Friday, June 27, 2014

What is unique about those three countries?

Add to that Belize, now what is unique about those four countries? I know you know this. I think.

It is obvious. It is screaming at you in the picture below.

Those four countries CONNECT South America to North America. Are they a strategic interest for the drug cartels?

This is the part that gives it away. If anyone were to do an analysis of where the worst of the violence existed in Belize, they would fine it was along the western border with Guatemala and in Belmopan the capital city. I know because I tracked the activities in Belize for nearly five years to understand that country. I posted on this blog a private jet that had landed on a highway in the middle of the night loaded with drugs from South America, possibly Columbia, but couldn't take off because the pilot hit a tree and ruined the left wing. In that same story was the realization the local police were in on it.

Sadly what the USA is now witnessing with children entering the country is an outbreak of gang warfare within the drug cartels to control this land.

Also on this blog is a story reported by the Washington Post whereby USA agents and Belize security officers were beginning a patrol within the country to discover and end the drug cartels influence. 

I haven't heard of any dead American agents coming from Belize and it might be after a couple of years, the hornet's nest of drug cartels are finally pinched into a smaller corridor and the authorities from these countries and the USA are closing in on them. That would incredible, a miracle and the great hope for the people of these nations. Why you ask?

Because the leaders of these countries have been attempting to do this:

Tratado de Libre Comercio entre la República de Colombia y las Repúblicas de el Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras (click here)

This is the first paragraph in translation: 

Colombia and the countries of the Northern Triangle of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras) began negotiations for a free trade agreement that allows them to improve the four countries access to their markets, building on complementarities of their economies and promote mutual investment, to achieve higher levels of development that benefit the population.

This is the great hope of the leaders of these nations. They want to lift their people out of poverty and trade with other free nations. I do know with Belize, Great Britain needs to provide 'debt relief.' It was quite convenient to pin the Belize debt on the new nation from the previous British occupation. 

The Belize government has no court, per se, to settle this issue and they are limited to the courts of Great Britain to plead it's case that this is not their problem. There is one man in particular that is a sincere problem for Belize. I don't recall his name, he is a Brit and a member of the Conservative Party. He is the one that should be responsible for the entire of the Belize national debt left over from it's occupation because he caused it. I know his name is on this blog, too. He is a power broker.

There is also some darn woman from Ireland that literally robbed the Belize treasury of millions in oil monies because the new administration of the new country didn't have the correct interpreter of the contract with the oil company. Those millions should also be returned to Belize as well. Part of the reason some companies are in Belize, including those that build dams on rivers and cause huge amounts of pollution in areas of tourism, is because the administrators in the new nation are hopeful of jobs for their people. It never works out that way, the labor to these companies are usually brought from other countries.

No one has to take my word for it because I know it is all here or in my notes that never made the blog. But, it is all true.

These four countries are incredibly important in ending the drug cartels hold on northern Mexico as well. As long as these countries are used as a traffiking destination the drug cartels in Mexico will remain in business. If these corridors are shut down there will be no more drug cartels in Mexico except what they might be able to grown north of Guatemala and Belize.

The American people need to know about these children sent to the USA in desperate times and why they are here. It is not about any immigration policy or some silly idea parents kissed their children good-bye to trust a 'coyote' with their safety. At this time in the USA these children are here because the drug gangs are actively fighting for their corridors and may be losing the war. I find it strange they seem to be flushed out only to seek power over towns were none of this occurred before.

President Obama and the leaders of these nations need to continue to put pressure on the drug corridors and hopefully shut them down, hence, the slowing of drug traffic to and through Mexico to the southern USA border. 

I am sincere about returning them to their native lands. I worry about the populations of these countries and if there is a fall in citizens in any real way. But, the children have to be safe when returned.

Absolutely not!

Syria is not an ally of the USA. Does Turkey need munitions? Does Jordan need munitions? Syria is Russia's ally and it is Russia that sells munitions to that country. A bilateral build up in the country of Syria will only kill more people and escalate the resolve of ISIS. 

No way.

The USA should not be contributing to INSTABILITY in the region for the sake of pride and profits. 

There is no way to know who will finally end up with a half billion US in munitions in Syria. Right now Hezbollah is involved along with Assad and there is ISIL. I do not see a role for the USA at all in this civil war.

It is not only a civil war in Syria and Iraq, it is sectarian violence. The USA should never provide weapons to any outbreak of ethnic hatred. Never. The USA should never expect to accept genocide. Never.

WASHINGTON — President Obama (click here) requested $500 million from Congress on Thursday to train and equip what the White House is calling “appropriately vetted” members of the Syrian opposition, reflecting increased worry about the spillover of the Syrian conflict into Iraq.

The training program would be a significant step for a president who has consistently resisted providing military aid to the rebels in the conflict in Syria, and has warned of the dangers of American intervention. But military and State Department officials indicated that there were not yet any specific programs to arm and train the rebels that the money would fund, nor could administration officials specify which moderate Syrian opposition members they intended to train and support, or where they would be trained.       

President's should not be facing deep debt upon leaving office.

At least serving in office has brought wealth to our Presidents after they leave office. It is incredible there is such a financial liability to people at the top of our governing structure.

June 27, 2014
By Phillip Rucker
...Bill Clinton (click here) has been paid $104.9 million for 542 speeches around the world between January 2001, when he left office, and January 2013, when Hillary Clinton left as secretary of state, according to a Washington Post review of the family's financial disclosures....

I've always heard how expensive it is to live in Washington, DC by Senators and House members, but, dearly few have stated it is an enormous burden to the President while serving in office. 

The Late Jackie Kennedy refurbished the White House in the short time they resided at the White House and people complained about the budget she was given. Well, what was she going to do use her own funds? 

I suppose the Obamas are lucky to have the girl's grandmother living with them, otherwise, the nanny costs would be a ridiculous amont. I have to wonder if the household budget, including a gardening hobby, is more than sufficient to support The First Family. 

The nation has to recognize this family is on call to the nation's need 24/7. That is unrealistic in expecting them to handle all the costs on their own.

The comments by the Former Secretary of State makes me wonder a great deal as to what expenses while servicing in office accumulates large debt. Serving in the Presidency should never add so much debt that the years after leaving requires working for large sums of money. I imagine there are requests for their time at meetings by worthy and perhaps even preferred organizations the Former First Family cannot accommodate because of their need to earn their way out of debt.

It concerns me there is such financial liability in serving as President and First Lady. I am wondering if the US House actually undercuts the White House budget to force ill relations between the legislative and executive branch. The White House budget and cabinet budget should not be decided by the US House, but, determined by an autonomous branch of the government, such as the GAO. 

I am thinking the GAO can bring forward the costs of the Executive Branch for review and increases to carry necessary operation. I am viewing this with some surprise that the US House handling the operations of the Executive Branch isn't governed by separation of powers. The US House should never have the capacity to bring covert pressure on the Executive Branch. I think the White House and Cabinet budgets should be litigated for separation of powers.

The US Senate should pass a bill assigning a formula for the GAO to identify the expenses of running and living within the Executive Branch. The math formula could then be reviewed for increases and/or decreases. The White House and Executive Branch budget needs to be autonomous and somewhat generous, especally when realizing this the Commander and Chief of our military. Four years minimally is a long time to place personal assets into trust while maintaining the integrity of those investments. The entire budget issue for the Executive Branch concerns me. It is probably necessary to carry out a formula for the Vice President as well. I don't think the nation has carried it's responsibility for these people.