March 2017
« Feb    


These are the contributing authors on this site.

Igor Panarin Predicts Break Up Of The United States

Andrew Osborne recently submitted an article for the Wall Street Journal detailing Igor Panarin, a former KGB operative and dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats. Mr. Panarin has for a decade been predicting the break up of the United States around the year 2010. The reasons for the break up are the same cast of characters that has destroyed countless nations in the past. Moral collapse, economic collapse and racial diversity all plague the United States.

We are a divided country led by unscrupulous politicians who give the health and wealth of the nation little or no consideration. The only common characteristic Republicans and Democrats have is they backstab their supporters and opponents with equally vicious blows. Bush, Greenspan, Dodd, Frank, Schumer, Lott, Frist, Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, Daschle and many others have plowed the ground for a civil war to erupt. It’s been a long time coming. Beginning in the 50’s with the disintegration of our public schools, the 60’s with the disintegration of our immigration policy and border controls, the 70’s with the destruction of our capitalist economy by Nixon and Carter, and now the disintegration of our economy and the dollar. Simply put the politicians forgot who they worked for and pursued their own=2 0self interest. The founding fathers were mostly Libertarian for a reason. They had been through the dictators and theft by the powerful from the masses. With 44% of our money going to the government this lesson is repeated today. This was the lesson our leaders long ago lived and learned by in creating our country. Libertarian government works and the rest leed to legalized theft and tyranny.

To quote Mr. Panarin, “There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur,” he says. “One could rejoice in that process,” he adds, poker-faced. “But if we’re talking reasonably, it’s not the best scenario — for Russia.” Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

For those to point to Mr. Panarin as a crack pot he astutely points out French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union — 15 years beforehand. “When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him,” says Prof. Panarin.

The method of succession chosen this time will not be as dramatic as Fort Sumter back in 1860. The states will simply fail to require its citizens and businesses to pay Washington taxes. Starve the beast. A fairly simple non violent form of succession.

Here is a map of the divided United States predicted by Mr. Panarin.

Will this come about? History shows different languages, racial and ethnic groups and values split countries. Czechoslovakia broke up peacefully into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The USSR broke into 15 countries, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. The Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungry Empire and Rome. all broke apart The list is as long as recorded history. Why would we think we are any different? Who wants to live with people they share no values with or attraction to? We fight to have a place where we can live in peace not tyranny.

I must strenuously disagree with Mr. Panarin about the possible future composition of the divided United States. I am assuming a couple of things. First the governors involved will be intelligent enough to realize the need to maintain the military and its readiness. Second the basic attitudes of the indigenous people will be reflected in their leadership to some extent.

Strategically and militarily the best make up of a new country would be Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas , Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, the southern part of Virginia, Colorado. Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, the southern portion of Illinois, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Upper Michigan, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Utah and Alaska. This would ensure access to the Pacific and Atlantic waters, nuclear arsenals and enough population to support the military financially. There are three types of nuclear forces, land, sea and air. The central states control two of the three. Extremely important militarily.

Letting Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland and the District of Columbia free to pursue draconian tax and society control policies would be a blessing for the newly separated country. Similarly letting Washington State, Oregon and California pursue their dreams would only strengthen the new country.

I do not fear a government with a constitution that states the principal of the founding fathers. Freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Strict limits on taxation and federal control should ring throughout the new constitution. Limit the new federal government to the military and the courts. Let the states social engineer. The break up of the United States is inevitable. We are too diverse and divided. Let’s do this in a civil manner like Czechoslovakia did in 1993. We can split the debt and live in peace. People can=2 0pursue and live under they type of government they wish to. The United States has been gutted like a pig and ripped off by the politicians once to many times. Kill the beast and be done with it.


Thank heaven we still have friends to the USA who see things clearly and have the guts to present them in print.



Maybe because the media is no longer friend to America?

‘A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.’Thomas Jefferson

Alan Greenspan and the Crash

Alan Greenspan was from 1987 to 2006 the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States. Basically he set Federal Reserve interest rates, performed oversight on the Federal Open Market committee (FOMC) and set reserve requirements for banks. The first function grabs all the headlines in the press. And deservedly so since this operation affects home loans, credit card rates and what banks can borrow from other banks. But it was the second function that created as much of the financial mess as the first one. But let’s start off with the first function specifically the federal funds (FF) rate.

Alan Greenspan did an incredible job for many years. Many economists were in awe of his ability to anticipate 3 months to a year down the road what the economy would be doing. This is referred to as “lag” effect on the economy. Simply put what Mr. Greenspan did in March would not have an effect for months. It takes a real master and a little luck to get monetary policy right looking so far in the future but give Mr. Greenspan credit. He did it for years under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton.

