Well I am going to go head and call this one, In comes the gaurd..

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Thank you but I have been out for a while... I lucked out because I was older when I joined and not eighteen...

Most of these guy are kids who joined in the hopes of college money... got stuck over seas.. at least a slight injury odds are...

They will do what they where told... then regret it later... but they will jump first... especially if they see weapons... It is what I just saw instantly

gtg.... have a good night...

Originally posted by Aim64C
The separation between conservative and liberal ideology is simply too great.

The NWO or Old WO has never had an ideology.
Ideology did not exist before there was a middle class
and will not exist after it is destroyed.
Political Ideology is a form of insanity arising
from personalities in conflict with economics.

American financier Jay Gould. After hiring strikebreakers, he said "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."[34]

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

It is either you support and defend the sacred Constitution or you do not. The protestors are not seeking for higher pay or cuts in pay. They are protesting against the curtailing their fundamental right , and that's the freedom of speech - to speak out, to convince, to discuss, to debate, and compromise. Who's the ignoramouses here?

You are fundamentally wrong, sir.

A union "negotiates" by "you will do this, or our members will not show up to work and cause a media scene." That is union negotiation.

That is what it is for the private sector. My solution to unreasonable union demands is a 99% turnover rate with group training sessions. Show up to work and do your job and communicate your needs to the employer on a personal basis. Union "strikes" are only reasonable and necessary in issues of worker safety and noncompliance with that employer's own standards and mandates.

In the public sector, it's a far more messy issue. You elect representatives to office. Those people have been entrusted with the legislative and representative authority of The People. When a union wants to organize to "negotiate" their pay, benefits, and other compensations - they are, by proxy, "negotiating" with the district tax payers. They can, effectively, demand more of taxpayer money than originally allotted by your representatives and therefor reduce spending on other government needs or end up raising taxes (or putting the state in a deficit - something that was never supposed to be possible as the states do not have the authority to print money and only have limited borrowing capacity from the federal government).

So, when a public-sector union can come through and threaten to shut down various government services until they get paid more by the tax payer (voter)... who is really in charge, here? What does the vote and processes of government mean if a few people can get together and walk all over the system and use it to garnish more of your wages for their own personal income?

That's not saying government employees are bad, or that their retirement plans are bad... but when they can "negotiate" these things and "negotiate" themselves pay raises and better pension plans at the tax-payer's expense (and without tax-payer consent) ... how are unions suddenly the good guys, here, when that is, supposedly, what these evil corporations are doing?

Further - the Navy doesn't have a "union" - we can't "negotiate" anything. The Armed Forces are the original government employees, and we don't have the right to "negotiate" our pay, our retirement plans, our work conditions, or our medical benefits.

If you wish to pull a gun at innocent peaceful protestors as well as your own families, relatives and friends in there, as with the powers of the state invested in you as a military personnel, do know that Americans too own guns to stop brainwashed Kent State paramilitary idiots who deemed themselves above the Constitution.

Read what I said.

These protesters do not have the right to obstruct government operations. Period. They had no right to be in the building to begin with. They can set up camp in the nearby park and protest all they want. They can protest on the lawn so long as there are clear paths where people can go to/from their job in the building and get things done. They have been told to leave the building.

That is a reasonable request.

If people cannot shut their group-retardation up long enough to move - then non-lethal methods are authorized. Those that can't comprehend what a can of tear-gas is will be physically directed towards the nearest exit. Those resisting physical relocation will be subdued and later released back into the comfort of the collective-mind of protesters outside.

No need for you to bring a gun.

However - the moment you are willing to forgo our system of government with violence, then the system will fail.

When hostilities break out across ideological polarities like that in spite of our governmental process, then there will be no way to restore order to our government. Raising a gun barrel to protect politicians from the mob will be pointless.

The only thing that will have any point is to secure my family and those I care about (even if they are not on the "same side" - we've managed to coexist and agree on some things). Anyone who attempts to violate that security or presume to have authority over me will be dealt with on the level necessary.

I've no problems taking the life of a human being. Death is a part of life - and it's not my job to judge their soul, only to determine that our existences are mutually incompatible and conflicting to a degree that requires elimination or subjugation of the other.

