Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Financial Terrorism, the 2008 Crash, and the Coming Chaos‏

I finished Kevin Freeman's Secret Weapon a couple weeks ago.  I highly recommend it if you're interested in knowing what really happened in 2008 and how the same folks are setting us up for an even bigger attack later this year soon.  The short version: the 2008 crash was a coordinated financial attack on the United States by foreign enemies.

First things first, everything we know about the 2008 crash is still true; it's just that the collapse of the housing bubble didn't cause the crash, the bubble bursting merely left us vulnerable to an attack from foreigners.  Essentially, our government forced our banks to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back, then dumped those loans into Fannie and Freddie, which then left all sorts of folks over leveraged when the you know what hit the fan.  That's when the foreign involvement comes in.

The Cliff's notes version follows: using Naked Short Selling (short selling without ever borrowing, let alone Owning, the underlying asset), Credit Default Swaps, and the Wall Street herd mentality/group think foreign entities launched bear raids (spreading rumors to undermine confidence in a company) to attack first Bear Stearns, then Fannie and Freddie, then Lehman in order to collapse the U.S. Stock Market and Economy.

To put it mildly, they succeeded.

This leaves some obvious questions, the first one being 'who is they?'  The short version is that we don't know, these financial transactions occur behind a veil of secrecy that us rubes in flyover country aren't supposed to penetrate.  The longer, and probably more accurate, version is that strong circumstantial evidence suggests it was a combination of the ChiComs and various Muzzie groups in the Middle East and Gulf.  It seems safe to guess that the usual suspects between the various Leftist (incl. Putin, the ChiComs, and Soros), Islamist, and Drug Cartel groups worked together in some form.

Next, have we addressed our vulnerabilities since 2008?!?  Good Grief no, we've only made them worse.  Part of the purpose of the 2008 attack was to get the U.S. govt. and Fed to spend massive amounts of money to bail out the various institutions attacked and their various counter parties in order to ruin the balance sheet of the Federal Government and soften the U.S. up for the next attack (which is probably coming this summer).  Think about how much weaker of a position our national balance sheet is in as a result of Obama's spending.  Making matters worse, despite public claims to the contrary, the government has taken ZERO steps to actually fix our underlying vulnerabilities to economic terrorism while it has simultaneously jacked up regulations in just about every other area of the economy.  These jacked up regulations (which, it cannot be emphasized enough, do ZERO to address the underlying causes of the 2008 crash) meanwhile stifle the economic growth that would make another economic terrorist attack at least manageable.

So, what is the next attack?!?  Hard to know for sure in advance, but once Greece inevitably defaults, it will set off a chain reaction of Global Chaos that will provide the perfect backdrop for an invisible attack on the dollar.  The long term objective is to collapse the dollar and replace it as the global reserve currency.

I'll answer questions to the best of my ability, but you're better off just reading the book; you can get through it in about six hours if you're diligent.

I hope this helps.

Update (4/1/2013): Ok, so the crash didn't happen last year; but it's more inevitable than ever.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Why Obama Just Can't Win -- Where Catholics Live, The Electoral College, and Fourth Grade Math

Life is Funny; I was already planning on doing this post today, and this swing-state poll comes out right on time:

Swing states poll: Health care law hurts Obama in 2012

This dovetails nicely with one of the first thoughts I had upon hearing about the Obama Administration's assault on the Catholic Church: "Aren't Catholics Swing Voters in  Swing States?!?"

In short, they are; consider the following data:

(Author's note: I'm calculating a ten percent swing in Obama voting/non-voting Catholics in these examples, but I think it can go MUCH higher)

Colorado (9 Electoral Votes)

Obama 2008 Margin of Victory: 196,658
Total Catholic Population (2006): 666,213
10 % of Catholic Population: 66,621
Obama's Current Job Approval: 40.4%

That Means: In a state where Obama barely has a 40% rating, a ten percent Catholic swing will erase 1/3 of his 2008 margin of victory.

Florida (29 EV)

Obama 2008 Margin of Victory: 204,577
Total Catholic Population (2006): 2,265,450 (Sidenote: And they're Cubans)
10% of Catholic Population: 226,545
Obama's Current Job Approval: 43.6%

That Means: A ten percent Catholic swing more than erases Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory.

Iowa (7 EV)

Obama 2008 Margin of Victory: 140,732
Total Catholic Population (2006): 494,698
10% of Catholic Population: 49,470
Obama's Current Job Approval: 45.9%

That Means: A ten percent Catholic swing erases 35% of Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory.

