Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 11:59 pm
You last visited August 16, 2017, 11:28 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Obama decision puts America on trajectory toward financial mega-disa


Obama decision puts America on trajectory toward financial mega-disaster


Mike Adams Natural News Nov 8, 2012

The re-election of Obama was more than the mere selection of one man over another; it was an endorsement of a set of economic policies that are now launching America into a trajectory that can only end in economic disaster.

With the election now etched in the history books, America has endorsed an endless government spending spree that can no longer be held in check. There is only one outcome now for the United States of America: A grand finale blowout of money creation, hyperinflation, collapse and tyranny.

This point is not a debate; it is mathematical fact. Just as 2 + 2 = 4, the economic policies pursued by President Obama and the Federal Reserve can only equal the utter financial demise of the U.S. dollar. This is explained in more detail, below.

Fortunately, the number of U.S. dollars in circulation around the world serves as a kind of “heat sink” that slows the arrival of the final blowout collapse. So this process may take years to unfold, but Obama seems to determined to accelerate its arrival for reasons that may become clear as you continue to read this article.

The curse of compounding debt

Presently, Obama is spending over $1 trillion a year more than the U.S. government confiscates in so-called “revenue” (taxes, essentially). Because the global demand to purchase this much debt is insufficient to cover the full amount, the private Federal Reserve has stepped in and promised to purchase the U.S. debt by issuing more fiat currency that the U.S. Treasury will owe back to the Fed. This is now being called “QE unlimited.” It means unlimited money creation.

Mathematically, this is called “the curse of compounding debt.” It means you’re paying interest on the money you borrowed to pay the interest on the money you already owe. As this debt compounds, it multiplies itself over and over again, quickly escalating to the point where it ends catastrophical

During this process, which can take several years to ramp up, the debt blowout is not immediately obvious. In the early years, prices keep rising but not necessarily rapidly enough to cause immediate panic. Sure, the bread you buy this year costs 40% more than the bread you bought last year, but nobody is carting around wheelbarrows of cash… not yet, anyway.

As the currency devaluation and price inflation reach their stride, more frequent price increases start to concern citizens who suddenly discover their paychecks are rapidly becoming worthless. This inevitably leads to protests in the streets, and in an Obama administration — staffed by economic juveniles who are astonishingly ignorant of market principles — this will quickly lead to dreaded PRICE CONTROLS.

Why price controls cause immediate supply shortages and starvation

Once the price controls are announced, it’s time to hunker down, lock and load, and start protecting your stored food. Why? Because price controls always lead to immediate shortages.

A price control is an artificial government restriction on the free market trading of goods or services. It’s economics 101: When prices are kept artificially low, demand is made artificially high while supply can’t keep up. The result? Empty food shelves.

The empty food shelves will, in turn, lead to riots in the streets. Why? Because people are starving, angry and panicked. Imagine the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy multiplied by a thousand, happening everywhere from coast to coast. That’s a small hint of what’s coming for Obama’s America.

Riots in the streets lead to Martial Law

Once the riots in the streets reach a crescendo, the President will have little choice but to declare Martial Law and use the opportunity to deploy troops on the streets. From there, the nation already has one foot in the door of runaway police state tyranny.

This is the point where, historically, nations have engaged in the mass rounding up of political enemies or “undesirable” demographics: The Jews, the rebels, even the academics as we saw in the Communist-led Cultural Revolution in China.

There, the communists (i.e. the 1960′s equivalent of today’s Obama followers) rounded up over 7 million human beings, targeting farmers, academics and anyone who could think for themselves, and then slaughtered them in cold blood.

I know this from first-hand accounts, by the way. Remember: I speak Mandarin Chinese, and I lived in Asia for two years. I have personally spoken to survivors of the Chinese holocaust — people who escaped and fled to Taiwan.