"We have guns, too"

You and every other swinging dick.

There's something nearly magical about everything I do... I do it damned well - within the upper 90 percentile. I tend to not like firearms - they are noisy and only effective at impractically long ranges. Blades are far better for killing people unawares - which is how I prefer to kill people. This isn't about honor or skill - it's about survival. If you have the time to realize I'm trying to kill you - I messed up.

It's not pretty, and it's not the way I would like to handle things. However, when people have demonstrated that they can no longer respect the rule of law and work through the system - then I see no reason to further uphold and play by the rules of that system. I'll do what's expedient and what furthers my interests and those of my family/friends/locals.

'We the People'...begins with you and I.

"We the people" is not the labor unions. "We the people" are an important cog in the system orchestrated before any of us were alive. When we fail to respect the laws and the function of our own government, and fail to consider the ramifications of our actions, then the system will ultimately fail.

When "We the people" are "We the Conservatives" and "We the Liberals" - each wanting to assert control at the national level, our system will fail.

The way we are going, with two mutually incompatible government ideologies vying for control over our entire system, will lead to civil war.

The only way to avert this is the limitation of National government authority and the ability for individual states to become their own little communist havens or capitalist machinations as they see fit.

However, the way we are going, and the way people continue to want to think about this issue, will ultimately lead to civil war. I'm not going to try and stop you people from killing each other. I would rather be left out of it and left to do my own thing. You all can kill each other off for all I care.

But, I'm not so naive as to believe that to be possible. Liberals will be wanting to take my wealth (what little of it I have) to distribute amongst the poor, and conservatives will want to tell me that my wife/daughter/friend cannot get an abortion or that I cannot perform controlled studies of twins and how genetics/anatomy influence courtship/partnership in humans (research that needs to be done but is right there on the fringes of ethical behavior - it's not burning people alive in concentration camps, mind you, but certainly enough to make some people go bonkers).

I will have to assert my own independence at the end of a gun barrel in such an environment.

I'm not threatening anyone - simply telling you all exactly what lies in store, and what will happen if things don't change. I'm already resolved to living in such an environment and doing what is necessary to protect those I care about. You all are still too caught up in ideals and fear of authority to live in the world of practicality, where your actions are clearly self-destructive.

reply to post by Aim64C


I am saddened that the navy could could churn out people like you.

If you are talking about foreigners in foriegn wars, those whom had wage war against your own homeland and loved ones, your diatribe to justify your lunatic murderous rages, believing in your bloated egoistical 'superior' skills to kll would be comprehensible. But against your own citizens, whom had funded and pay for your way in the Navy?

Take a step back, calm down and re-read what you are spouting and whom you are spouting against.

When politicians break the law or attempt to break the law, thus the laws that bind no longer holds, and all means will be use to uphold the law, even through civil disobedience.

Be glad protestors are only doing it peacefully, so that the oath to the founding fathers be kept and not torned as the governor is attempting to do so, and had even thought of putting in trouble makers to stir up the peaceful protests.

And when you subject your fellow citizens to your bloodlust, you are not upholding the law in any way, but only a part of the problem, of insidious others hell bent on tearing up the sacrifices of the founding fathers whom had set all generations free.

I know I cannot change your warped mind, but if you are one of the paramilitary forces there, know full well the consequences of what you are doing on your free will when you hurt and harm your fellow citizens, brothers and sisters, whom had only peacefully sought to protect the Constitution, the very sacred Constitution you had sworn to uphold as well being a military man, if there still any bit of honour left in you.

It's getting closer and is going to happen .This is what is truely behind Obama's declaration of state of emergency last week .This is going to spread as the reality of what they have done to the country spreads and comes home to roost .

Originally posted by Aim64C
As a Navy guy, I have to say that I'd never commit to any acts of lethal violence against the citizens I'm sworn to protect.

That said - they've been told to get out of the government building. It is not their right to be inside that building and disrupting the function of government. If they don't get that - I'd gladly chuck a tear-gas grenade into the crowd and -move- anyone who still did not understand out of the building. If they still did not understand, and chose to resist, I would use the hand-to-hand and riot suppression techniques I learned from the Marines.

