It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Admin Planned Children Invasion

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


by Richard Evans
(henrymakow.com)

I've been doing volunteer charity work with Hispanics for a few years, so nobody can call me a racist or a Xenophobe. I've been aware of the barely covert 'underground railroad' that makes it possible for illegals to set up in the the United States.

I'm for helping people in need when they're here, but the State needs to send them back. The President should be threatening the Mexican government with loss of aid and 'favored nation' status if they don't take better care of their own chattel.


From ops link:
chat·tel
ˈCHatl/
noun
noun: chattel; plural noun: chattels

(in general use) a personal possession.
Law
an item of property other than real estate.

so he is referring to the people as slaves


I noticed that as well and thought it was weird but a bit eye-opening. But then if you look at the way in which governments operate, specifically in regard to birth certificates and SSN/SIN systems, you do find out that the government borrows money from the IMF through its central bank based on the population of people in a country and the average valuation, which can change over time.

As an example, the average valuation might be $1.125 million per person (adjusted for inflation) with the expectation that the person will provide double to triple that in indirect profits for corporations/government from an overall or global tax retrieval standpoint throughout their life. A college degree or university degree can drive that number upwards by two or three times. However, adults without skills are de-rated and provide less borrowing power.

So, maybe the game here is that adding the existing illegal immigrants through amnesty may provide some international borrowing benefit per capita while adding hundreds of thousands of children a year, considerably increases the ability of the US government to borrow based on the number of new warm bodies that can be applied to a standard valuation model.

Cheers - Dave
This I have heard quite a few times but have yet to find a definitive source to confirm it. I actually heard this at least 10 years ago as the reason why illegal immigration was not only tolerated but promoted by both sides of the aisle.

Have any source I can look at that confirms how this works with the IMF?




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Just because one feels the source is tainted doesn't mean the information is not factual.

All I can say is that even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, if he is speaking the truth, then I'm sure it will be noted by others with a better record of veracity. If I ignore Makow, I needn't waste time sifting his leavings.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
So the new stupid theory is that this master plan has been in the works since when exactly? Must have started with Bush.

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

Read it. It details specifically how unaccompanied minors must be dealt with. So does this mean that this a Bush+Obama+Catholic charity+Baptist charity plot to destabilize the country now?

Also, though Henry Makow is just basically rehashing the ultra-right liberty news crap, I hope folks realize he's fairly insane. Some of the posts from his archive:

Revisiting John Todd: "Rothschilds Rule with Druid Witches" (August 7, 2013)
Hiroshima - Another Illuminati Psy Op (August 5, 2013)
Freud's Part in Our Satanic Possession (February 4, 2013)
Why Men Are Losing Interest in Women (February 27, 2013)
DHS/FEMA Raising an Army (February 20, 2013)
Rosa Parks - Proof Communists Run America (February 15, 2013)
Homosexuality -Proof Government Promotes Sickness (February 12, 2013)
When Did Gays Become Jews? (February 2, 2013)
"Brotherhood of the Bell" Exposed Masonic Control (January 30, 2013)


Not a stupid theory at all actually. In Bush's outgoing term the cited pdf document and subsequent federal grant was initiated by it appears DHS (HHS might have a hand in this). Here is the workplan - NCBSI Workplan. Please note that 2014 is year 6 of the workplan, directly relating the grant to 2008 and the Bush outgoing term.

The plan was carried forward however, by Obama, and we are seeing the "fruit" of that plan, according to the 2008 plan. Obama or his minions, could have nipped this in the bud in 2009, however the plan was carried forward.

In relation to whose fault it was, that would be both Bush for initiating and Obama for continuing, the "plan" as well as their underlings and/or handlers for promoting this plan. The only thing this indicates is that the continuity detrimental programs that are a product of a "shadow government" or their handlers exists, otherwise this plan should have been scrapped by Obama. Unfortunately, the plan plays into producing intentionally skewed voting and polling numbers to potentially shift the balance of power towards democrats rather than republicans.

This is in itself irrelevant, but provides voters with the illusion that their vote means something, since both democrats and republicans are both "owned" by the same international players and certainly not the people of the US.

The thread title was the title on the main link page. It matters not who is to blame in this case as far as political parties are concerned, what matters is that this plan was put into place and continues. It would be nice if it was as simple as a decision made by this president or that party but that is not how this works. The problems originate with people that are not in the public "eye" under a veil of secrecy and national security, and are therefore hard to track down and prosecute.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 7/18.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You do realize that this is based off of G. W. Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives don't you?

