Russian News Media Reports: US Collapse in 2010

Russian Professor Igor Panarin has been predicting for ten years that the US will collapse in 2010, but post-election uncertainty, mixed with general economic uncertainty in the United States has given Prof. Panarin's theory new steam.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

"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."

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

Panarin, an ex-KGB analyst, may be overstating Russia's role in the restructuring of the United States - a sort of ex-Soviet Fantasy...

However, what he has to say is highly intriguing - regarding the collapse of the US... a prediction that has been made here and on many other blogs recently. He states plainly that "mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar". Though he may be wrong about the restructuring, the wheels may be in motion on the structural collapse...

Mass immigration, upwards of 20+ million, has strained the United States economy, and was the cause for much tension throughout the nation within the past three years - including demonstrations in the streets drawing millions of individuals on both sides of the struggle.

The current economic decline has placed a strain on the people of this nation, but the government may not necessarily lose power due to the loss of income - they can create money and perceived wealth. The conflict would arise, economically, if the US is bankrupted by the demand for immediate debt repayment by Saudi's and China, as well as others who hold US Treasury debt. Such an international strain on relations would weaken the US' role in world affairs, and thus weaken the power of the Federal Government - placing an increased focus on regional governments (as indicated by Panarin in his "going gets tough" comment).

The moral degradation serves to weaken the influence politicians have on the people. As their political pull is weakened, they must substitute force - such as authoritarian assaults on civil liberties (i.e. Patriot Act). See recent political scandals from 1960 - current.

Ahead of uncertainty, the US population has armed itself - as reported on this blog - and has begun preparing for self defense from government incursions within the US. Unlike the first US civil war, the second stands to begin not as two opposing governments, but as the government against her people... a true rebellion, if you will. This is, of course, unless Obama can pull off a miracle and calm tensions in the US, and stabilize international affairs that may trigger such pressures from outside. Unfortunately, it looks like Russia is ready to strike while this iron is hot...

What our Russian friend fails to realize is that the collapse of the US would trigger world economic collapse and widespread territory grabs - not just by forces such as Russia and China, but by well armed regional forces within the United States as well. I imagine the following scenario is much more likely than the events of Panarin's proposed outcome:
* The United States Treasury is bankrupted by a Bail-out to several states' governments, but uncertain international economic times stop foreign countries from buying the debt.
* Oil imports to the United States slow to a near halt as Russia, China, and the Middle East form an alliance in the absence of the US' ability to pay it's debt
* The United States makes an appeal to the United Nations for international economic and energy stimulus, which it receives after agreeing to suspend much of the US constitution and become subject to International Law and the International Court. Obama gladly signs the treaty.
* The US Army 1st Infantry Division, currently deployed to Northern Command, is ordered to begin the mandatory collection of civilian armaments. Civilians are instructed to relinquish all weapons to the determined checkpoints within 30 days.
* Texas and other Midwestern/southern states refuse to comply with the Federal Mandate, and fall back on their State Constitutions - they call up their state National Guards to defend State Government institutions as a show of force against Federal Authority. Private Militias are encouraged for regional protection in these areas.
* Internet and telephones lines are cut - eliminating the civilian use of networking and communication
* Other private militias secretly cashe their weapons, as do private citizens in other states. The Black market opens a flood of munitions into the United States.
* Texas secures it's airspace, and ceases or confines all US military bases - taking control of all military equipment. Neighboring states' private militias assist in this effort, causing the US army to establish checkpoints in other regional states, making mass arrests and detention of free citizens now labelled as terrorists. President Obama appeals for UN Peacekeepers to assist in securing the region after first hot combats erupt during struggle for military bases.
* Alaskan forces move to secure the northern oil fields and the southern ports, as well as a troop build-up in the Bering Straight region. Alaska declares independence, taking with it the Canadian Yukon and British Columbia.
* Quebec declares independence from Canada, causing Canada's government to peacefully dissolve.
* Russian forces secure extreme northern lands formerly belonging to Canada - claiming the sparsely populated NW Territories and Nunavet - they are undisputed in these regions, but are unable to effectively advance south or into Alaska.
* The United States suspends the 2010 congressional elections, Obama suspends those portions of the Constitution under Presidential War Powers.
* The UN and NATO send forces into the Northeast to secure international interests
* Russia moves forces into Ukraine and Georgia beginning a new regional conflict
* Obama concedes the loss of Texas and portions of bordering states - opting to isolate and calm tension in the region, but refuses to release the thousands of detained militia fighters, sparking an outrage throughout the nation, and putting into question the security of the world - now entirely at war...