In 1987 when Black Monday occurred and the stock market crashed 22% (the equivalent of a 3,000 point drop in the 2008 market) Mr. Greenspan was masterful in restoring confidence in markets. The Federal Reserve pumped money into the markets and restored confidence. By the end of the year the stock market was in the black by going from 1.897 in January to 1,939 in December. A textbook example of how to handle a crash. Alan Greenspan’s reputation as the master of the Federal Reserve was born.

So what happened under Bush II? A good insight comes from following Mr. Greenspan’s corrections of the FF rate.

In 1987 the FF rate was 6% to 7.3%. Played like a master through the crash. 1989 as the Savings and Loan debacle was coming unhinged Greenspan raised the rate to 9.8%. A master stroke that caused a lot of silly loans that would have been made to become expensive even to the most blinded speculators. Now keep in mind the Savings and Loan disaster didn’t play itself out fully until 1990-91. Mr. Greenspan was ahead of the curve, saw what was coming and reacted properly. He made money more expensive for speculators saving the America public billions of dollars in bail out money. A masterful job of running the Federal Reserve.

As Mr. Greenspan saw the negative impact of the Savings and Loan disaster on the economy and the slowdown in economic activity he dropped the FF rate to 4.49%. Once again brilliant use of monetary policy. Everyone with inside business knowledge griped here and there but there was no disputing Mr. Greenspan was keenly aware of what was going on in the economy and was moving monetary policy in the right direction.

In the early 90’s as the economy tanked and Clinton came to power and raised taxes. The FF rate was lowered to 2.91%. As the 90’s went on Clinton cut capital gains taxes and signed the NAFTA free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico the economy began to heat up again. The FF rate climbed to 4.5% to 5.5%. Steady and calm as it should be for a steady and calm economic growth period. Well done, we all enjoyed the 90’s.

As the 90’s closed and the Internet stock exploded and went crazy huge amounts of wealth were being created. Mr. Greenspan gave his famous speech in 1996 about the stock market and irrational exuberance.

Mr. Greenspan 12-05-1996 “Clearly, sustained low inflation implies less uncertainty about the future, and lower risk premiums imply higher prices of stocks and other earning assets. We can see that in the inverse relationship exhibited by price/earnings ratios and the rate of inflation in the past. But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?”

Clearly Mr. Greenspan was way ahead of the curve since the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) didn’t crash until April 2000. And as this new wealth flooded Americas markets creating the specter of overpriced assets and inflation what did Mr. Greenspan do? Raised the FF rate to 6.85% putting a damper on inflation. Brilliant once again.

So what happened under Bush II? As money came into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac flooding the home mortgage markets Mr. Greenspan didn’t notice? No! Mr. Greenspan did notice. He is recorded several times warning congress that more oversight and tighter financial restrictions need to be placed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Every chance he got from 2003 he mentioned the for coming crisis to congress until he retired in 2006. He was not ignorant. He just failed to act.

Why? Only Mr. Greenspan knows. What we do know is by 2002 the FF rate was 1.23%. Justifiable since the economy was recovering from 9-11 and a recession. As the sub prime loans began to dominate the markets starting in 2003 driving up real estate cost faster than inflation what happened? Mr. Greenspan LOWERED the rate to .97%. The exact opposite of his earlier actions under similar circumstances. The FF rate stayed at 1% through much of 2004 as foreign funds flooded US market in search of stable sure returns and sheer speculation. In essence Mr. Greenspan opened the floodgates of plentiful cheap money. Why?

Was he a saboteur? Did he want democrats to gain power? A financial collapse so well timed for the 2008 election certainly would not be beyond the capabilities of Mr. Greenspan and others with access to trillions in funds. We will never know the story for years but what is certain is Mr. Greenspan had a history of doing the right thing and he went against everything he had accomplished in the past to facilitate the destruction of the economy.

Eventually the FF rate was raised to 5.27% in 2007 as the housing markets were crashing all around everyone. The opposite of what should have happened. This intentional or unintentional destruction of markets by the Federal Reserve and it’s manipulation of interest rates is a text book example of why many economist think this power should be taken away from the Federal Reserve. Many economist feel interest rates should be set by market forces alone. Currently the FF rate is 0.13%. Yes 0.13%. The Federal Reserve is scrambling to restore credibility and facilitate money growth. Similar to closing the barn door after the horses have all escaped.

The FOMC actions are more complex but basically Mr. Greenspan was increasing money stock (MZM) during this period of 2003 to 2006. This while foreign investment was flooding our markets. Mr. Greenspan should have been stabilizing or even shrinking the money sock by selling treasury bonds and taking the money off the market and into the treasury. Coupled with raising interest rates and the housing bubble would have at the very least been mitigated if not eradicated.

Now the Federal Reserve is increasing stocks of money faster than ever. What is the next housing bubble? Most likely our currency. Our monetary base has gone up from $824 billion to $1,435 billion in 2008! Normally this change is from 0% to at the most 15% from year to year. This year it has grown an astonishing 80%! We are in very serious times.

