The White House and Federal Reserve have agreed on an initiative to move the US to a currency system that uses only digital money transferred electronically via the internet. Current paper and metal currency will be legally ineffectual starting in January 2014.
The message on your dollar bills that reads “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” will be rendered obsolete next year. That wad of dollar bills that some like to carry around rather than use credit/debit cards, will in effect be just a ball of cotton, except on the black market.
All legal transactions will require electronic monetary transfers which can be initiated via debit card, computer, phone, or biometrics such as fingerprints or retinal scans, implanted RFID chips, and the new Google Glasses. Some transactions may be free depending on which banks are being used and the companies who are receiving payment.
A spokesman for the administration said that the country will be able to save untold billions of dollars from the cost of printing and transporting currency to the cost of tellers in banks and ATM fees. “When a person has to drive to the bank to withdraw or deposit currency, that is a complete waste of time, gas, and money; and it unnecessarily pollutes the atmosphere.”
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said there would be an even greater benefit. “We won’t have to worry about printing money anymore, or how much money there is in the system. The available currency will be however much is needed; whatever the amount we say it is. Currency will basically be FREE.”
Asked about how that might affect inflation, Bernanke replied, “You needn’t concern yourselves with that. We can take care of those matters. The government will keep our financial and economic system safe. That’s why we’re here.”
Any US citizen desiring to conduct legal financial transactions will be required to have at least 1 debit or credit card by the end of 2013, and turn in all paper currency to a financial institution or the IRS. DHS will have a task force sent out in 2014 to confiscate any hard currency still in use.
Rush really did it this time, in a 2 minute diatribe wherein he slammed not only Obama but the left wing media and educational system, claiming “we are all being played for a bunch of fools.”
Read the soon-to-be famous words below that took down Limbaugh’s web site after Drudge Report posted about it.
“I can’t help but think that we are all being played for a bunch of fools, a bunch of suckers on this sequester business. I don’t know — are you like me? Do you really think 800,000 people are going to lose their jobs in the Pentagon because we cut $22 billion?”
“What isn’t a government study these days? What happens here that isn’t related to government anymore?”
“Story: ‘President Obama makes a credible case that he’s reached farther toward compromise than the House Republicans have.’ He has? Well, I guess he has, since the media says so.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country. To have our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it’s being during this sequester business… it just makes me ashamed. Seriously, man.”
“The left has not been silent while we have been informing and educating. What the left has been doing is waging war on the private sector and creating more dependency among people.”
“We’re robbing people of their own dignity and humanity and opportunity to realize their own dreams by turning their lives over to the government, and nobody ever talks about stopping this.”
“For years now I’ve actually been defending the accusation that Republicans want to starve children; it comes up — predictably, regularly. And for 20 years I have been trying to tell the people of this country via this radio show, ‘No, the Republicans are not trying to starve children.’”
“Whereas you are not supposed to complain and get along just fine with a little tax increase, the government can’t be expected to continue to operate if $22 billion is subtracted from their pile of $3.7 trillion.”
“The left has total control over the public education system, all the way up to the university level. It’s something they own, and it’s going to have to change.”
“The bulk of this audience is not low-information voters. You are not low-information people; you are at the head of the class. But there are low-information people out there to whom $44 billion sounds much larger than $3.7 trillion.”
“It’s a bugaboo I’ve always had: if somebody is offended, whatever offends them must stop. In a group of a thousand people, if one person’s offended, the 999 other people have to stop doing what offends the one. It’s so stupid.”
“So I’m bashing federal employees by explaining what they did in 1995? Oh, okay. Let’s move on, then. A photo was taken of Britney Spears coming out of a grocery store.”
“Every president that I have seen has always been tied to national policies, be they military, economic, or social. Obama is the first president that a majority of people do not associate with actual events and occurrences. He’s seen as not involved, but trying to stop them; not involved, but fighting them.”
“Drudge took down our website. Drudge crashed RushLimbaugh.com. This has never happened before. Usually we do the crashing.”
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.
“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”
Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
Popsicle Stand Economics
Somewhere, in a major US city, a young girl decided she wanted to run a popsicle stand for the summer to make some money. Natasha asked her father, who never had a real job before, how to go about it. Her father got her a government grant for $10,000 so that she could get a top of the line refrigeration system and sign for the pop stand.
Natasha set up stand and bought hundreds of popsicles at wholesale at 25 cents each from Costco, then asked her father, a prominent politician, advice for selling them. Her father instructed her to adjust the price based on income. Rich people will have to pay a lot more, and people in the bottom 50% of income won’t have to pay anything.
The popsicle stand was exciting at first. Every customer had to sign a form regarding their income level, and the lower 50% of people were happy to get their free popsicle every day. However, the local small business owners were not impressed.
The construction supervisor from across the street wanted to get a dozen for his crew on hot summer days, and was told they would cost $5 each. A businessman from the next block wanted to buy a batch for his office where the AC was going out, and was told popsicles were $10 each.
Several visiting families wanted to buy refreshing pops for their kids, but were told various outrageous prices based on their income. None of them bought the pops and instead walked a couple blocks down to the drug store to get them for $1 each.
In the meantime, Jessica, who worked for her Korean parents part time at their dry cleaning shop on the same block, watched in wonder, as half the people walked away shaking their heads, and most of the others were happily receiving popsicles for free.
Jessica then asked Natasha what the deal was and reported the result to her parents, who also shook their heads. They explained to Jessica that capitalism doesn’t discriminate against people’s income level, and that Natasha’s business model would never be profitable. Jessica was encouraged to start her own pop stand.
Jessica’s parents gave her 6 month’s allowance up front to purchase whatever equipment necessary. It was only a few hundred bucks, but good enough to buy a used ice box and some wholesale popsicles. As her parents told her, she had better sell them for a reasonable price to all, and she decided on 75 cents per pop to get things going.