These types of grants have been awarded to faith-based charities since 2001. There is nothing new nor nefarious here.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You do realize that this is based off of G. W. Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives don't you?

These types of grants have been awarded to faith-based charities since 2001. There is nothing new nor nefarious here.


I think I just showed in the post above yours that this relates back to the Bush puppet's initiative in 2008. Thanks for the added clarification, but it is still a problem and it seems it isn't going away. As well, if anyone can find all the other grants relative to this subject, that would be a good thing as I am not terribly familiar with the Us.gov grant website.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I wonder how liberals will defend the distribution of federal tax dollars to Catholic and Christian organizations?


Certainly creates a quagmire/quandary doesn't it.

Not to mention a cognitive dissonance.

A new "Hobby Lobby/Koch Brothers" complex.




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The underlying concept of G. W. Bush's initiative was a concept he referred to as "compassionate Conservatism." This has been going on for over 13 years. There has been no planned invasion by the Obama administration as you have implied.

Now, if you want to drag Reagan's amnesty program into this, one could argue that this "planned invasion" started with him in 1986.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The underlying concept of G. W. Bush's initiative was a concept he referred to as "compassionate Conservatism." This has been going on for over 13 years. There has been no planned invasion by the Obama administration as you have implied.

Now, if you want to drag Reagan's amnesty program into this, one could argue that this "planned invasion" started with him in 1986.
I think that remains to be seen. It's been my contention that Bush Sr. is the one pulling all the strings and Obama was his choice to forward the agenda. If there was nothing nefarious about it before, Obama and Jarrett are certainly exploiting the charities with the dollars being held over their heads. It's clear this was a planned event. To argue otherwise is silly. There was forethought and foreknowledge of this influx at this particular time.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


by Richard Evans
(henrymakow.com)

I've been doing volunteer charity work with Hispanics for a few years, so nobody can call me a racist or a Xenophobe. I've been aware of the barely covert 'underground railroad' that makes it possible for illegals to set up in the the United States.

I'm for helping people in need when they're here, but the State needs to send them back. The President should be threatening the Mexican government with loss of aid and 'favored nation' status if they don't take better care of their own chattel.


From ops link:
chat·tel
ˈCHatl/
noun
noun: chattel; plural noun: chattels

(in general use) a personal possession.
Law
an item of property other than real estate.

so he is referring to the people as slaves


I noticed that as well and thought it was weird but a bit eye-opening. But then if you look at the way in which governments operate, specifically in regard to birth certificates and SSN/SIN systems, you do find out that the government borrows money from the IMF through its central bank based on the population of people in a country and the average valuation, which can change over time.

As an example, the average valuation might be $1.125 million per person (adjusted for inflation) with the expectation that the person will provide double to triple that in indirect profits for corporations/government from an overall or global tax retrieval standpoint throughout their life. A college degree or university degree can drive that number upwards by two or three times. However, adults without skills are de-rated and provide less borrowing power.

So, maybe the game here is that adding the existing illegal immigrants through amnesty may provide some international borrowing benefit per capita while adding hundreds of thousands of children a year, considerably increases the ability of the US government to borrow based on the number of new warm bodies that can be applied to a standard valuation model.

Cheers - Dave
This I have heard quite a few times but have yet to find a definitive source to confirm it. I actually heard this at least 10 years ago as the reason why illegal immigration was not only tolerated but promoted by both sides of the aisle.

Have any source I can look at that confirms how this works with the IMF?


I am presently going to battle with the CRA in Canada and this is part of one of my FOIA requests with the CRA and the Bank of Canada. I expect, as in the past, with CSIS and External Affairs that they will either cite National Security statutes or state that "I have received all the information I am entitle to" which was actually stated in letter by the Privacy Commissioner. We may be waiting a bit for the hard evidence direct from government offices, if they even allow it to be sent out without a legal battle.

This was explained to me however during a 90 minute conversation with Maurice Strong in 1990, when we had a joint bitch session about External Affairs (long story) and in 1988 in South Africa by the Minister of Finance's office concerning the SA Reserve Bank when I performed work for CI and Armscor (another long story).