We all have jobs to do. Mine is not to kill you or oppress you - but there are stipulations to your rights to assembly.

However, should the system of government collapse under the weight of protests and ignoramuses - I will default to defending my conservative ideologies, and would not hesitate to place a bullet in the head of someone I am in fundamental disagreement with and who wishes to impose their way of life upon me and mine.

I have my own goals and people I will protect over the average citizen. I stand in defense of the system and principles of our founded government because they allow a civilized co-existence of two incompatible ideals. When that is demonstrated to fail, there is no other recourse but a state of civil war, and I will move quickly to secure myself and those I care about - prioritizing and disposing of threats.

This is something I've predicted for a while. The separation between conservative and liberal ideology is simply too great. The only peaceful recourse is two separate countries (perhaps two 'virtual' countries - something only possible now with the advent of the internet) where people can live according to their ideologies without imposing those views upon people who will simply not have it.

Otherwise, it will have to be settled at the end of a gun barrel.

umm, seeing as the people elect government officials and the people want
the government to do what the people say.....shouldn't the military side
with the people? Take lessons from the Eqyptian military and side with the
people lest you end up being a traitor. Even the police see this is wrong
and have already sided with the people.

reply to post by Mr. D

umm, seeing as the people elect government officials and the people want
the government to do what the people say.....shouldn't the military side
with the people?

Not necessarily.

We developed the voting process and the representative system to ensure an accurate account of people's decisions were being made. 0.01% of the population flooding a government building can make it look like the entire town is ready to parade the counsel's head around on a pole - even if their approval rating is 70+%.

It's hard to tell what "the people" want.

The Egyptian military never "sided" - they merely attempted to keep order. That is the exact same thing I have said. The current protesters in Wisconsin are out of bounds so long as they remain within and obstruct that government building. It's not oppression to get them to move to a place they are allowed to be in within constitutional rights. Nor is it siding.

If I side with anything - it is the system. For the system to work, you cannot have a scary-looking mob of a few thousand people showing up to try and make decisions (that are not theirs to make - as they were not elected to that office) for the several million that reside within the state. That's not democracy, nor does it respect our republic.

The elected officials of that state already agree to the budget proposal, and it will likely be passed into law when the democrats are retrieved. That is how the system works. It's almost impossible to know what the people think of it without putting it to an official vote or seeing how the electorate responds in the coming cycles.

To change everything around because a few thousand of several million people are upset about it is not sound reasoning or what the system was built around.

Take lessons from the Eqyptian military and side with the
people lest you end up being a traitor. Even the police see this is wrong
and have already sided with the people.

The police are public-sector workers and have a personal stake in the future of public-sector unions.

It's not about right or wrong to them, it's about whether or not they can collectively demand the tax payers cough up more money for better pension plans under threat of having a government-provided service shut down due to lack of available manpower.

They are not upholding the system of law - and should be fired, honestly. Again - it's not about taking sides - it's about whether or not they uphold the system of law that people are supposed to use to make self-governing decisions.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

I am saddened that the navy could could churn out people like you.

Interestingly enough, my existence consists of more than the Navy.

If you are talking about foreigners in foriegn wars, those whom had wage war against your own homeland and loved ones, your diatribe to justify your lunatic murderous rages, believing in your bloated egoistical 'superior' skills to kll would be comprehensible. But against your own citizens, whom had funded and pay for your way in the Navy?

A person is a person. An ideal is an ideal. Incompatibility is incompatibility.

A person attempting to enforce an incompatible ideal upon me is either a nuisance or a threat.

Bear in mind - by time things have come to this, our own government has already collapsed. So long as people hold respect for our system of government and its authority - then there will be very little to no violence, and no need for such actions on my part.

And when you subject your fellow citizens to your bloodlust, you are not upholding the law in any way, but only a part of the problem, of insidious others hell bent on tearing up the sacrifices of the founding fathers whom had set all generations free.

"Fellow citizens" would have nothing to fear from me. It would be the not-so-fellow ones that come from the liberal mindset of entitlement and attempt to demand things from myself and those I care about that would be met with rather open hostility.