The construction supervisor was first on the scene, and bought his crew a dozen popsicles several times per week on hot days. Other working people of all walks of life also bought from her stand rather than walking the extra blocks down to the drug store.
Jessica used most of her income to invest in sodas and other drinks from the wholesale store, and sold them all for 75 cents as well. She also offered discounts such as pops for 50 cents when bought 10 or more at a time. This doubled her business since Natasha didn’t even have the drinks to give away for free, and only offered discounts to the poor.
By the end of the summer, Natasha had lost all the money from her initial grant, having given away thousands of popsicles for free, while those who would pay for them were all buying from Jessica. Natasha gave up, closed shop, donated her remaining popsicles to Jessica, and asked her what the deal was.
Jessica kindly instructed her that a business cannot profit from giving away free products, and quoting from her parents, declared that charging different prices to people for the same product was discrimination, which not only creates resentment among those that pay the higher price, but eliminates most of them from the customer base.
By the end of the summer, Jessica had not only made up her initial investment, but also bought her parents a new fridge for the dry cleaning shop, where she could store more pops and drinks and so forth, and her parents could have refreshments whenever they wanted.
She decided to further diversify and also invested in some hot pots to make coffee, tea, and hot chocolate for customers as the weather got colder. Business continued to blossom as she sold $1 drinks as compared to the $7 Starbucks beverages on the same block, which only the rich people would frequent.
By the end of the year, while only working at the pop stand after school in the afternoon, Jessica told her parents to not worry about her college fund, that she would have it all covered within another year; and also told them to not worry about trying to get her a car for her 16th birthday.
Jessica later hired Natasha to sell the popsicles and drinks for her so that Jessica could help her parents expand and improve the dry cleaning business. But she gave Natasha strict rules that the same prices applied to everyone.
It seems really simple doesn’t it? A school girl could figure out how selling a commodity at a profit would work, unless she was brainwashed otherwise to believe in communist principles. If communism doesn’t work on a small scale, it certainly can’t, and never has, worked on a large scale.
It is clear from the results of recent elections that the country we live in now should be renamed the DSA: Divided States of America. The country has not been this divided along ideological lines since the (un-) Civil War. Everyone knows this intuitively, but most are afraid to admit it.
This division is very clear along geographical lines. If you look at the election map of the 2012 election by county, you will note that small concentrations of cityots, mostly in the northeast and far west, voted for Obama while the vast majority of the rest of the country voted for more freedom and less taxes. Keep in mind that more red would be showing if it weren’t for massive voter fraud in swing states.
Looking at the map, it certainly looks like red country, doesn’t it? Why would so many people in so many counties and states allow small concentrations of people dictate how they live? Why would they continue to let cityots take away our freedoms, our way of life, and more specifically our wealth, that they waste and redistribute as they see fit?
The reason is because the political system is set up that way, and unfortunately, more people are on the take now than are actually producing the wealth in this country. If you take the 47% of the people that are being subsidized by the government via welfare and redistribution, and add to it the number of people that are on the government payroll as employees or contractors, you have about half of the country effectively on the taxpayer bill. These people will mostly vote for bigger government, when given the choice.
The truth is that the red county and red state people are fed up with the federal government, and don’t want the government as the manager of everyone’s money. Most people want to manage their own money, without government first getting their greedy paws into it, and then telling people how to spend it and mandating things for them to buy (such as health insurance.)
The US government is now operating well outside the bounds of the Constitution and other written laws, and this has come to a degree of separation for many of our citizens. If we can’t change who is running our country with a fair election, which we can’t, because the voter fraud machine has proven to be insurmountable, then we have to look at other means of separating from the vile tyrants that bind us.
Are we really to believe that Romney got fewer votes than Mccain, after 4 years of economic disaster under Obama? Should we believe that 2012 was the first presidential election in history with less voter participation than the previous one? This is what they would have us believe, despite the fact that it makes no rational sense, without the specter of massive fraud.
The 2010 election map corroborates the fact that these swing states were all seeing a lot more red than they supposedly did in 2012. More congressmen from one party got fired in 2010 than in any other election in history, and for the specific reason that people did not want Obama’s rubber stamps posing as congressmen.
The point is that the red state people do not want to live as the blue state liberals dictate to them. Red staters do not want larger government, more taxes, more spending, more welfare, more food stamps, and more restrictions on freedom; all of which result in less individual wealth, happiness, and liberty.
That’s why they voted against the blue way of life in the last two elections, but now their votes do not count because the democrats are “counting” the votes. The democrat/communist party learned and mastered Stalin’s most important lesson: that the voters decide nothing, but those who “count” them decide everything.
So it is clear then that the red staters cannot effect the desired change via elections which are managed and rigged by their opponents, who are oppressing them through illegal and tyrannical means. Is it any wonder then that many are speaking of secession now? Many people gasp at the sound of the word, but it was secession from a tyrannical England from which this country was born.
Yes, the last secession attempt resulted in the largest loss of American lives in history, due to the “hero” Lincoln declaring war on his own people, and allowing them to slaughter themselves to the tune of over 600,000, making it the deadliest war in US history . And why? Because the north knew they could not live without the economic output of the south, and Lincoln didn’t want to lose control.
The Yankees would have never survived on their own, because the only businesses they had were fueled by products of the south, where people worked an honest living. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that the Uncivil War was about slavery; that is just another falsehood taught by the communist public schools, and a big excuse for massive violence and death. The war was strictly about economy, as are most wars throughout history.
You don’t save a nation by declaring war on it, and sacrificing over a half a million of its most capable young men, many of which were businessmen, job creators, and family men. It was about saving the Yankee states from living in poverty, by keeping control of the agriculture and business in the south.