As explained on MassViolence.org:

The widespread phenomenon of mass killings in the Cultural Revolution consisted of five types: 1) mass terror or mass dictatorship encouraged by the government – victims were humiliated and then killed by mobs or forced to commit suicide on streets or other public places; 2) direct killing of unarmed civilians by armed forces; 3) pogroms against traditional “class enemies” by government-led perpetrators such as local security officers, militias and mass; 4) killings as part of political witch-hunts (a huge number of suspects of alleged conspiratorial groups were tortured to death during investigations); and 5) summary execution of captives, that is, disarmed prisoners from factional armed conflicts. The most frequent forms of massacres were the first four types, which were all state-sponsored killings. The degree of brutality in the mass killings of the Cultural Revolution was very high. Usually, the victims perished only after first being humiliated, struggled and then imprisoned for a long period of time.

This is where America is headed, folks. The TSA fulfills the “mass terror / dictatorship” role once it is deployed on the streets of America. Meanwhile, Obama’s supporters are already engaged in threats of violence against all political opponents, and inciters of violence like Michael Moore have promoted videos encouraging destruction and violence while saying things like, “We’ll burn this mother f*%#er down,” followed by “Yes we can” in Spanish. (Si, se puede.)

In this kind of behavior, we are watching the rise of a new gang of violent-minded Obammunists who can’t wait to engage in the mass murder of conservative Americans: Farmers, veterans and especially gun owners. The desire is to have them all rounded up, tortured, and then either murdered or sent to re-education camps. This is where it’s all headed now.

The ten steps to tyranny under Obammunism

Getting from today’s America to an oppressive, tyrannical “Obammunism” police state is faster and easier than you think. Here’s how it might unfold, in review:

1) Runaway government spending forces nation into debt spiral. 2) Fed prints new currency and buys debt, compounding existing debt. 3) Debt explodes, causing runaway price inflation. 4) Rising prices lead to citizen protests. 5) Government initiates price controls to try to halt protests. 6) Shelves are emptied of food as people starve. 7) Mass riots begin. 8) Government initiates Martial Law. 9) Troops are rolled out onto the streets. 10) Under the cover of Martial Law, the mass rounding up of political opponents begins, complete with torture, public humiliation, murder and re-education camps.

Obama supporters are almost universally ignorant of history

This is not mere conjecture, this is HISTORY, and history is doomed to repeat itself, especially among those who are ignorant of it.

And nobody is more ignorant of history today than Obama supporters who seem to have no clue that they are members of a personality cult that has swept them into a dangerous fervor where anything is excusable: Threats of violence, rioting, murder and worse.

America is just a few steps away from all this not just happening, but actually being socially acceptable! “We rounded up some rebel preppers today,” will be the announcement on the evening news. “And sent them to rehabilitation camps.” (The newsroom cheers…)

Mass murder in the name of Obama

Many times in humanity’s past, this very thing has been accepted as perfectly legitimate by intelligent populations. German citizens, for example, saw this happening right under their noses and believed it was acceptable behavior by a government. The same is true for the Chinese under Mao Zedong and the citizens of Cambodia under Pol Pot.

What makes you think today’s zombified voters — people are have already been brainwashed to give up their constitutional rights in response to an utterly fabricated “war on terror” — will be any smarter in their response to a planned financial collapse?

The inescapable truth of the matter is that Obama’s followers will commit mass murder in his name — gleefully, willfully and with a sense of pride and even patriotism. There is no wrong that can be committed in Obama’s name, his cult followers believe. And the fact that those people are now leaning towards violence in their political rhetoric is a red flag warning of dire things yet to come.

People like Michael Moore are racial instigators of violence and hate. And yet, astonishingly, his video remains perfectly acceptable to YouTube, the same video site that bans anything critical of the TSA (as I personally found out last year with the release of my “TSA Help Wanted” video).

Those who preach hate and violence must be stopped

The endless racism attacks on conservatives by Obama supporters are reprehensible and even dangerous. They risk inciting a backlash from conservatives who, frankly, are far better armed than the Obama crowd.