If the congress fails to cut taxes or better yet scrap the current tax code and adopt the fair tax we will have a dollar collapse similar to third world countries like Argentina, Venezuela and the former USSR. Congress needs to cut taxes now; Congress needs to take away the power of the Federal Reserve to set interest rates. The Federal Reserve needs to quit increasing the money supply. Congress needs to quit baling out everyone. But none of this will happen. When it all collapses we will once again need to rely on each other to get through this. As we have for centuries.

History repeats itself. I wrote about him in my first post on this web site. And here is more evidence of Keynesian economics and the democrats seizing power for the foreseeable future. Another example of the people having their trust betrayed by selfish and political motives. Mr. Greenspan will go down as one of the worst Federal Charimans along with Eugene I. Meyer (September 16, 1930 – May 10, 1933), Eugene R. Black (May 19, 1933 – August 15, 1934), Marriner S. Eccles¹ (November 15, 1934 – February 3, 1948).

Rezko attorney ‘owns’ Obama mansion?

Apparently the public expecting the President of the USA to be honest, moral and ethical is to much to ask these days. This continued discovery and reporting of some unethical deal regarding Barack Obama is getting old. Unfortunatly it now looks like this will be an ongoing occurrence for some time to come. I have to wonder just how long Obama can dodge the issues that face him expecting the majority who elected him are not smart enough to put 2 and 2 together.

It appears those who HOPED for change in Washington have been “DUPPED AGAIN” … only this time we are going to get shafted Chicago style.

Lawyer at firm where Democrat worked receives tax bill.

Posted: December 25, 2008
11:40 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An attorney for convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko is listed as the owner and taxpayer for Barack Obama’s Chicago mansion, according to records obtained by WND.

William Miceli is a lawyer at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which also formerly employed Obama.

The controversy began when a website called News and Commentary for Thinking People published a 48-page document that lists Miceli as the owner of the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood.

Miner, Barnhill & Galland was Obama’s employer when he did extensive legal work for Rezko, who awaits sentencing after he was convicted in June of fraud, money laundering and bribery-related counts.

Miceli, as a senior attorney at the firm, supervised Obama when the future president wrote letters on behalf of Rezko urging public authorities to award him new public properties to rehabilitate, notes the “Barack Book” website maintained by

WND asked for comment from Obama’s transition team and the Democratic National Committee but did not receive a response.

The rest of the story

Is the war in Iraq worth it?

I have to tell you I get a little frayed around the edges when I hear people leap on their soapbox and rail against the war in Iraq.

There are those ever screaming about NO WMD … I say who cares?
Here is my problem with a big percentage of these people … had the Democrats been in office and pulled the same stunt everyone would have been waving flags shouting yippee.

Well of course every card carrying anti-war protester is going to scream “WOULD NOT !” … that would define them as hypocrite … RIGHT?
Damn straight !

I recall the same conversation only in reverse when Clinton pulled his diversion escapade in Bosnia.

Do we forget that Clinton’s ill-conceived decision to prod NATO into bombing Yugoslavia in March 1999 wreaked havoc? The hundreds of thousands of refugees, the civilians killed by NATO bombs, the U.S. soldiers captured, the solidification of domestic support for Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, the dangerous chill in U.S.-Russian relations-all those things come to pass when Clinton made his fateful decision.

I hardly heard a negative boo from the anti-war crowds. Why?
Because it was their guy yelling the war cry.
Hypocrites or ill informed? Maybe both?

Who do you believe about Iraq?
They are worse off since we put our troops there?
Seeing Iraqi’s free today (free to lob a shoe at our president and remain with head) seems common logic that indeed they are … so why the bad rap against the war?
Where do these people come up with the information they spout?
Most of those spouting are sitting home in some dark corner with laptop keyboards under fevered fingers typing away. Then the news media (who no longer does their own footwork) taps into the blogosphere for the nightly news.

To make the situation worse the general population tunes in and BELIEVES them.
Does that define dumbed-down in a different way?

Not long ago I heard someone rapping on about the people of Iraq hating us. I asked “how do YOU know that”? “Have you actually gone to Iraq and interviewed any of these haters”? Of course the answer was no and the other anti-war factions propaganda was the base of his ill will.

Since I knew a number of people serving in Iraq (National Guard) as well as a few civilian workers there helping to rebuild … all having a totally different perspective of what the grassroot Iraqis thinks of the USA. It gave me pause to reflect on who was right?

I opted for those on the ground with real life experience.
Somehow I do not expect people in the thick of things to make that stuff up.

The guy in some dark corner hammering away on his laptop? … lacks creds for me … sorry.
I guess its up to you on who you choose to believe.

Check out another perspective on the standing of the USA in the eyes of others.