This explains why Lincoln and his northerners thought there needed to be a war. It was all about control. This was the first major power grab by the US federal government, and resulted in the deadliest war in US history. It had to come to bloodshed because enough people in the south were fed up with the government dictating their way of life, and they were willing to fight to the death to preserve it.
Could the US and Lincoln administration let the South secede peacefully as they desired to? Of course they could have, and in fact they could immediately have established free trade with the south, similar to how our country has free trade with almost every nation in the Americas and Europe. But then the government wouldn’t CONTROL the south and its resources. It was all about control.
Now we find our country in a very similar situation. The only slaves are those on the government welfare payroll, paid to sit around, do drugs, and make nothing out of their lives so that the government can use them as an excuse to raise taxes on those working for a living, who create jobs and wealth. The government is currently in an abhorrent state of control over all of our lives.
The red state people are quite tired of this, especially seeing as the situation is worsening. Slavery can’t be used as an excuse for war this time. Would there be a war if the red states seceded? It might be that this time, if done correctly, a peaceful secession could be possible.
You see, the blue state people at this point in time truly believe that they can live without red states. They believe that the government is the creator and manager of all jobs and wealth, and therefore everyone will be taken care of. They don’t realize that the people paying for this setup via the income tax, are red states or red state type of people. So most blue staters would not disagree with recession.
The federal government of course knows better. Obama and his communist administration and most supporters in the democrat party and congress, know that it is impossible to run a welfare state without having job creators, which they can steal wealth from, in order to fund their operation.
In the case of secession, almost all business owners would move to red states, no matter what they claim their political affiliation is. This certainty would be cause for a militant communist such as Obama to declare war on them, but that war would seem to be largely voluntary. The majority of DOD and military are not in support of Obama or his policies, and thus its commanders would be unlikely to mobilize their troops against American citizens, which they’re not allowed to do in the first place.
Let us explain how this works. First let’s draft a rough constitutional framework for the New Confederate States of America (NCSA). We may just call them the Articles of Confederation, the documents which probably should have been used instead of our current constitution, but since the latter wasn’t adhered to, it may not have made much of a difference either way.
The NCSA and its central (Confederate) government would be based on the following tenets. The current US constitution and Bill of Rights could be used as the basis, minus the fraudulent 16th amendment, and with the following amendments:
• No income tax legal at any level of state/local/national government and will not be tolerated
• States and municipalities may institute any sales tax they desire up to 20%
• National sales tax starting at 10% which may never be raised, but can be lowered. Surpluses will be returned to those who paid it, in proportion to how much they paid.
• 25% tax on all imports, which may be raised by the government but not lowered
• Confederate government will only have one department: Department of National Security (DNS), responsible for defending the country against enemies, and collecting the sales tax. (in other words, no other departments of socialism, education, so forth)
• The government may not spend any money which was not already raised by the sales tax. Printing of money is allowed only for replacement of shoddy currency
• The confederate dollar will be backed by its equivalent value in gold
• No states or municipalities will receive confederate funds for any reason
• Confederate DSA may provide relief for national disasters, but not by donating to states
• No national welfare of any kind will be allowed. States and anyone else may run welfare
• National government will not be involved in any business not related to national security
• Infanticide will not be allowed. People may go to blue states for abortions, and not return
• Active confederate military troops will be maintained at a minimum of 1% of the population
• National Guard troops commensurate with 1% of the population of each state, will be paid for by the Confederacy, may not be mobilized without order from their state’s governor
• The DSA and military may not be used in any way against citizens of the Confederacy, unless such citizens are plotting or in the act of undue violence against other citizens
• The right to bear any non WMD weapon for any individual for any legal reason including but not limited to hunting, self-defense, target practice, intimidation, or show and tell, is incontrovertible. Further, firearm ownership will be mandatory for all homeowners and businesses
• The Confederate Congress is on a part time, on-call basis, to meet when necessary to create or enact laws, rather than sitting around wasting taxpayer money all year
• Term limits: no congress person of any kind will serve more than two consecutive terms, and the President of the Confederate American States (POCAS) is limited to one term. Terms will be 2 years for House, 4 years for Senate, and 4 years for President.
• POCAS may not selectively enforce any laws. The DNS will enforce laws that are on the books and not enforce any that are not. Once a law is revised or enacted, the DNS will enforce it under the supervision of POCAS and Congress.
• Congress may only enact laws concerning national security, including items such as military strength, counterterrorism measures, and possible lowering of the sales tax
• The congress will be paid minimum wage for their hours served in session, and may not vote into law raises for themselves, or extended terms in congress
• Minimum wage will start at the current level and will be adjusted annually in a linear correlation with inflation levels, which should not exist
• Labor unions will not be recognized by government at any level and will have no power
• Labor laws: any child of any age may work at any job they are physically qualified for, as long as they are paid at least minimum wage, and with pay equivalent to their colleagues, with of course, the permission of their parents if under 18. The child may elect not to sit at a desk in school all day and decide to work for a living at any age that its parents allow it to.
• No discrimination of any kind by employers will be tolerated. No collection of racial or gender information is allowed by any employer, who may hire whomever they wish without any intervention by any state, local, or federal government
• States and municipalities may run their educational systems in any manner they choose, and will not receive any confederate funds or intervention
• Any person over the age of 18 is considered an adult and their parents have no legal responsibility to them of any kind
• Each adult person is responsible for their own life and its outcome, not the government
• Welfare recipients of the old USA will be offered relocation to an appropriate blue state ghetto, or they may stay and receive an unemployment stipend for a maximum of 3 months so that they may find an appropriate occupation. After that they are on their own.
• Anyone, from any former USA state, may choose to live in the Confederacy, and as such agrees to follow their laws. Anyone can choose to move to a blue state if they desire.