When Bill Maher recently warned Romney supporters that “Black people know who you are and they will come after you,” he made that statement in total ignorance of the sheer number of AR-15s awaiting whatever hapless gang bangers would even attempt such a suicide mission.

Really? You want to hunt down some whiteys and have a go at some race-based crime? While some feminine-leaning “metrosexual” men may be easily found in cities, once you venture out into rural America, you’re facing a different beast altogether: Country boys can unleash a 7.62 x 51mm round through your skull at 600 yards, and if pushed into a corner, they have no moral reservation against killing someone who threatens their family or community.

Don’t mess with conservative America, folks. All that talk of hatred and violence is only being tolerated right now because country boys don’t want to waste the ammo on you yet. Keep up that talk, Michael Moore and Bill Maher, and sooner or later somebody who has run out of patience is likely to teach you what “reach out and touch someone” really means in U.S. Marine Scout Sniper school.

I don’t condone any of that, of course. My advice is for Obama cultists to tone down the violent rhetoric before they set off something they wish they hadn’t. Violence is never the best way to resolve political differences, although throughout world history it has certainly been the most common way.

The bottom line in all this is that once the debt collapse begins, it’s the preppers who have the firepower, the skills, the food, the water and the farmland. It’s the veterans, the farmers and the local sheriffs who have the know-how to get through tough times. While Obamabot voters have put America on a collision with economic collapse, they remain clueless of the reality that they are bringing about their own destruction in the process.

After all, who would you rather be hanging with when the collapse comes: Michael Moore, or James Wesley Rawles?

Entry #175


MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - November 8, 2012, 11:11 am
If this is going to be the case, then the signs will unfold right before our very eye's soon.
Lucky LoserComment by Lucky Loser - November 8, 2012, 11:16 am
Wow. This whole deal is completely hypocritical. Extreme hatred leading to violence and killing...just like back in the 60's. John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and others. All these people were for peace movements and wanted to establish between "the two" during the times. I'm pretty sure no (D) assassinated any of these guys...the hateful and extremist (R) launced all that violence.

This is why there's so much bad blood between the two ethnicities. One has simply forgotten what it done to the other in the course of history. There's tons of history validating how white males were extremely violent against, and BEAT blacks for absolutely no reason.

Not that you'd care at all, but you can check out a true documentary called The Untold Story of Emmit Till...a (14) year old black kid GROSSLY and SEVERELY BEATEN, his tongue was cut out, his penis was cut off, his head was splitten open with a hatchet...and THEN HE WAS SHOT IN THE HEAD.

All that by two white males because the kid was being friendly and whistled at the white lady that sold him some candy at the store. I will dare him, or, anyone else to deal with this and try to justify those actions. THIS is only part of the reason why black males are so ANGRY, and hateful of white males today. White males know what they've done and it's also why they dreaded Obama in office.

These racist columnists really, really like to forget how history frowns on the lies they like to publish and truths they intentionally omit.
Lucky LoserComment by Lucky Loser - November 8, 2012, 11:32 am
Sorry, I failed to disclose the rest. They then tied a 70lb. fan to his legs and threw him into the river so he wouldn't surface. But, he was still found due do leads and an investigation. What happened to the two white males? Well, of course, they were found not guilty...except on actually kidnapping the kid. Yeah, they kidnapped him and didn't kill him...but he wasn't found alive after they kidnapped him.

Just some spoiled and rotten food for thought...literally.
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - November 8, 2012, 11:39 am
Lucky Loser, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Democrat, not a Republican...
Lucky LoserComment by Lucky Loser - November 8, 2012, 12:14 pm
Very subjective topic. I see where it was ALLEGED that LHO killed Kennedy, but not proven. Former agents claim that he didn't do it and offered very reasonable proofs as such. LHO was a registered member with the American Communist Party...and he was heavy into the Cuban Revolution.