I think they don't want the actual government documents out there, because that would make individuals not in control of money being borrowed against their persons by a presumably hostile entity, the government. All of this is done under the auspices of a "social contract" that applies to every facet of living "under" any particular government, which ultimately makes people, chattel, or property owned by others, hence slaves. This goes against the UN Treaty on the Abolition of Slavery which many countries and colonies signed in the early 1960's and could produce legal remedies on international scales. It's interesting that the Property Rights laws are also in question and go against the UN Treaty on the Abolition of Slavery.

In a way, having people as chattel to allow a benevolent government to upgrade a country is a good thing I would think. However, we do not have benevolent governments and they are populated with psychopaths, so it can't work out well.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The underlying concept of G. W. Bush's initiative was a concept he referred to as "compassionate Conservatism." This has been going on for over 13 years. There has been no planned invasion by the Obama administration as you have implied.

Now, if you want to drag Reagan's amnesty program into this, one could argue that this "planned invasion" started with him in 1986.
Oh and to use Reagan's amnesty program as an example is totally disingenuous. He made it clear that if he signed the bill he was going to hold everyone's feet to the fire to ensure they complied with the requirements which was that everyone must be documented. Read the bill and his comments regarding it.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: theantediluvian
To compare the two doesn't make sense.
One is to prevent human trafficking and assist victims.
The other seems to be for the assimilation of illegal immigrants.
You and at least one other poster say the source is not credible, due to being insane or a loon. That may be,
but this particular article seems to be pretty well backed up.
Blame Bush all you want, but the Act you bring up is entirely different than the UAC project.
Even if it was Bush's policy, ObammaMan is the one in charge right now, seemingly doesn't mind/care, as this is unfolding.


It's not a comparison. Look under the sections "(b) Combating Child Trafficking and Exploitation in the United States" and "(c) Providing Safe and Secure Placements for Children."


(1) POLICIES AND PROGRAMS- The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Homeland Security, Attorney General, and Secretary of State shall establish policies and programs to ensure that unaccompanied alien children in the United States are protected from traffickers and other persons seeking to victimize or otherwise engage such children in criminal, harmful, or exploitative activity, including policies and programs reflecting best practices in witness security programs.

(2) SAFE AND SECURE PLACEMENTS- Subject to section 462(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(b)(2)), an unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. In making such placements, the Secretary may consider danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. Placement of child trafficking victims may include placement in an Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program, pursuant to section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(d)), if a suitable family member is not available to provide care. A child shall not be placed in a secure facility absent a determination that the child poses a danger to self or others or has been charged with having committed a criminal offense. The placement of a child in a secure facility shall be reviewed, at a minimum, on a monthly basis, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary, to determine if such placement remains warranted.


link to source

HHS is mandated to establish these sorts of programs. It's detailed throughout that partnerships should be established with and grants can be given to, nongovernmental organizations which includes faith-based organizations. I'm not "blaming Bush" as I don't see a particular need to ascribe blame in this instance. I'm simply pointing out how these grants came to be and it started with legislation that was passed in January of 2008, a full year before Obama's inauguration.

I suppose Henry Makow might believe that Druid Witches of the Illuminati transported Eric Holder into the past to replace members of Congress with demonic clones, but I care little about his schizophrenic rantings.

I'm not doubting that money was granted, as I said, the establishment of partnerships with nongovernmental organizations to create programs that provide services such as those provided by these two organizations was mandated in JANUARY OF 2008.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Thanks for the reply and I hope you keep us updated via this thread.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: theantediluvian
To compare the two doesn't make sense.
One is to prevent human trafficking and assist victims.
The other seems to be for the assimilation of illegal immigrants.
You and at least one other poster say the source is not credible, due to being insane or a loon. That may be,
but this particular article seems to be pretty well backed up.
Blame Bush all you want, but the Act you bring up is entirely different than the UAC project.
Even if it was Bush's policy, ObammaMan is the one in charge right now, seemingly doesn't mind/care, as this is unfolding.


It's not a comparison. Look under the sections "(b) Combating Child Trafficking and Exploitation in the United States" and "(c) Providing Safe and Secure Placements for Children."


(1) POLICIES AND PROGRAMS- The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Homeland Security, Attorney General, and Secretary of State shall establish policies and programs to ensure that unaccompanied alien children in the United States are protected from traffickers and other persons seeking to victimize or otherwise engage such children in criminal, harmful, or exploitative activity, including policies and programs reflecting best practices in witness security programs.