There's a deep rift in this country. Has been for a long time. The only thing separating this nation from all out war is the mutually held respect for our system of law. If there is ever a time where I, as a uniformed member of the military, would have to use lethal force in defense of that system of law - then the system has collapsed and defending it is a moot point, as too few people have respect for it.

As such - my contingency is simple - fall back and regroup with family and loved ones, begin setting up for a self-sufficient existence, and prepare to defend against what can only be compared to a zombie apocalypse.

I know I cannot change your warped mind, but if you are one of the paramilitary forces there, know full well the consequences of what you are doing on your free will when you hurt and harm your fellow citizens, brothers and sisters, whom had only peacefully sought to protect the Constitution, the very sacred Constitution you had sworn to uphold as well being a military man, if there still any bit of honour left in you.

The Constitution? Really? Is that what everyone is defending and whoring about these days as the silver-bullet argument? "This is in the spirit of the Constitution! We're right and they're wrong for going against the Constitution!"

The Constitution was written based on the principles of self-governance and individual liberty. Public-sector unions fundamentally go against the principles of self-governance - and, to a degree, individual liberty, by allowing an effective form of taxation without representation. You are not part of a public-sector union - but a public sector union can decide to, effectively, raise taxes on you to pay their union members.

The Constitution doesn't have much to say about what we're going through now - other than each state has the right to declare itself independent from the Union. Since the state is the smallest recognized form of government by the nation - it would be difficult to say whether or not a person or smaller persons could declare themselves independent - but we have seen this in the separation of Virginia into two separate states.

Which you would probably disagree with, in principle. We should be "one nation" under this sacred "Constitution."

Defending the system of law would, to me, be defending the right of people to separate from your state if they fundamentally disagree with you. Even to defend the right of states to separate from the union, entirely.

Which is quite possible. I'd vote in support of my state leaving the union. It couldn't be done haphazardly, as our economies are all so intertwined, but I'd view it like getting off of a sinking ship - better than riding it to the ocean floor.

reply to post by beezzer


The unions have agreed to all the cuts. What is the sticking point is the governor's insistence that collective bargaining to all intents and purposes end for most state emplyees.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


There are only three parties involved in a private union relationship. 1. The workers, 2. The union, and 3. The Employer.

The worker hires/joins a union to speak for him/her. The union negotiates deals with the employers and uses its collective power to make demands. The employer weighs the cost and reward benefits and negotiates also. They come to an agreement and things move on.

This system works great.

In a public union system there are 4 parties. 1. The worker. 2. The union, 3. The Employer (The administration.), and 4. THE PEOPLE (TAX PAYER)

The same process is used as above, except, the 4th party (THE TAX PAYER) is not represented in the negotiation. The union is able to use its collective power and collected funds to campaign against the government officials that don't give in to their demands. So it is easy for the employer (in this case the elected officials) to just give in the demand, since its not their money they are committing, its the tax payers money. This is not democracy it is EXTORTION and THEFT plain and simple.

So if you look carefully at what is happening in WI you will see the governor is standing up for the 4th party in this argument, the TAX PAYER.

The public union leaders should come up with and present a plan that will allow the 4th party to be recognized in these negotiations, and take the EXTORTION and THEFT out of the process.

reply to post by ripcontrol


You need to go to the website: "Oathkeepers" and there you will find out some things and perhaps understand why the WI police are ignoring the governor. The capital building and grounds are public. There are no real safety concerns, no health concerns or any other valid reason for the people to leave. There is only the petulant little newbie governor who is having a tantrum because before the election he had listened too much to Limbaugh, Hannity and the Beckster when they said we would be a pushover.

I'm betting that an attorney will intervene with the idea that the governor's order is illegal and the guard will assume a "wait and see".

The thing is that there is no obvious reason for the guard. There exists no threat to anyone. No reason for such a force. There is only Walker who is completely out of his depth. He thinks he is a dick tater or something.