Of course, this is all speculation and the stuff of debates... Are we headed into a civil war / world war... economic crisis is usually a good indicator for such conflicts, so is political uncertainty. We surely have these two throughout the world. I have heard private mumblings of uncertain times - and now there is international question as to the future of the US as a world power...

As a betting man, let's just say that it is my suggestion to keep your powder dry. You may need it soon. Of course, I pray that the government stops its growth, stops its authoritarianism, stops its socialism, and stops its internationalism...

Obama Supports a BAN on Shotguns, Rifles, and a TAX on Ammunition

The NRA is hitting Obama HARD on the second amendment, a hit that Obama is attempting to censor. GunBanObama.com is airing a video citing Obama's background when it comes to hunting, let alone self defense. The video and fact-check is as follows:

*Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03

*Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
Politico, 03/31/08.

*Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04

*Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

*Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05

*Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04

OBAMA is NOT the candidate for more personal freedom!

"Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation's history. That's the truth,” concluded Cox. “NRA-PVF has the facts on our side. No amount of running from or lying about his record and then intimidating news outlets in the hope of deceiving American gun owners and hunters is going to work. Those strong arm tactics may work in Chicago, but not in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not as long as NRA-PVF has anything to say about it."

Additional NRA videos:

Heller Revisited - Under the Obama Court

The year is 2011.

Heller v. DC has long since been decided... Now the Supreme Court is witness to Michelle Obama v. United States - an historic case in which the First Lady of the United States has brought a federal suit against the US "on behalf of the people" to protect us from gun crimes plaguing inner cities and "polluting our society".

The case has been brought before the new faces of the Court.

John Paul Stevens retired after 35 years on the court, replaced by Associate Justice William Jefferson Clinton.

Anthony Kennedy retired after 22 years, leaving the swing vote seat open to replacement by a Ginsburg-esque radical left justice.

Antonin Scalia retired after 25 years, opening the door for the newest face of the court... another Obama appointed Ginsburg-esque justice.

The court is now comprised of 3 Conservative/Orignalist justices and 6 Liberal Marxist justices. The court's structure is the perfect setting for long lasting legacy of the Obama Presidency.

The opinion of the court falls along these lines, 6-3 in favor of Michelle Obama, stating that the intent of the founders was to provide security for the Citizens of the United States, "A security that is provided by the offices of the government and the military established to defend and protect the United States." The opinion further states that "the private ownership of firearms is a direct threat to the stability and security of the United States and the powers inherent to the offices and military of the government." The Liberal controlled Congress and Senate pass sweeping legislation calling for the upholding of the Court's decision, mandating an immediate mass-collection and destruction of all private firearms. The legislation passes into federal law after President Barack H. Obama signs the bill, with his proud wife standing immediately to his left.

On the streets of America, private citizens are instantly labelled as criminals. Scenes of violence erupt across the nation as police efforts to confiscate weapons are met with resistance. States are forced to mobilize the national guard to aid in the efforts of disarming the populace.

As the resistance in America is crushed, the federal government, under Obama, announces a success in unifying the people of America in a crime free society.

*****
Of course, this is a fictional scene, but one that is eerily possible under a Socialist minded Marxist like Barack Obama. Barack Obama will be a political power for the state, over the individual... which is touted on his website: My.BarackObama.com.

This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virtually no chance they will be elected on a National level.