• Businesses of the old USA will be recognized as such, as long as they are forking over the 10% national sales tax for goods or services rendered; otherwise they will be in trouble with the DNS
• Free trade with the blue state DSA and other countries, considering the 25% import tax
• The Confederate States will require nothing of the former USA government except the DOD resources, including personnel, located in the red states. This is non-negotiable.
• The nuclear problem can be solved by allowing the red states to take control of the nuclear arsenal. Obama and the blue states want a nuclear-free world anyway, so they should be happy to get rid of them.
Now let us look at the ramifications of the above Confederate Constitution. First of all, where will the remaining DSA get the money to fund their welfare state? They won’t. 90% of business owners not already located in red states will move to the Confederacy in order to pay no income tax and a maximum 10% federal income tax.
The blue states will continue to print worthless money that they can’t pay for, to run their socialist operation, creating immediate hyperinflation. The DSA dollar will become worthless as soon as this happens, and the remaining residents of the DSA that weren’t already on welfare will be on welfare after hyperinflation. Obviously, the CSA dollar, backed by gold, and not overprinted, maintains its value.
Anyone on a fixed income in the blue states, would then have an income equivalent to maybe 10% or less of what it was worth before, and has limited buying power. The federal government will set up bread lines for those that can’t afford to buy food for themselves and their families.
Obviously, many will flee to the Confederacy in order to have some kind of life again. They will be welcomed with open arms, but without any government handouts. Those without any means or money will be sent to state employment centers. There, they will be given access to computers and job banks, including all the agricultural jobs and other manual labor that anyone who is not disabled can perform, with some instruction.
The poor, homeless, and destitute from any state will be given the opportunity to clean up trash along public roadways and parks, and other basic janitorial tasks for the state, in return for basic dorm-style room and board, as long as they can stand it. They will not be given any monetary compensation from the state, or anything besides food, a bed, and a roof, for that matter.
On the contrary, poor from the blue states could also choose to stay there and stand in bread lines, until their government runs out of bread, without any hope of ever having a job or their own place of residence. Eventually they may actually come to their senses, and try to use the “free” election to make a change in government from a doomed socialist state, but many will put even more hope that their communists masters will somehow provide something out of nothing.
In the meantime, it wouldn’t take long for many DSA blue state residents to start flocking to the Confederacy, where the job creators are creating jobs and making lots of money. The red states have most of the agricultural resources and plenty of other means for business; and without excessive government intrusion, businesses will prosper everywhere in the CSA.
Blue state cityots are foolish enough to think they have all the resources, because they have their precious cities. But what exactly are cities? They are structures built with the money of mostly private investors and builders, with authorizations (and restrictions) from the government, with the purpose of giving businesses buildings in which to operate, and people to have housing close to their place of work.
Now, cities are certainly filled with businesses in some parts, and in the other parts contain a mixture of private homeowners and welfare housing recipients. The ghettos in particular, formed from housing that middle and upper income families have given up on, comprise most of the population of almost any given city, which is one reason why cityots tend to vote for communists.
What do these businesses in the city produce? Many city businesses are restaurants and stores which get their products from industrial parks outside the city, and foods produced in the rural areas, but what do the big city businesses do? Mostly, they manage businesses that actually operate in other parts of the state or country, and some simply “manage” other people’s money.
So you can see that any of these city businesses can operate from any city, suburb, town, or rural area for that matter, because they don’t actually produce anything. What they do is sell or manage goods that are produced elsewhere, or services rendered elsewhere. These businesses will mostly relocate their operations to the Confederacy in order to avoid excessive taxes and regulations.
So you can see that the cityots are highly mistaken. They have no precious resources needed by red states or by anyone else. Cities are built and managed with funds from businesses, which is what the Confederacy will be oriented around: small, medium, and large businesses that will donate 10% of their proceeds to the government. And most of those businesses will migrate to red states.
Given that the Confederate government can only get income from businesses handing over 10% of their sales of goods or services, the government will be doing all in its quite limited power to promote the creation and expansion of business across the land. That’s what government does for its only precious source of funding, even if they’re only making minimum wage.
The Confederate States’ motto will be something like, “We’ll take your hungry, tired, and poor, as long as they are willing to work for a living. Otherwise go back to the socialist state from which you came.” Of course, this is how red staters think already, but are afraid to say it, for fear of being labeled as an extremist by the communists running the country, who have already threatened to lock up patriots.
What if a war does ensue? Undoubtedly, the first attempt to quell secession would be for the administration to enact martial law, and suppress any citizen who disagrees with DSA laws. Martial law will be a certainty, resulting in more civil and uncivil unrest among secessionists.
This martial law would be difficult to enact against armed citizens. In case you haven’t tuned in to NRA type news in recent years, red state citizens have been buying up guns, including semi-automatic assault rifles, and stockpiling ammunition, as if the war has already begn. Perhaps they know something the socialist utopians in the blue states don’t know.
The truth is that martial law is in effect a declaration of war against a certain set of American citizens, and it will be taken as such by the targeted citizens. As aforementioned however, many of these are heavily armed citizens that won’t go quietly into the night in handcuffs. Military troops, if they even participate, and federal police forces such as the FBI, will be met with violence at every turn.
In fact, most red state military commanders will not only refuse, as they should, to target American citizens, but in the event of secession, many will turn themselves and their troops over to Confederate command. This would not only even the playing field, but in fact give a major advantage to the red states, which already have many armed civilians ready to fight.
There is no amount of economic, political, or military pressure that the current US government could apply to stop secession. The only great equalizer, of course, is the atom bomb. There would have to be some agreement reached, or procurement by the Confederacy of at least part of the nuclear arsenal, in order to thwart the possibility of a psychotic megalomaniac like Obama using such weapons against Americans.