I find it interesting how alleged "conservatives" often seem to advocate giving more and more power to the security/surveillance state. They don't advocate freedom. They advocate tyranny to the many and privilege for the few. They seem to want to "conserve" the hypocrisy, corruption, and power/money concentration which epitomizes the exact opposite of freedom. While often honorable within their own system of thought, many military men claim to that "freedom isn't free" and that they "protect freedom" yet they vow to protect the system that erases freedom and promise to use force to actively take it away from citizens. We have fully entered the age of Orwell. War is Peace. Tyranny is Freedom. Ignorance is Wisdom.

reply to post by ripcontrol


Some comments I have seen on regards to this topic have been about the protestors. That the protestors should be happy to have a job and get back to work.
I have been in a similar situation working at a hospital with the 199 SEIU union. The union and hospital agreed that empolyees will take ther 4% raise and give 1% to the hospital levaing the employees with a 3% raise a year. That 1% for the hospital would be used for the payment of benefits for employees. We accepted because if we didn't we'd have to pay co-payments to see a doctor and for perscriptions.
Later we found out the hospital wasn't paying our benefits and the union was going to take away our healthcare. It turns out they pooled our money to pay the hospitals bills and not ours. We decided we'd strike if they didn't pay.

My point is we don't know the full story. Wisconsin may have been doing something similar, denying raises to pay for school budget and then finding out it wasn't used for that, but to pave roads.

I also knew when reading the thread about the police joining, that it would have been only a matter of time before the military stepped in. That right there is scary and hope it works out for the state employees.

Well they just had a live look at the inside of the capital and everybody is gone but some kum ba ya folks singing and drumming. About ten of em they say. All the cops did was say let em spend the night. They gotta clean all the funk up the animals have left the last few days.

As for Egypt the military was reported beating a bunch of protestors yesterday. Meet the new boss same as the old boss for those folks.

Clean up after the animals. Nice. Some good patriotic hate speech ya got goin there. Love how the biggest cowards, and freedom hating sadists wrap themselves in my flag. It's a shame, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Ah well....
By the way, our new boss is the same as the old boss.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


They certainly have the right to speak their mind. They don't have the right to do it where ever they choose.

There won't be any violence unless it is initiated by the protesters. The guard nor the police will use violence unless violence is directed at them.

I suspect that they will just let them stay for as long as they want. The governor will lay them off and let them do what ever they want, for as long as they want. To the extent that he needs to bring in the guard to suppliment police and fireman, so be it, but he will no use them on serious crowd suppression unless the protesters get violent.

For all of your talk about rights, the governor has the right to fire/lay them off and that is exactly what he should.

The longer they protest, the better the governor looks. He should be encouraging them to protest in the capital. Look at the polls, the longer this goes on, the more disgusted people are getting with the unions.

He should bring port-a-pottys in and let them have at it, once he lays them all off, that is.

reply to post by trailertrash

You need to go to the website: "Oathkeepers" and there you will find out some things and perhaps understand why the WI police are ignoring the governor. The capital building and grounds are public. There are no real safety concerns, no health concerns or any other valid reason for the people to leave.

Except that they are obstructing and interfering with the process of government and other non-protest related functions.

This is partly why you register for demonstrations - when people do their little marches and rallies, appropriate areas are cordoned off so that the disruption is minimal and can be planned around. When you have these free-wheeling protests... which are not illegal - you can run into situations where you are -not- in the legal right to protest in that particular location.

It is not the violation of my oath to enforce non-oppressive laws.

There is only the petulant little newbie governor who is having a tantrum because before the election he had listened too much to Limbaugh, Hannity and the Beckster when they said we would be a pushover.

You're quite enlightened, there, sparky.

I'm betting that an attorney will intervene with the idea that the governor's order is illegal and the guard will assume a "wait and see".

I'll take that bet.

The thing is that there is no obvious reason for the guard. There exists no threat to anyone. No reason for such a force. There is only Walker who is completely out of his depth. He thinks he is a dick tater or something.

When police start to shirk their duties or are otherwise unable to enforce the laws - it's time to bring in someone who can.

In all honesty, it's your needlessly disrespectful and rebellious nature toward authority that will get you in trouble. This is a problem a lot of Americans tend to have - a "Yeah, I do what I want!" tough-guy attitude toward someone in a uniform. Then they piss themselves and cry oppression when five uniformed officers show up to a protest of a few hundred.