John Wilkes Boothe, reasonably assumed (D), killed Lincoln because he was against freeing the slaves. The slaves were black, so, this tells me he actually possessed racist and "some" (R) type qualities and characteristics. Blacks weren't killing and beating whites back then.

By the way, my tone isn't one of anger here, okay. I'm just discussing the facts with you. I enjoy decent, non-aggressive dialogue... unlike others I know. As such, thanks for not name calling and cursing me out without warrant.
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - November 8, 2012, 12:23 pm
I'm not being on the angry end either, and your welcome, it's just that you stated the (R) are the ones as the aggressor and to that I disagree. But you're right it's a ciscussion. As soon as I pull up an article about political assasins, I'll post it.
rdgrnrComment by rdgrnr - November 8, 2012, 12:34 pm
Good Lord, save us from Stupid.
As ridiculous and uninformed and misinformed and uneducated as he sounds, he's an expert on everything.
Just ask him.
Then get ready for a long-winded, gas-bag diatribe of convoluted nonsense in response.
He comes here to drone on and on about nothing because people probably run when they see him coming in person.
Hey, Lonely Loser, do people look at their watches a lot when you're talking?
sully16Comment by sully16 - November 8, 2012, 1:42 pm
Dr. King was a Republican, As I work in a store, I will keep everyone posted when rules and regulations start to change, as the news media will certainly keep that mum.
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - November 8, 2012, 3:15 pm
This is being shown not as a tool for hatred but rather a tool to inform::>>
Left Wing Assassins
Reprinted with permission from: ModernConservative.com

Guns don't kill presidents, Democrats do.

Politically motivated presidential assassinations come from only one side of the political spectrum.

By Christopher Cook

Sara Jane Moore, who attempted to assassinate President Ford, has been released from prison.

The caption under her photo reads...

"Sara Jane Moore, shown here in a photo from 1975, said she was blinded by her radical political views at the time, convinced that the government had declared war on the left."

We have been pointing out for a long time that political violence is part of the left's stock and trade, and that political violence perpetrated by Republicans is almost non-existent.**

With that in mind, the news of Sara Jane Moore's release—and a recognition of her motive and political identity—got me to thinking. Of our list of presidential assassins and would-be assassins, what were their political persuasions and motivations?

In the interests of time, I have chosen to use Wikipedia as my first source. Wikipedia has a few problems with both bias and reliability, but if you know how to navigate and use their list of citiations, you can usually get relatively decent information.

So let's just proceed down the list together. I am doing this as I write, so I do not know what the final results will be. Let's get started.


President: Abraham Lincoln (R)
Assassin: John Wilkes Booth
Political identity and motive:
Booth was a Democrat, angry that Lincoln had freed the slaves and preserved the Union.

President: James A. Garfield (R)
Assassin: Charles J. Guiteau
Political identity and motive:
Guiteau was frustrated that he did not receive a political appointment in the Garfield administration, and he believed "that God had commanded him to kill the ungrateful President." Since we can assume that God did not, in fact, command him in this way, we must deem Guiteau mentally unstable.

President: William McKinley (R)
Assassin: Leon Czolgosz
Political identity and motive:
Czolgosz was an anarchist who believed that "there was a great injustice in American society, an inequality which allowed the wealthy to enrich themselves by exploiting the poor," and that he had to do something about it. Mimicking the assassination of King Umberto I of Italy, done for similar reasons, he shot and killed McKinley. Oddly, Czolgosz had earlier voted Republican, but the assassination motive was clearly as described above.

President: John F. Kennedy (D)
Assassin: Lee Harvey Oswald
Political identity and motive:
Defector to the USSR. Earlier attempted to kill General Edwin Walker, who was "an outspoken anti-communist, segregationist and member of the John Birch Society." Controversy about the assassination continues to persist, and Oswald was killed before any real digging could be done, so we are primarily left with his identity (as a defector to the USSR) as the prime indicator.


