Posted on 01/08/2013 4:23:24 AM PST by Perseverando
Exclusive: Jerry Robinson says 2013 could be 'devastating'
Is America on the eve of another civil war? That question is being raised by economist, columnist, radio host and international conference speaker Jerry Robinson on his “Follow the Money Weekly.”
He also talks about eight money tips for achieving financial security in 2013.
But in a commentary on his podcast, he notes the situation facing Americans.
“While I expect to have a very profitable year with my investments and businesses, I can’t seem to shake this nagging suspicion that 2013 may also be one of the most devastating years in American history. Sadly, our nation has become a shadow of its former self. In times past, Americans were often admired by other nations for their strange blend of self-reliance and self-sacrifice. Today, however, Americans have become victims of their own success,” he explained.
“In the not-too-distant past, we were a people who made things. We were a nation of producers and relied heavily upon global consumers to purchase our well-made exports. Today, America’s specialty is consumption and our number one export is a worthless piece of paper known as the U.S. dollar.
“What happened to America? How did a nation that was so prosperous and so unique in its approach to government end up completely bankrupt and run by tyrants?”
He said there are several identifiable issues, including those “power-hungry warring political factions.”
“After all, politicians have always believed that the only thing wrong with the world is that they are not running it,” he said.
He also addresses the issue of financial security during 2013.
He shares the eight powerful money tips that he has used successfully in his own life.
They include:
Commit yourself to financial education Create a charitable giving plan Begin a systematic savings plan
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It should more aptly be called the war to restore the republic which is what it will really be. The catalyst will just be the fight for guns.
Yes, Rush assured us that all the polls (except Gallup) that showed Romney would lose were rigged and he would win a landslide, so ‘massive voter fraud’ is the only possible explanation.
“The enthusiasm that got people out in 2010, I'm seeing at every Mitt Romney rally. Romney's drawing crowds of 20,000, 25,000, 30,000, 15,000. “The enthusiasm that we all saw in 2010 is there. The same issues that existed in 2010 exist today. There hasn't been anything that's gotten better.”
Rush: Everything But Polls Say Romney Landslide (Newmax Monday, 05 Nov 2012)
Those Dems are all powerful rigging all the polls to be consistent with the electoral results.
Sounds like tin foil hats are our only hope now.
***first there is secession of some red states.***
Why not a secession county by county. Many Blue states are actually red with blue cities dominating the political structure.
How many of us would just love to build a fortification around a blue city to keep the rif-raf in, much like the human body builds a wall around a pustule till the pustule destroys itself.
Let him spin.
IMHO his Presidential ranking is somewhere near the bottom.
No other president has the blood of 600,000 American dead on his hands.
But yet he has his own memorial in DC. Also there have been books that have come out in the last year about him and the civil war. Compared to what we have NOW he is looking better and better by the day.
The link I provided was the only one in his email. I am glad you found it. The pictures alone are worth looking at the original.
Thanks.
LLS
Obviously, your mind is muddled by myth.
Yes, the first definition of Civil War is: "A war between factions or regions of the same country."
But other definitions include: "The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865.
Also called War Between the States."
So let's focus on that first definition, for sake of your confusion.
Do you remember that:
arthurus: "It would be the second "civil war," however, if the revolution were counted as the first one.
That was a war of indigenous people for control and rule of the same system and territory.
The King had more recruits among the colonists than the patriots did."
Sorry, but that is not even close.
First of all:
"At least 25,000 Loyalists fought on the side of the British. Thousands served in the Royal Navy":
The number of patriots who served the American military was 217,000 of whom about 50,000 were killed or wounded.
Bottom line: Revolutionary War Patriots outnumbered Loyalists overall by two or three to one, and served in the US military by more than five Patriots to every one Loyalist.
As for the Revolution being a "Civil War", of course, the Brits considered it that, and would have hung our Founders like common rebels had our guys been defeated.
But the dictionary definition of "Revolution" is replacing the previous government with something radically new and different.
Such decidedly was the case in 1776, but not in 1861.
Rather, secession in 1861 was precisely for the purpose of preserving the Southern Democrats' "peculiar institution" in the face of Northern radical Republican abolitionism.
So the Revolutionary War was a Revolution,
And the Civil War was a, well, Civil War.
There is no reason for the south and the mid and south west to remain tied to the two political factions in Washington DC who take turns controlling the spoils they extort from the productive class at gunpoint, spoils which they waste and spend like monopoly money, while ignoring the will of the people outside of the Beltway who pay taxes.
If the average American taxpayer had any idea of the waste and fraud the apparatchiks in Washington from both parties are involved in, all hell would break loose.
Time is running out for the Washingtonians, the jig will soon be up.
Least we forget, in 1861 the Democrat "takers" were all Southern slave-holders who lived comfortably by lawfully taking the labor of slaves without fair compensation.
In 1861 the "makers", in addition to slaves themselves, were Republican "free labor", who demanded and received fair compensation for their work, and would not accept "takers" moving their slaves into non-slave territories and states.
So the Big Issue in 1861 was how could the Slave Power continue to protect its special privilege to take the labor of slaves.
In 1861 the Slave Power takers decided to secede and declare war on the United States.
The analogy with today (Democrat takers, Republican makers) is direct and simple, only some of the roles have been reversed.
Did you forget that the Battle of San Jacinto (1836) was fought by about 1,000 troops on each side, and a total of three old cannons between them?
The battle lasted all of 18 minutes, and cost the Texas only nine killed.
Victory was quickly won by surprise and courage against a relaxed unprepared enemy.
But any thought of future victories so quick and simple should have been erased by the four years and 600,000 deaths in the Civil War of 1861 - 65.
Bottom line: you are never going to fight your way out of the United States.