Obama may have gone around the world apologizing for America and bowing to Islamic dictators, but he is extremely mentally unstable and could be insane enough to use nuclear weapons against Americans, even if he would never consider using them against enemies of Americans. That’s just the nature of his mental illness called communism, which has consumed his mind. Remember that Joseph Stalin killed more of his own country’s people than any dictator in history.
Obama does not like Americans. He doesn’t like the United States as it was founded, and he doesn’t like what America represents: freedom, prosperity, business, people profiting from the sale of goods and services. He hates all of it, and that’s why he’s in office, to rectify it. Businessmen who create jobs are evil and greedy and must be dealt with, according to his philosophy. Obama is the most delusional and insane president this country has ever had, without a doubt.
So it is not beyond the possible at all for Obama to order all the forces that he can get his hands on to suppress a secession, knowing that the disunion will not survive without the agriculture, wealth, and business from the red states. Like Lincoln, he would do all in his power to prevent it.
The big question is, how much power will he have? Many military commanders and their troops will desert and oppose him. There are also many closet red state commanders that will be ready to drive state militias against their opposition. There will be blood, and Daniel Day Lewis will want a prominent role in the movie made about it after events have been settled.
But the fact is that the military suppression will not work. US federal troops will find themselves outmanned and outgunned at every confederate outpost. The only option will be nuclear, but it is unlikely. If somehow, some dimwit commander and his troops agree to that, and lets Obama press the nuclear button against his own country, that would be the beginning of the end.
Obama and his entire administration would be taken out soon thereafter by active military patriots, defending their country, which would probably result in a military coup for the office of POTUS. At this point, to prevent further bloodshed, the remaining politicians in power would approve of a peaceful secession and then begin worrying about controlling the riots and bread lines.
This is just the most likely several possible outcomes, and the nuclear option is probably not very likely, because no commander in his right mind would fire a nuke on US citizens, but we know already that some leaders in this country are not in their right mind. Let us hope that it will be a peaceful secession.
It is best to conduct such a divide along some clear geographical boundaries, and without “island states” in the middle belonging to another country. After all, the red states will want borders to keep communists and terrorists out. The red states are taking New Mexico, Colorado, and Florida, which are red states anyway without voter fraud.
Indiana can go to the blue states, and the Virginias will be allowed to decide for themselves on which side of the border they will lie, but this time their state governors and legislatures will decide, not the democrat/communist voter fraud machine that controls the counting of the popular vote.
It could well be that the blue states decide to be annexed by Canada, for the common good of all socialist states. Canadians enjoy a reasonable socialist way of life while relying on the US military for any defense needs it may have in case it pisses anyone off, which it dearly tries not to.
The blue states have much in common with Canadian states and may decide to merge into that socialist umbrella to pool their resources. That is up to the socialist blue states and whatever they decide to do. After secession, the Confederacy will not be too worried about how the blues conduct themselves.
What is required for secession? Simply, the red states have to agree within themselves that they will totally do away with federal funding. West VA is one of the reddest states in the union, according to their presidential election record, but they consistently voted for Robert Byrd, the king of pork barrels, as their senator.
The states will simply have to decide to do without federal union funding, and support themselves, as all states are able with a proper tax structure. It is not an easy decision, but one that will give the people of those states long-lasting freedom that they currently do not enjoy, as slaves of the almighty federal government.
The red states MUST band together as a nation to have any hope of survival, however. Otherwise they will be bullied incessantly by the DSA which retains a powerful military and nuclear threat, and eventually they may be compelled to give in to socialist tyranny again. The secessionist states must all form as one common nation with common principles, because no state will stand on its own.
This article is not an advocacy for any war, but in fact is against any such violence. The socialists are in total control of this situation: they can either allow a peaceful secession, or try to prevent it with violence. This is a stern warning however: violence will be met with violence.
The violence and genocide just aren’t worth it. Let socialist states live in their socialist utopia, and let capitalists live in the real world, and earn their living, while doing what is natural for the human, to create business and a better life for oneself.
We can all disagree on which philosophy we want to live by, communism or freedom, but let’s agree that it is not worth sacrificing half a million humans this time. Just give peace a chance.
Upon notification that there were surprising voting abnormalities in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, we conducted a simple but thorough statistical analysis of the unofficial election returns from that district as posted on their web site. The results are better described as shocking.
Let’s start with the basic number of precincts with the following qualifications.
OTR VOTE: other than Romney or Obama vote.
OTR TOT: other than Romney or Obama, including under-votes and over-votes (throw outs)
The important thing to note is that there were supposedly 21 precincts with ZERO votes for Romney. Supposedly, in these 21 precincts, not only was Romney beat by almost 6,000-0 by Obama, but also was beaten 12-0 in these precincts by other candidates, most of which people have never heard of. These would include libertarian Gary Johnson, 4 other candidates on the ballot, and 2 votes for write-in candidates. Are we really to believe that Romney got beat by write-in’s in 21 precincts.
In 185 precincts, which comprise 17% of the precincts in the county, Romney apparently failed to muster at least 10 votes, and Obama got 98% of that vote. In almost 19% of the precincts, Obama reportedly obtained at least 95% of the vote in each precinct. In over half of the precincts (546) Obama obtained at least 70% of the popular vote.
For a baseline, we took the 192 precincts (less than 18%) that Obama failed to get at least half the votes. This, we would consider a “normal” precinct, because those that vote for Obama obviously have a high number of people that have some kind of mental illness.
Note that in these precincts, Obama got only 43% of the vote, but what is interesting is that the average number of total voters pre precinct is 714, much higher than the average voters for Obama precincts. The average number of voters per precinct reported was 573, which is also considerably lower than the Romney precincts.
Using the Romney precincts as a baseline makes sense because they are the only category we had where the vote was even close. Note than in the other precinct categories, Obama won 88% or more of the vote. This is where it gets interesting; we build a DIFF column representing the difference in total votes between the Romney precincts and the Obama-dominated precincts.