President: Andrew Jackson (D)
Would-be assassin: Richard Lawrence
Political identity and motive:
Lawrence was mentally ill, suffering from polymorphous delusions.

President: Theodore Roosevelt (R and Bull Moose)
Would-be assassin: John F. Schrank
Political identity and motive:
Schrank was mentally ill; he claimed "that it was the ghost of William McKinley that told him to perform the act."

President: Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
Would-be assassin: Giuseppe Zangara
Political identity and motive:
"In the Dade County Courthouse jail, Zangara confessed and stated: 'I have the gun in my hand. I kill kings and presidents first and next all capitalists.'" From Zangara's own words, much can be taken. However, he may also have been mentally ill. (Perhaps anyone who wants to kill a president is a touch deranged.)

President: Harry S Truman (D)
Would-be assassin: Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola
Political identity and motive:
Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola were members of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party. Puerto Rican Nationalists, represented by Marxist terrorist groups such as FALN, who were responsible for scores of bombings in the U.S.; they were arguably the most active terrorist group in U.S. history. (Interesting side notes: President Carter freed Collazo in 1979, and President Clinton pardoned several FALN terrorists. Il n'y a aucun ennemi du cote gauche?)

President: John F. Kennedy (D)
Would-be assassin: Richard Paul Pavlick
Political identity and motive:
Pavlick was anti-Catholic, and he was also upset by "the close 1960 U.S. Presidential election, in which Kennedy had defeated Republican Richard Nixon by 118,000 votes." However, "Judge Emmet C. Choate ruled that Pavlick was unable to distinguish between right and wrong in his actions." He was kept in a mental hospital for three years. Will this be the closest we get....?

President: Richard M. Nixon (R)
Would-be assassin: Arthur Bremer
Political identity and motive:
Bremer is an interesting case, one that would require more research than we're doing in this admittedly surface analysis. He hated Nixon, but apparently, he also hated segregation and bigotry, and he did shoot Democratic candidate George Wallace. He also clearly had mental instability. Why did he hate Nixon, and also Wallace? He stated "It is my personal plan to assassinate by pistol either Richard Nixon or George Wallace," and that his purpose was "to do SOMETHING BOLD AND DRAMATIC, FORCEFUL & DYNAMIC, A STATEMENT of my manhood for the world to see." These are deep waters, and we'll have to give this one a pass for now.

President: Richard M. Nixon (R)
Would-be assassin: Samuel Byck
Political identity and motive:
Byck "began to harbor the belief that the government was conspiring to oppress the poor." He attempted to join the Black Panthers. However, he was also "diagnosed with manic depression, a mental disorder characterized by both depressive 'lows' and (less frequently) manic or euphoric 'highs.'" He had left-wing motives, but he was also mentally unstable.

President: Gerald R. Ford (R)
Would-be assassin: Lynette Fromme
Political identity and motive:
Insane member of the insane Manson Family.

President: Gerald R. Ford (R)
Would-be assassin: Sara Jane Moore
Political identity and motive:
Revolutionary leftist political activist.

President: James E. Carter (D)
Would-be assassin: Raymond Lee Harvey
Political identity and motive:
Harvey was possibly mentally ill, but also, charges were dismissed for lack of evidence. This one doesn't count.

President: Ronald Reagan (R)
Would-be assassin: John Hinckley, Jr.
Political identity and motive:
Mentally ill, no apparent political motive (despite some absurd references to his connections to the Bush family).

President: George H.W. Bush (R)
Would-be assassin: Operation of sixteen men working for Saddam Hussein's Iraq
Political identity and motive:
Geopolitical attack/act of war.

President: Bill Clinton (D)
Would-be assassin: Francisco Martin Duran
Political identity and motive:
From Wikipedia:
"Duran pleaded not gui
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - November 8, 2012, 3:18 pm
This is the other portion of the article, it was too long to put in one blog space.
"Duran pleaded not guilty and mounted an insanity defense, claiming that he was trying to save the world by destroying an alien 'mist,' connected by an umbilical cord to an alien in the Colorado mountains. He also claimed to be incited by conservative talk show host Chuck Baker, who spoke on air about 'armed revolution' and 'cleansing' of the government.