Yes, you might lawfully secede, but that would require mutual consent of the other states, which means many years of patient, persistent & frustrating legal efforts.
And if you did ever actually accumulate such political voting power, wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to change those laws you don't like?
Not one Confederate soldier was killed directly by any Union force until after the Confederacy started and formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861), and began sending Confederate forces into every Union state it could reach.
The list of Union states and territories invaded by Confederate armies includes: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
Many of these Confederate forces left trails of destruction that a General Sherman might understand.
Responsibility for those deaths lies with those who first started, then formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
That would be the Slave Power which ruled the Confederacy.
You are confused or poorly informed about the history of the war between the states.
Neither side ever formally declared war on the other.
The secessionist southern states did not declare war on the United States.
The southern states declared their secession from the Union based on their belief that states, which had voluntarily joined the union, had retained the right to separate from the union.
The federal government did not agree that the states had the right to secede from the union and declared the secession to be a rebellion.
The government determined to put the rebellion down by military force rather than resolve their disputes through diplomacy.
But he did not. In fact, he rejected overtures from the south to negotiate.
If Abe Lincoln was the great statesman and president many believe him to be, he would have pursued ways to solve the dispute without the loss of 600,000 killed, 500,000 wounded and the almost complete destruction of the south.
The 600,000 dead was 2% of the entire US population at the time. That would be equivalent to 6,000,000 dead today.
But the war dead and injured are not the full story.
Lincoln approved of U.S. Grant's tactics of loosing the union army on the civilian population of the south to punish the secessionists. Grant openly stated his determination to destroy the south and Lincoln acquiesced. General Sherman was sent out to burn the south to the ground and that is what he did.
The Union army's brutal raping, killing, pillaging, plundering of the southern civilian population, the destruction of the railroads and other infrastructure, and the burning of cities, homes, farms and businesses, even after the south surrendered, is all well documented in the history books.
Not nearly as confused or misinformed as you, FRiend.
Iron Munro: "The secessionist southern states did not declare war on the United States."
Not true.
On May 6, 1861, three weeks after physically starting war at Fort Sumter, the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
Here is the text of the Confederacy's declaration of war.
Iron Munro: "The government determined to put the rebellion down by military force rather than resolve their disputes through diplomacy."
Wrong again.
In his inaugural address (March 4, 1861), President Lincoln announced to the Confederacy that they could not have a war unless they themselves started it, and Lincoln kept to his promise.
So no Confederate soldier was killed directly by any Union force, and no Confederate state was "invaded" by any Union army until after the Confederacy started and formally declared war on the United States.
Iron Munro: "In fact, he [Lincoln] rejected overtures from the south to negotiate."
In fact, Lincoln followed the same policy as his Dough-Faced Democrat predecessor, President James Buchanan.
Neither recognized the legitimacy of the Slave Powers' declarations of secession, neither would "negotiate" with Confederate emissaries, but both were determined to provide the Slave Power with no excuse for starting war.
So, of the dozens and dozens of Federal properties illegally seized by Confederate authorities, Buchanan decided to defend only two: Forts Sumter and Pickens.
After his inauguration on March 4, Lincoln simply followed Buchanan's policies, but immediately learned that Sumter must be resupplied or surrendered.
And Lincoln was willing to surrender Sumter, for the right price, and here was Lincoln's price: the Virginia secession convention must promise not to secede.
Lincoln said, "a fort for a state" was a good deal.
Of course, Virginians' would make no such promise, and so Lincoln decided to resupply Fort Sumter, with food.
But the Confederacy had long prepared for war against Sumter, and took Lincoln's announcement as their excuse to start Civil War, on April 12, 1861.
Even then, Lincoln had no other intention than to recover Federal properties unlawfully seized by secessionists.
But on April 23, within days of seizing Sumter, Jefferson Davis offered military aid to Confederate forces in the Union state of Missouri.
On that same date, US Army officers captured in Texas were treated as POWs.
At this point we should note that, once the Confederacy declared war, on May 6, 1861, any Union citizen who gave "aid and comfort" to the Confederacy met the Constitution's definition of "treason", a law which Lincoln was bound to enforce (Article 3, section 3).
So, as I said, the responsibility for Civil War belongs to those who first started and then formally declared it: Slave Power secessionists.
Lincoln's responsibility was to enforce the Constitution, and defeat declared enemies of the United States.
Iron Munro: "The Union army's brutal raping, killing, pillaging, plundering of the southern civilian population, the destruction of the railroads and other infrastructure, and the burning of cities, homes, farms and businesses, even after the south surrendered, is all well documented in the history books."
In fact, there is virtually no documented record of killing or raping civilians by soldiers of either side, and such deaths as did happen were nearly all accidental.
It's also a fact that when Confederate armies invaded Union states & territories, they often left a trail of destruction and pillaging.
Indeed, some seriously argue: the main reason RE Lee lost at Gettysburg was that his chief eyes & ears, Stuart's cavalry, ran off to pillage the Maryland and Pennsylvania countryside for desperately needed supplies, and was nowhere to be found when Lee needed him most.
I hear you, but the only way for a county to secede would be to break off a group of counties from a state. See the formation of West Virgina as an example: Link here.
Those deaths are the responsibility of the slavers and traitors of the Old South who started that war not the brave men of the Union who saved this country from destruction and millions of black Americans from continued enslavement, sexual assault, and murder.
Combine that with creating a near plurality and soon to be majority of non whites
and the vast cultural divide between these two groups as a rule
and it is a recipe for disaster
I doubt seriously it will be avoided and yes there will be exceptions but alas it will fall to some degree along racial and especially regional lines
that is why they want our guns, not because they hate guns even though they may fear guns
what they both hate and fear is us...with guns
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
