For many years now, jihadist training camps have been allowed to function within U.S. borders, and their numbers have increased by around a dozen under the Obama regime.
This no secret and neither is it ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s a fact known for many years and even acknowledged by mainstream media, yet our government does nothing. Why?
Why attack Waco and not Muslim terrorist training camps responsible for nearly 50 attacks on American soil? It’s crazy right?
The answer can only be that our federal government wants them here.
Why? The answer would seem to be two-fold.
First, because our leaders know our economy will soon collapse and need a narrative/distraction for covering it up – constant terror attacks would not only provide cover but would allow for martial law.
Second, because Obama will have his personal army, his own SS made up of Islamic brethren, to take out all who can and will oppose him before hostilities even begin.
Civil war is coming….and our government is far more prepared than its citizens.
KEEP READING + VIDEOS ON PAGE 2:
While we sit around playing with our toes they are taking over.why are we waiting for someone else to clean this mess up?
I find this very telling.
Shall we do something to find out how true and dangerous this is? Or just wait until something happens?
To take out the vets? 22 camps. 22 million vets. Seems legit. As one of the vets,all I got to say is “good luck with that”.
That’s Right,The oath we took never Expires.
Imagine that and look how militias are demonized by the media and liberals. Yet these foreigners can do it with impunity and zero word from the media. Go figure
WTF
Our government needs to allow the military to just destroy each and everyone of these places. They know where they are and have the equipment to do it with.
A hunting we should go !! Wake up folks, our ill-selected leader is on their side. He’s not going to do anything for us.
These look like Redneck training camps!
Obama’s economy – How it stacks up
December 05 NEW YORK
The Obama recovery was looking a lot better on Friday after a particularly strong jobs report made 2014 the best year for hiring since 1999.
But how does that compare to other presidents?
Critics of the Obama administration say the economic recovery has taken too long and that the unemployment rate still hasn’t fallen back to pre-recession levels. They argue the true unemployment rate is even higher than 5.8% because so many workers hadn’t dropped out of the labor force altogether in the last six years.
Obama’s supporters see it differently. They point out the president took office during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and has managed to turn things around and get growth back on track.
Related: Who’s hiring? Almost everyone
President Ronald Reagan was no stranger to recessions, either. The economy was just emerging from one when Reagan took office, and it quickly fell into a second recession early in his tenure.
Double-digit inflation was the major problem at that time, something the Federal Reserve beat back by having interest rates in the teens. Once inflation was defeated and interest rates returned to normal, the economy took off. That rate of growth hasn’t been matched since.
Related: Gas dips below $2 in Texas
There are many reasons the economy is different now — everything from technological change to greater global competition, and it could be awhile before the U.S. hits that Reagan level of growth again, if ever.
The recent president with the best economic record was Bill Clinton, who oversaw the addition of nearly 23 million jobs during his eight years in office. His reforms of tax and spending policies, which eliminated annual budget deficits, deserve some of the credit. But so do huge improvement in productivity that came from the widespread adoption of personal computers and the Internet during that time.