Michigan (16 EV)

Obama 2008 Margin of Victory: 823,934
Total Catholic Population (2006):  2,064,103
10% of Catholic Population: 206,410
Obama's Current Job Approval: 48.1% (and I don't buy that one)

That means: A ten percent Catholic swing erases nearly 40% of Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory.

(6 EV)

Obama 2008 Margin of Victory: 119,896
Total Catholic Population (2006): 661,300
10% of Catholic Population: 66,130
Obama's Current Job Approval: 41.3%

That means: A ten percent Catholic swing erases 55% of Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory.

New Hampshire (4 EV)

Obama 2008 Margin of Victory: 67,654
Total Catholic Population (2006): 314,471
10% of Catholic Population: 31,447
Obama's Current Job Approval: 38.7% (OUCH!!!)

That means: A ten percent Catholic swing erases 46.4% of Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory.

New Mexico (5 EV)

Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory: 120,938
Total Catholic Population (2006): 494,449
10% of Catholic Population: 49,445
Obama's Current Job Approval: 41.7%

That means: A ten percent Catholic swing erases 40.8% of Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory.

North Carolina (15 EV)

Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory: 13,692 (Yeah, it's THAT small)
Total Catholic Population (2006): 336,738
10% of Catholic Population: 33,674
Obama's Current Job Approval: 43.7%

That means: A ten percent Catholic swing more than erases Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory in the State where the Democrat Party is HOLDING THEIR 2012 CONVENTION!!!

Ohio (18 EV)

Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory: 206,830
Total Catholic Population (2006): 2,128,619
10% of Catholic Population: 212,862
Obama's Current Job Approval: 42.1%

That means: A ten percent Catholic swing more than erases Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory in the #1 swing state in every election.

Pennsylvania (20 EV)

Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory: 605,820
Total Catholic Population (2006): 3.614,694
10% of Catholic Population: 361,469
Obama's Current Job Approval: 45.0%

That means: A ten percent Catholic swing in Rick Santorum's home state erases 59.6% of Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory.

Virginia (13 EV)

Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory: 232,317
Total Catholic Population (2006): 620,399
10% of Catholic Population: 62,040
Obama's Current Job Approval: 44.5%

That means: A ten percent Catholic swing erases 26.7% of Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory in a state that's swung heavily Republican since Obama was immaculated.

Wisconsin (10 EV)

Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory: 412,293
Total Catholic Population (2006): 1,605,955
10% of Catholic Population: 160,595
Obama's Current Job Approval: 47.4%

That means: A ten percent Catholic swing erases 38.9% of Obama's 2008 Margin of Victory in a state where Governor Scott Walker's reforms are working.

I could offer more comment, but these numbers speak for themselves.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

What is 'Don't-Want-Troublism'

Don't-Want-Troublism -- A condition, primarily effecting American Christians and Small Business Owners who, in the face of government assaults on their faith and businesses, refrain from acting in their own defense (to say nothing of going on offense to roll back previous assaults) because they're afraid to start or find politics seedy.

Sunday Afternoon Scriptural Politics - #1

Today we discussed 2nd Samuel Chapter 12 Verse 4:
And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come unto him.
Is it just me, or does that sound like Barack and Michelle Obama?!?

Saturday, February 25, 2012

What really happened to Saddam's WMD's

Looks like they went to Syria:

Big Corporations and Barack Obama's Faux "Centrism"

One of the persistent myths about Barack Obama is that, because he hasn't (yet) destroyed corporate America, and often works with large corporations that that makes him some sort of centrist.  This myth, while absurd, nonetheless has a certain persistent hold on the public and thus needs to be explained.

The most important thing to keep in mind when discussing Barack Obama's Marxism is to understand that Barack Obama is a Marxist from the Saul Alinsky school.  That means Obama's primary goal is to use stealth to corrupt existing institutions and use them to advance his agenda.  As author Richard Poe explains:
Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.
(Sidenote: This is also what Planned Parenthood is doing through the Girl Scouts)

That is why Obama has worked with large corporations as President.  Saul Alinsky taught, and Barack Obama learned, that it was much more effective for Marxists to infiltrate and corrupt existing institutions from within than to fight them openly.  Big Corporations have money and power (for now) that sophisticated Marxists like Alinsky and Obama would rather channel to their own ends than provoke into opposition.  Corporate Welfare has the same effect on the corporate soul as individual welfare has on the individual soul; both end in the government owning said soul.  If you hook them on government now, they'll be too weak to fight you later.