(2) SAFE AND SECURE PLACEMENTS- Subject to section 462(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(b)(2)), an unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. In making such placements, the Secretary may consider danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. Placement of child trafficking victims may include placement in an Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program, pursuant to section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(d)), if a suitable family member is not available to provide care. A child shall not be placed in a secure facility absent a determination that the child poses a danger to self or others or has been charged with having committed a criminal offense. The placement of a child in a secure facility shall be reviewed, at a minimum, on a monthly basis, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary, to determine if such placement remains warranted.


link to source

HHS is mandated to establish these sorts of programs. It's detailed throughout that partnerships should be established with and grants can be given to, nongovernmental organizations which includes faith-based organizations. I'm not "blaming Bush" as I don't see a particular need to ascribe blame in this instance. I'm simply pointing out how these grants came to be and it started with legislation that was passed in January of 2008, a full year before Obama's inauguration.

I suppose Henry Makow might believe that Druid Witches of the Illuminati transported Eric Holder into the past to replace members of Congress with demonic clones, but I care little about his schizophrenic rantings.

I'm not doubting that money was granted, as I said, the establishment of partnerships with nongovernmental organizations to create programs that provide services such as those provided by these two organizations was mandated in JANUARY OF 2008.

Sure it all looks benevolent, especially when they have charities and faith based organizations doing the work. The timing of this "event" is not happenstance. It's planned just in time for the November elections.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You do realize that this is based off of G. W. Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives don't you?

These types of grants have been awarded to faith-based charities since 2001. There is nothing new nor nefarious here.


That EO doesn't seem to mention anything about illegal immigration, although it could be implied. In fact the EO seems to talk about "poor Americans", not mentioning illegal or immigrants in "Limbo".

What I see however, is the Obama Administration using the tools provided to further an agenda.

They are also selectively using the 2008 law that focuses on Human Trafficking from some countries and specifically not Mexico. Never understood that.

And they are using selective non-enforcement of other immigration laws.

Seems all to convenient.



Section 1. Policy. Faith-based and other community organizations are indispensable in meeting the needs of poor Americans and distressed neighborhoods. Government cannot be replaced by such organizations, but it can and should welcome them as partners. The paramount goal is compassionate results, and private and charitable community groups, including religious ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes, such as curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families and neighborhoods, and overcoming poverty. This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality.






posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Not disingenuous at all. Merely an example of misapplied logic in comparison to the one used as the basis of this thread -- which is faulty.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So compassionate conservatism only applies to Americans...

Somehow I don't those faith-based organizations acting in the spirit of human compassion will quite agree.




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: xuenchen

So compassionate conservatism only applies to Americans...

Somehow I don't those faith-based organizations acting in the spirit of human compassion will quite agree.



Obviously I never even suggested that.

But the EO is lacking.

And I still think the Administration is taking advantage.

They figured it out all by themselves too.




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm curious if there would be any cries of injustice on behalf of these faith-based organizations if their requests for grants were denied solely due to the fact it centered around illegal immigrants. If compassion is indeed the cornerstone of such organizations, should outside views such as xenophobia and overt hatred influence their work?

Seems like a Catch-22. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.


(post by WeAreAWAKE removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Thanks for the reply and I hope you keep us updated via this thread.


When I start knocking heads with the CRA and BOC, I will start another thread simply because it will be specific to that subject. I've got a notice of objection in right now for double taxation, my form 193's and a demand for my Notice of Determination for about 33 million in capital losses. Since I am under injunctions to not provide evidence of criminal activity concerning the 1997 to 2001 150 million dollar tax and public funds frauds by government ministers and persons within the educational sector, by the Superior Court of Canada, the only way I can release the evidence is to the CRA and courts under discovery and examination. I am bound by the injunctions not to start an action, but I am able to respond to an action by the CRA and produce the evidence in court, so I am trying to get them to take me to court.

I have been informed in the past by agents within the CRA that they do watch everything I write about the CRA and BOC, so I expect we will find out just how stupid and arrogant they actually are. I expect them to take the bait and go to court within the next 12 months (barring no financial collapse). I have been waiting for over 15 years to expose the frauds and this might be the upcoming opportunity.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 7/18.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join