In both cases, these are claims made by Duran. We would need more external information to make a judgment.

President: George W. Bush (R)
Would-be assassin: Vladimir Arutyunian
Political identity and motive:
Georgian national who threw a grenade towards President Bush. Not quite sure yet what his motivation was. Pass for now.


Clearly mentally ill (5)

Hinckley, Jr.

Anti-catholic (and possible Republican) motivation, coupled with mental illness (1):


Left-wing motivations, coupled with mental illness (1):


Unclear/more info required/weak evidence--pass (4):


Left-leaning political motivation (7):


Remove the people who are clearly mentally ill, to leave the people who had a political motivation. That gives us an eight (left) to one (right) ratio of political motivations behind presidential assassinations and attempts.

To be fair to the two among that number who also suffered from some mental illness, one from the left and one from the right, we can remove both of them from the figures.

That leaves us with the following:

Of the successful and attempted assassinations of U.S. presidents where there was a political motivation and no blatant mental illness, the political motivation behind the act was left-leaning 100% of the time.

We will grant that this is a somewhat surface analysis, and that detailed research and nuanced analysis may produce slightly different results. But still, don't you find the conclusion of even this surface analysis somewhat striking? It's 100%, after all.

Are you surprised by this result? I'm not. I did not know exactly what the results would be when I began, but knowing the left as I do, I knew it would lean in this direction. That it turned out to be (essentially) 100% is also not a surprise, though it does serve further to reinforce this grim understanding.

You will know them by their fruits.

**This may appear at first glance to be an unequal comparison—the "left" vs. "Republicans." It is not, for you must understand that Democrats are well represented among the left's perpetrators of violence, both historically and in the present day. It's not just a fringe phenomenon. Mainstream people are among the perps. Congressmen. Union members. It's a very old tradition for the Democrats, going all the way back to the terrorist wing of their party, the KKK. But it's also occurring today, in modern times, as you can read here, here, and here. And, if you would like a far more detailed exploration, read the impassioned article I wrote when I first began to really discover this phenomenon: Democrats are more violent. In fact, there's no comparison.

Democrats have hated and been violent towards Republicans since Pennsylvania went for Lincoln, and there's no sign of it abating any time soon.

Lucky LoserComment by Lucky Loser - November 8, 2012, 4:51 pm

I'll take a good look at it...and thanks. However, I see no objections to what you've posted here and how long it is. But, because I decide to be detailed with my post, I'm all but being castrated. LOL! Anyhow, can you give me a solid reason WHY (D) have been violent towards (R) ?

I mean, people don't just hate out of the blue for no reason, MADDOG. Take little kids at the playground for instance... they know no hate unless they're taught it, or, mistreated correct? Otherwise, they all just want to play. I'm sure we can agree and disagree together on lots of this. For every single cause there's a correlated effect. Hate and violence came from somewhere...
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - November 8, 2012, 5:48 pm
Thats something I really couldn't answer, as to why the (D) have been violent towards (R). But I can say this much Their is to much hatred being taught at a younger age by parents who IMHO, just don't care enough or are to involved with them suceeding at all cost.
Look at how many parents are atacking coaches in sports, or the parents who are advocating that their son/daughter fight, or get beaten for not doing so.
It reminds of me of a song by Crosby, Stills, & Nash. " Teach your Children well ". If we taught our children better and let go of the hatred that has been instilled upon us, I don't think we'd have to worry to much about future generations of young people.....
Lucky LoserComment by Lucky Loser - November 8, 2012, 6:03 pm
Spoken like a real man with a real brain and thought pattern. Finally, someone that sees and recognizes the trend that's still being forced on some while carried on by others. Very good reply.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.