While Barack Obama's 'centrist' patina doesn't fool anyone not looking to be fooled, it does confuse a lot of people.  This helps the Alinksyite Obama, because confusion creates the atmosphere for deception.  As Stanley Kurtz explains in his book Radical in Chief the entire purpose of a community organizer is to use deception to promote Marxism via stealth.  When nominally 'private' corporations align themselves with the political agenda of the government, it allows the government to disguise the source of that agenda to deceive the public.  As Author Yichao Hao explains better than I can:
The fact that Obama has never openly advocated socialist policies and has recently appointed Clinton-era “centrist” bureaucrats to his staff are no reasons to exculpate him from the accusations of socialism. Any intelligent socialist who doesn’t want to end up like perennially irrelevant and invidious Ralph Nader would blend in with the mainstream crowd to produce actual change...Policy-wise, Obama and the 111th “Do-something” Congress has done the most to move the country toward socialism since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society: universal healthcare, one of the largest expansions of government debt in history, the Ted Kennedy National Service Act and numerous others. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein called the 111th Congress the “most ‘do-something’ Congress we’ve seen in 40 years.” A centrist would never have passed so many pieces of legislation; a centrist keeps the status quo (or cooperates with the opposition like Clinton).
 Barack Obama is no 'centrist;' he's an Alinskyite Marxist who uses deception and stealth to corrupt existing institutions from within.

Update: The Poe article linked above also contains this gem from Alinsky himself: "I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday."

Why Obama Just Can't Win -- Electoral College

Obviously, this comes from the RNC, so factor that into your analysis; but the analysis of the state of the Electoral College is SPOT ON:

Friday, February 17, 2012

The Real Difference Between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama

I had a bit of an epiphany this morning; just wanted to write it down.

What, exactly, is the difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?!?

It's actually pretty simple:  Bill Clinton is a corrupt narcissist who wants to loot the Marxist cause for personal gain; Barack Obama is a true-believer in that Marxist Cause.

This leads to wildly different solutions to each: With Bill Clinton, the Presidency was ultimately about Power, Money, and Sex.  Bill Clinton would never act in a way that jeopardized the Presidential "Spoils."  Therefore, traditional politics restrained the worst Marxist impulses of Bill Clinton after the GOP took over Congress in 1994.

With Obama, on the other hand, traditional politics is no restraint, because he doesn't care about staying in office.  He wanted to make his fundamental transformation of America the law of the land; he's done that.  Now, his buddies just have to play defense long enough for the already enacted changes to entrench themselves deep enough in the federal bureaucracy that they're impossible to roll back.  That's why he's more interested in chaos than re-election.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Why Barack Obama Wants Chaos

Barack Obama and the Hard Left are laying a trap for the next President.  Unless the Republican nominee recognizes and prepares for this trap, he risks walking right into it when he assumes office next January.  Barack Obama and the Hard Left are currently sowing chaos that they hope will overwhelm the first year of the next administration in order to entrench the "Fundamental Transformation" he's already got written.

To prepare for this trap, the next President must understand Barack Obama's real agenda.  Barack Obama's actions over the last year reveal a man clearly uninterested in re-election.  For example, Catholics are swing voters in traditional swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida; why would any politician interested in winning an election in those states issue a mandate that offends the deepest moral beliefs of The Catholic Church?!?  Clearly, a politician interested in those states would NEVER take such an action.  Thus, one must conclude Barack Obama is uninterested in re-election.  What, then, is Barack Obama's real agenda?!?

Barack Obama's primary agenda, at this point, is to ensure the legislative changes he has already accomplished go fully into effect.  To secure his fundamental transformation of America, Barack Obama and the Hard Left will sow chaos throughout the United States and the World in 2012.  Expect that chaos to spillover into 2013/14 and the first year of the new administration, regardless of the new President's identity.  Barack Obama and the Hard Left understand that, in American politics, major changes in policy occur almost exclusively in the first year of new Presidential administrations.  Thus, Barack Obama and the Hard Left understand that if the new President spends 2013 reacting to National and Global Chaos, this window for major policy changes can pass without unwinding Obama's previous legislative victories.