Note that as the precinct criteria reflects more dominance for Obama, the difference in the total vote gets higher and higher. It’s as if voters just kept disappearing in the more extreme Obama precincts. One would expect that in the 99% districts, Obama would get around 570 votes, but instead it’s only 356. In the Zero Romney precincts, the total votes averaged only 288, or about half of the expected 573 county average.
So in the more heavy Obama precincts, not only did the Romney votes disappear, but votes disappeared altogether, apparently. Intuitively, we know this doesn’t make sense. Zero-Romney precincts had only 288 votes average, while the Romney majority precincts apparently averaged 714 total votes.
Now there is probably little doubt that these precincts are very liberal, with lots of people living off welfare and expecting Obama to give them more free stuff, which is why the democrats would be in complete control of the precincts as far as the election official staff. But to have that large of a difference between the average total votes doesn’t compute.
It probably seems obvious to you by now that they made Romney votes disappear in some fashion or another. We’ve already had reports of Romney voters having to go back and change their votes several times, due to Obama’s name lighting up when they pressed Romney, but this scheme goes beyond that.
Perhaps they just didn’t county Romney votes when submitting their election report, but the machines record each vote. So, most likely, after each registered republican voted, they figured out how to go into the machine and delete that vote. Either that or they figured out how to get into the machine at the end of the day and delete votes in bulk. Any computer can be hacked, or at least adjusted.
Whatever the case, this is representative of massive voter fraud in Cuyahoga County. We’re not saying they deleted 425 Romney votes in each precinct that he was supposedly shut out, but they obviously deleted a good number of them, considering only 288 voters per precinct.
Remember that votes get counted statewide, and in the swing state of Ohio, every vote counts, and every erased vote has an effect on the entire state, along with every fraudulent vote cast. There is simply no way you can have this type of voter count in a fair election. Saddam Hussein would be jealous of this county’s fraud operation.
Note another very odd statistic: in all the 95% and up Obama precincts, Romney was out voted by 3rd party candidates, write-in votes and throw-out votes. It seems like a statistical impossibility for that to happen to a major party presidential candidate, in almost any precinct. Keep in mind Romney supposedly got 48% of the vote to Obama’s 51% nationwide.
Ronald Reagan had two of the largest landslide victories of all time, including 59% to Mondale’s 41%, but if you were to check out the results of the most gun-toting, bible-belting precincts in flyover states, you probably still wouldn’t find any precincts where Reagan got over 99% of the vote.
This county reeks enormously of voter fraud with these statistical impossibilities. Philadelphia, surprisingly enough, had similar reports with almost 60 precincts reporting 99% for Obama. Philly is another liberal hotbed in the middle of a big swing state. Port St. Lucie county in Florida, the biggest of swing states, reported precincts that had over 100% voter turnout.
Nationwide, this has to be the largest mass voting fraud operation in the history of the United States. We know they rigged the election for Kennedy in 1960, but we don’t know that it extended beyond a couple of swing states, and he had help from Harry Byrd in the south
The 2012 election at least rivals the fraud of 50 years beforehand, and probably surpasses it. Perhaps nobody bothered contesting the election of 1960 because the two candidates and their policies were much the same. This year is much different. Romney is hardly a staunch right wing conservative, but there are major policy, character and competence differences between him and Obama.
Another astonishing fact, on a national level, is that Romney presumably gathered less votes than Mccain, who was the least exciting GOP candidate perhaps of all time. And this is after the disastrous 4 years of Obama, whom the GOP voters were eager to get rid of, as evidenced by the 2010 elections.
Not only that, but apparently we are to believe that this is the first presidential election in history in which less people voted than in the previous one. As polarized and divided as this country is after 4 years of Obamanation, this is a very difficult thing to comprehend. It simply can’t be true.
Romney rallies were drawing thousands and tens of thousands everywhere he went. Obama rallies weren’t even covered because he couldn’t get more than a few hundred people at any given location. The reason is that perhaps all his die-hard supporters were busy working on the most fraudulent voting operation of all time.
The Democrat Party it seems, has learned and masterfully applied the most important lesson from one of their heroes, Joseph Stalin: It’s not the voters who decide anything, but those who “count” the votes who decide everything.
Full summary of voting results below:
It is hard to understand where some Obama voters have been the last 4 years. Have they been living in the same country as the rest of us?
What positive economic trends have they seen over the last 4 years? The only one we can detect is that that the DJIA is back up to where it was 5 years ago.
But given that personal wealth and income are both down, the average person, or average Obama voter for that matter, doesn’t seem to be cashing in on it, but rather only the rich people that they despise. So that should be a negative for the Obama voter.
The remaining important economic indicators are all negative. Unemployment is up at least 20%, both the fake nominal rate and the U-6 rate. The true unemployment rate which nobody really seems to know, is somewhere around 20-25% and is likely the highest it has ever been.
Perhaps the Obama voters are happy with the food stamp situation. Yes, the food stamp population has increased by over 50% from 31 million to 47 million users. That must be a positive for the Obama voter, more people on EBT.
Do we really need to cover the national debt situation? Obama almost tripled the deficit his first year in office with reckless spending approved by his rubber-stamp congress.
The national debt went from $10 trillion from all the previous presidents combined, to $16 trillion, in just 4 years. Keep in mind this was the same guy who said in 2008 that it was “unpatriotic and irresponsible” to run up that kind of debt against a credit card owned by China.
Did we mention that gas prices have doubled since Obama took office? These effect all factors of our cost of living, which has certainly gone up the last 4 years as well.
In fact, the Real Misery Index, developed this year by RDP, is now at an all time high, even higher than it was under Jimmy Carter, the previous worst President of the US.
