Any other incursions into other countries would under any other circumstances be considered an act of war on their populations. They have left hornets nests behind through lack of knowledge and poor leadership in all cases. This is all down to politicians, and as usual they walk away and leave others to clear up their messes. One of the biggest phonies is British and still strutting the world stage now as a supposedly elder statesman. I would rather go to our local postman than go to him for advice. Cheers JS

[happy daze john in oz]

Heard a bit on our news today, please tell me it is not true, that the EU is suggesting that all EU persons no longer have the need for a passport within the EU, only to travel outside