It's pathetic. Get over yourself and your fear of authority. Think about what it is you are doing and what you are being asked to do - and if it's really all that big of a deal. "Go protest outside" - "No, Constitution, Amendment, Tyrant, Sociopath!" - "Sir, please..." - "Oppression! Dictator! Nazi!" - "... Look, you need to go protest outside, there are somewhat grown-ups trying to make decisions... it's difficult for them, you see, and it'd be best if you..." - "Suppression of Speech! Treason! Constitution!" - " *Tazer*"

reply to post by Aim64C


reply to post by Mr. D

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily.

We developed the voting process and the representative system to ensure an accurate account of people's decisions were being made. 0.01% of the population flooding a government building can make it look like the entire town is ready to parade the counsel's head around on a pole - even if their approval rating is 70+%.

It's hard to tell what "the people" want.

The Egyptian military never "sided" - they merely attempted to keep order. That is the exact same thing I have said. The current protesters in Wisconsin are out of bounds so long as they remain within and obstruct that government building. It's not oppression to get them to move to a place they are allowed to be in within constitutional rights. Nor is it siding.

If I side with anything - it is the system. For the system to work, you cannot have a scary-looking mob of a few thousand people showing up to try and make decisions (that are not theirs to make - as they were not elected to that office) for the several million that reside within the state. That's not democracy, nor does it respect our republic.

The elected officials of that state already agree to the budget proposal, and it will likely be passed into law when the democrats are retrieved. That is how the system works. It's almost impossible to know what the people think of it without putting it to an official vote or seeing how the electorate responds in the coming cycles.

To change everything around because a few thousand of several million people are upset about it is not sound reasoning or what the system was built around.


It is a classic case of the government being out of touch with the people
who voted for them. As soon as they get elected they tend to do what money
tells them to do instead of what they where elected to do. The "system" doesn't
work anymore because lobbyist control what our elected officials do plain and simple.
As for the military, yes they did side with the people and you know it's true because
they did not fire on the people and the leader of Egypt did step down.


Take lessons from the Eqyptian military and side with the
people lest you end up being a traitor. Even the police see this is wrong
and have already sided with the people.


The police are public-sector workers and have a personal stake in the future of public-sector unions.

It's not about right or wrong to them, it's about whether or not they can collectively demand the tax payers cough up more money for better pension plans under threat of having a government-provided service shut down due to lack of available manpower.

They are not upholding the system of law - and should be fired, honestly. Again - it's not about taking sides - it's about whether or not they uphold the system of law that people are supposed to use to make self-governing decisions.


Fire the police? How about impeach crooked politicians? If anyone should be fired it's
those who side with big business to take the very rights we have fought for away. I wonder
what else is in that bill? I've heard on mainstream media that they want to sell state owned
power plants to privately owned businesses under the same bill......what does that have to do
with the current situation? You know after awhile they will raise utility bills if that happens.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by beezzer

 

The unions have agreed to all the cuts. What is the sticking point is the governor's insistence that collective bargaining to all intents and purposes end for most state emplyees.

But they haven't agreed to the cuts, they will just renegotiate the new spending at the next contract negotiation. THATS why the gov. is saying no collective bargaining except for salaries.
Without that, the cuts are meaningless.

I certainly hope not,
that's all it would take, 1 or 2 planted shooters and the next thing you know you have a little blood bath,
then what?, the Kissinger prediction comes true?

""Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.""

All this crap is being provoked, there's a huge push on for anarchy, they need an excuse and theyre making one.

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
I certainly hope not,
that's all it would take, 1 or 2 planted shooters and the next thing you know you have a little blood bath,
then what?, the Kissinger prediction comes true?

""Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.""

All this crap is being provoked, there's a huge push on for anarchy, they need an excuse and theyre making one.

edit on 28-2-2011 by HappilyEverAfter because: to add

Kissinger is wrong.....not everyone is afraid of the unknown. One of my favorite saying
is "If they can bleed, they can die". If the unknown comes and trys to take away what is
not theirs sooner or later......Kissingers prediction will be proven wrong.