So with gas costs doubled, unemployment up, income and personal wealth down, government dependence increasing, and national debt skyrocketing, what exactly are the positives of the last 4 years?
If there is anything positive, it doesn’t have to do with economics, because we are still in a recession. There is no recovery when all of these indicators continue to worsen rather than improve.
Given that the economy is poor and not improving, and directly affects the livelihoods and happiness of the 99% of us, what is it that would make anyone want 4 more years of this crap?
In the interest of brevity, much of this article was left in a blog-notes type of format. A summary of our take on the debate will be followed by details on certain topics.
In all, this debate was largely a CBS (who already called the election for Obama) sponsored campaign appearance for Obama, with Romney allowed to speak and respond to certain issues, as long as he answered the directed question. In the meantime, Obama was allowed to ramble on endlessly about little girls, how great he was, or whatever he wanted, regardless of the question. Obama kept talking about his credibility, which if you follow the facts, he really doesn’t have any.
The bias of moderator Bob Schieffer didn’t take long to show up, as he interrupted Romney routinely, and didn’t interrupt Obama at all. He also let Obama interrupt Romney multiple times without making any attempt to stop him or keep the event fair. Romney took the high road and talked when he was supposed to. He didn’t interrupt a single Obama turn at a response.
In summary, Obama was for the most part petulant, disdainful, immature, condescending, insulting, and of course, dishonest about almost everything. However, his base seemed very impressed with this, because most of them are the same way: insolent, childish, spoiled brats who cry about life not being fair and that government should make it fair for them somehow.
Romney was much more mature, and although he stuttered too often trying to get all his points across, he deflected most of Obama’s attacks, occasionally saying they were inaccurate, and “attacking me is not a plan.” Other than that he focused on getting his big picture across, going into detail where necessary, and ignoring much of what Obama said. He must have had the intel beforehand that Obama was going to spend his time attacking things that Romney had said.
Romney called Obama’s first Middle East visit an apology tour, and pointed out that he visited Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and several other countries, but not Israel, and that people noticed that. Obama denied it, but Romney countered by quoting that Obama said the US has been dismissive and derisive and dictated to other nations. But Romney said US does not dictate, we liberate.
Best answer of the day:
SCHIEFFER: What if — what if the prime minister of Israel called you on the phone and said, “Our bombers are on the way. We’re going to bomb Iran. What do you do”
ROMNEY: Bob, let’s not go into hypotheticals of that nature. Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of Israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way, or their fighters are on the way. This is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of –
Scheiffer was clearly dissatisfied with the answer to begin with, and kept trying to interrupt him to answer the question, which really begged a response from Obama more than anyone, since he has snubbed Israel time and again.
Then, Obama’s response came nowhere close to answering the question, instead referencing some emotional story of a little girl who lost her father that he remembered. The fact of the matter is that with Obama’s relations with Israel, it is possible to get that surprise phone call, but Schieffer had no intention of interrupting him or reminding him of the question at hand.
Romney: 38 democrat senators asked Obama to ease the tensions with Israel and he did not. Editor’s note: and Obama blew off Netanyahu to visit Letterman and the View instead.
Obama was completely condescending to Romney, saying at times, “I’m glad you agree with my policy on this matter,” and trying to lecture him that sanctions and other actions are very meticulous and harder than Romney thinks.
Romney said that he won’t cut the military, and expressed disappointment at the navy’s declining ships.
Most arrogant and condescending moment of the day: Obama claimed that Romney hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works: We have less horses and bayonets. We have things called aircraft carriers that have planes landing on them. Ships that go under water nuclear submarines. Marine tweeted to fox news that they still use bayonets.
Obama deflected the question of a nuclear Iran and brought up something about Romney investing in Chinese companies that did business with Iran.
Biggest threat to national security.
Obama: terrorist networks are the biggest threat. China is an adversary and we set up a trade commission to deal with cheaters. We need an even playing field. China was flooding us with cheap domestic tires, I mean Chinese tires. And we won a case about that which saved American jobs. Claims Romney disagreed with that and thought they were too tough on china.
Romney: greatest threat is a nuclear Iran. China wants a stable world because they have 20 million people coming out of the farms every year looking for the jobs. We don’t have to be an adversary to china if they play by the rules. Secdef called $1 trillion cuts to military devastating. We need to make sure we’re strong and have trade relations with china that are fair to us. Holding down the value of their currency artificially, holding down prices of their goods. They will be labeled a currency manipulator. They are stealing our technology and goods etc, and counterfeiting.
Obama said sequestration is not going to happen. He may know something we don’t.
Sheiffer: will this language cause a trade war with china?
Romney: china’s trade export is many more times than ours; they are the last one to want a trade war. Want to be partner with china.
Obama: Romney’s right he knows about china because he invested in companies that relocate jobs to china.
Romney: attacking me is not a plan for foreign policy or getting more jobs in America.
The economy came up time and again, even if it was a foreign policy debate. Romney, knowing that economics is his strong point and Obama’s biggest weakness, took time to bring it up whenever possible. He said we have to be strong at home economically to be strong and respected abroad, and that he has the algorithm to get people working. He pointed to the record of Obama’s failure again and said it will get worse with another 4 more years.
Obama’s economic response was about hiring more teachers and education and claims he has a good record on that. Education and job retraining, all paid for by the taxpayer of course, is the key. And it’s something that will take at least another 4 years to have any impact. Obama is smart enough to know that he can’t run on his economic record, so pretended he hasn’t been in charge. He still claims Romney’s plan will increase deficit, as if he’s worried about that since he almost tripled the deficit his first year in office.
Obama shockingly blames everything on Bush, pretends he hasn’t been in charge for 4 years, claims we made real progress in digging out of policies that got us in debt and caused two ongoing wars. Now Romney wants to return to these policies that didn’t work.