Barack Obama's allies in the #Occupy movement have clearly stated their intention to "Recreate [the chaos of 19]68" in 2012.  To understand why recreating 1968 benefits the hard left, one needs to properly understand the events of 1969.  In 1969, Richard Nixon assumed the Presidency following the Biggest Expansion of Government (prior to Obama) in American History.  Nixon's inauguration was followed shortly thereafter by Leftist Campus Takeovers, the Emergence of the Weathermen, Homosexual Attacks on the NYPD, the Manson Murders, and the Marxist-inspired 'Days of Rage.'  Against this backdrop, and a continuing War in Vietnam, conservative efforts to unwind Medicare and the War on Poverty floundered.  From the perspective of the Hard Left, which seeks to expand government and does not particularly care who holds elected office at any given time, 1969 (and Richard Nixon's entire Presidency) was an unqualified victory.

At CPAC 2011, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said the left "need only play good defense.  The federal spending commitments now in place will bring about the leviathan state they have always sought.   The health care travesty now on the books will engulf private markets and produce a single-payer system or its equivalent, and it won?t take long to happen."  Conservatives MUST remember this fact as we move forward into 2012 and beyond.  Between Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Automatic Defense Cuts, Barack Obama's fundamental transformation of America is already law.  During the coming chaos, whether it's in the form of #Occupy Related Violence, Drug Cartel Violence, a shooting war in the Middle East or any other source, the Federal Bureaucracy will continue business as usual.  Under current law, business as usual will entrench Barack Obama's fundamental transformation.  That's one of the reasons we should expect the coming chaos to continue (at least) into 2014 which is, NOT coincidentally, the year Obamacare goes into full effect.

Fortunately, the coming chaos is a surmountable challenge.  The key, for conservatives, is to recognize the coming chaos for what it really is and act accordingly.  That means electing to Congress committed conservatives who will enact conservative legislation NO MATTER WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD.

The coming chaos is deliberate, and Barack Obama and the Hard Left are behind it.  Their goal is to distract and confuse the new administration in 2013 the same way the hard left did to Richard Nixon in 1969.  Forewarned is forearmed and, as long as a conservative Congress is willing to move forward no matter what, they will fail....

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

CPAC Texas Debrief

In case you were unaware, I went to the first annual CPAC Texas this past weekend; these are my takeaways:

1) Tea Party 2.0 -- The 2012 version of the Tea Party might not have the street presence of the 2009/10 version, but it's much better organized, much better focused, and it has a much more realistic picture of how to win elections.  There are more establishment GOPers getting primary challenges across Texas than any point since the GOP became the undisputed majority party with Dubya's election as Governor in 1994.  It's difficult to predict how many will win in 2012, but I can confidently say that by 2014 and 2016 Tea Party 3.0 and 4.0 will control the Republican nominating process in Texas.

2) Ted Cruz -- I had a ten minute conversation with him; Ted gets it.  Ted understands that, no matter what happens at the Presidential level, Congress can drive the agenda so long as the Jim DeMint's et. al. of the U.S. Senate get another 6-7 re-enforcements.  Ted is actually a step ahead of me in terms of understanding how dangerous Obama's czars and commissions really are and the steps needed to unwind and abolish them (defunding and legislative repeal).

3) San Antonio -- This is really a subcategory of Tea Party 2.0, but San Antonio is where you will see the Texas Tea Party flex our muscles in the coming months.  The speaker of the Texas State House, a man named Joe Straus, is an epic level RINO.  Straus is being challenged in the primary by a man named Matt Beebe.  I had a long conversation with Matt on Friday night (at least 45 mins).  Matt's everything we're looking for in a representative.  I personally pleged to Matt that I would knock on at least 200 doors for him before election day.  On the other hand, Straus has never had to run in a contested election, let alone a primary.  The tea party will end Straus' political career.

Where this gets interesting, however, is that Straus' Texas House district has substantial overlap with U.S. Congressman Lamar Smith's district.  Obviously, final U.S. house district lines haven't yet been resolved, but this is an obvious opportunity to take out two birds with one stone.  Lamar Smith, in case you didn't know, voted FOR TARP, voted FOR Obama's debt ceiling increase, and he's the author of SOPA.

4) 2010 election shenanigans in Travis County -- Lloyd Doggett DIDN'T win his last election.  In a normal midterm year, Travis County precincts average 46% turnout.  In 2010, a heavy turnout midterm, they averaged 51%.  Doggett got over the top via 60 precincts in the most heavily Democrat parts of Travis County.  The precinct in which I live allegedly had 95% turnout; since I live there, I can promise you that didn't happen.

5) The utter collapse of the Texas Democrat Party -- There are 150 seats in the Texas State House.  62 didn't have Democrats even FILE.  Ouch.

I hope this helps.