Romney optimistic about future and excited about opportunities for success. Two paths: obama’s which is decline in take home pay, and doubling the national debt. Need to cut food stamps by getting people jobs where they don’t need one. DC is broken but I can work with democrats and republicans to get it working again.
Status of force agreement. There was an agreement, under Bush, and Obama wanted the minimum 5k but they wanted 20k. Obama failed to get the agreement. Romney supported higher force for Iraq which would have been agreed on.
Further fact checking will follow but on first take it looks like Obama told a very low percentage of truths.
CNN Presidential Debate Summary: Review and Analysis: October 16 2012 Townhall Debate at Hofstra Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Moderator Candy Crowley
The CNN town hall style debate was more competitive than the first debate, in which the general consensus (about 70%) among viewers was that Obama got steamrolled. If the debates were scored as 10 round fights, Romney certainly won the first one 100 to about 43.
The second debate was still won by Romney about 90-70 as Obama brought out his best debating form, and had his talking points ready to go on every subject. Romney still had a much firmer grasp of the facts, and if we were to score the debate based on factual accuracy of the contestants, it would be another TKO for Romney.
However, we have to rate the performance as a whole. How well did they make their case in terms of persuading the general public and the “undecideds” who each contestant is trying to sway? Obama was more assertive this time and took a page out of the Biden playbook by interrupting Romney several times. Obama also got several assists from the moderator as she interrupted Romney 3 times as much as she did Obama.
They spent a lot of time talking about energy and tax policies, and the audience would have to be quite knowledgeable to know who was telling the truth and which person won that round. More details of key topics below.
Obama claimed that US oil production is at an all time high, and he’s pursuing renewable energy, etc, and that Romney doesn’t have any “clean energy policy.” Romney countered that only private oil production is up, because Obama pulled licenses for drilling on federal lands, so it’s down 14%, and that Obama also vetoed the Canadian pipeline.
Romney also pointed out that the drilling in the Dakota’s, which Obama attempted to disallow, is responsible for the increase in private oil production in the US. Obama claimed that we built enough pipelines to wrap around the earth, and that Romney is opposed to wind energy, whatever that has to do with it.
Moderator Candy Crowley then asked Obama a rigged question about whether the high gas prices now are the “new normal.” Obama claimed that gas prices were low when he took over, because the economy was on the verge of collapse, and they are higher now because we’re in recovery. That particular comment insulted our collective intelligence.
Obama then pointed out that Romney once stood in front of a coal plant and said that it kills. While true, it was designated as one of 5 dirty plants in Mass. polluting mercury and other toxins that were said to be responsible for 53 deaths, 570 emergency room visits, 14,400 asthma attacks and 99,000 incidents of upper respiratory symptoms per year. Obama has been captured on video saying that he planned to make coal so expensive that any producer of it would go bankrupt.
The moderator then attempted to move on without giving Romney a chance to respond, and when he told her that it was his turn to respond she got mad at him, but he took control and gave his response anyway.
Romney illustrated that his plan calls for tax cuts for all middle income Americans, for all making less than $200,000 per year, and the top rate tax would not change, and neither would the rate change for those that don’t pay the income tax. Also for anyone under 200, there would be no tax on interest or dividends from investments.
Obama claimed that he cut taxes on middle class families by $3600, which is just a lie, because there has been no change in the tax rates under his administration. He also said “we need the wealthy to do more” and that only those above $250k would pay more, or about 3% of households.
Obama further spuriously claimed that in order to grow the economy and have a surplus, we need higher taxes like Bill Clinton did, tax breaks for college funds, and hiring more veterans, most of which of course already get a pension and free health care from the government.
Romney countered that there are 3 million more people in poverty than when Obama took over, and claimed that he spent his career in the private sectors, and he knows why jobs come and go. He pointed to the fact that he ran corporations, the Olympics and the state of Mass and balanced the budgets. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half but in fact more than doubled it.
Obama engaged in some fuzzy math about Romney’s plan: the “cost” of lowering rates by 20% and eliminating estate taxes and so forth are 5 trillion and then give 2 trillion to the military that’s not asking for it, then give 1 trillion to the wealthy for a total of 8 trillion. Romney said he had no idea where those numbers came from.
The moderator then allowed another question which insulted my intelligence: what about women earning only 72% of what men earn? Obama said it was a great question.
Romney: good question. I know that because dealt with it as governor and all applicants were males apparently, so asked for a stack of women’s resumes. More women are now in poverty than when Obama took over.
Obama: Romney opposed contraception via insurance and that’s not advocacy that women need. Romney wants to eliminate funding for planned parenthood and they need that.
One of the only good questions from the audience asked who denied extra security to Libya and why.
Romney: Obama flies to Vegas the day after and then to Cali after that for campaign appearances. Calls into question the whole policy in Middle East.
In closing, Romney delivered another punch that put Obama on the ropes: the president is great as a speaker and announcing his vision, etc, but he has a record that we can look at, and it hasn’t worked.
The secret project that our economists have been working on this year is finally out of the closet. Our own little October Surprise if you will, the new Real Misery Index (RMI) is now set up on its own web site.
RMI was developed as an alternative to the traditional misery index which contains only two factors: unemployment and inflation. While certainly those factors contribute to misery, and are included in this index, there is far more to misery.
For example, we know that US median income is now the lowest it has been since 1995. That qualifies as a miserable statistic. Other important stats are investments, net worth, personal debt, economic growth, taxes, income or lack thereof, crime, and of course gas prices!
The RMI combines 10 economic statistics and scaling them from the most miserable at 100% and least miserable at 0%. For example, the highest gas price would be 100%, and unemployment is on an inverse scale where the lowest rate is 100%.
Combining these factors with an equal weight for each provides a better look at how misery is calculated.