Hat tip to The Rocky Mountain Right for the link to the Obama Page and the quote from the page.

Never before has a Leftist been so close to victory in American Executive Politics... There have been many Democrats or Center-Left leaders, like Bill Clinton, but Obama promises to lead this country with a Socialist fist... Some would classify this as hype or panic... I would suggest it is a prognostication of things to come under a Marxist leader in America - The end of Liberty... Change, indeed!

Breaking News – 2nd Amendment Upheld by Supreme Court

The first ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the right for private citizens to own weapons was handed down today, marking a turning point in the NRA’s struggle. The question was always whether the amendment was intended to be defined as the State having rights to train a militia and keep arms on their behalf, or if the citizens armed are the militia, and their private use and knowledge of the weapons served to better the protection of the state and the self.

The ruling was 5-4, along “party” lines, that the amendment should be understood that it is the right of a private citizen to own a weapon, and that laws to that effect cannot infringe on their ownership or assembly status.

The NRA finally gets a win. Fox News suggests that the NRA will now bring suits against other large cities that have a ban on hand-guns as well. This is a great day for the personal responsibility and liberty of a free society and free man (or woman).

The opinion of the court reads, in part, {The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” }

It continues with a very well written opinion breaking apart the language, and how it is used throughout the rest of the document, in an attempt to fully define and interpret this Right accurately:

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” - a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural), implying a right of an individual, not the right of a plural state militia.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

There could not be a more historic event regarding personal freedoms from the government. The court, which I am often critical of, has made the correct decision today, fully understanding that there is a separation from what was being created to what was being agreed to… that the creation of this union was not intended to infringe on rights that free men already had in existence.

Let me state clearly, that through all the doom and gloom I hear about this country, moments like this are a shining beacon of hope… there is still hope in my heart that this country will remain a country of freedom and liberty.

Shall Not Be Infringed...

Thanks to the DC gun ban, and the lawsuit by a local DC police officer, the Supreme Court is hearing a case on Gun Rights for the first time in 70 years. A circuit court ruling 2-1 decided that the gun ban was unconstitutional, and that individuals had the right to own personal guns for self defense.

The issue, which is a staple of the conservative base, revolves around the intent of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Fox News reports the two sides of the argument being brought before the court. The DC government ‘s first argument is that the amendment applies to the militia (i.e. National Guard and Army) to have guns. Secondly, DC claims that the amendment does not apply to the district, as it is a special federally controlled haven of the government (a strange argument for a government looking for equal representation in congress). Finally, the DC government claims that this is a reasonable ban used in protecting the DC citizens from violence (looks like it has worked! I can’t think of one person that equates DC with Crime!)

The opposition claims, of course, that the 2nd amendment is very specific about guaranteeing an individual the right to keep and bear arms, and that the DC ban is a “draconian infringement” of our rights.

Heller’s lawyers also present its Founders-era evidence by quoting from George Mason, Blackstone and Madison. They also quote lawyer John Adams during his successful defense of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.
In that trial Adams conceded that “here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time for their defense, not for offense."

This is going to come down to the intent of the amendment. What did the founders intend by placing those 27 words into our constitution? What purpose could those words serve for future generations?

Let’s take a look at the words, and identify with the founders… what experiences had they lived that would move them to include such a statement?

Definition of MILITIA: The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service

The founders had just fought and won a war against the largest army and Navy in the world, with little more than farmers and family men with a want to be free. Had these men not owned their own hunting rifles, or been trained in how to use them, there would be no USA. The militia is a band of ordinary citizens versed in defense.

“A well-regulated militia” refers to the ability to call on the citizens of a country to stand in defense with little training in order to face foes the likes of the British regular army.

“being necessary to the security of a free state” – it is the people of a society which are it’s very defense. The security lies in the necessity of ability to defend… and without this ability, the freedoms so valiantly fought for will be succumbed.

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms” – the two most important words are in this clause: right, and people. “Right” indicates that the words of this amendment are equal to those rights endowed by our creator, as described in the Declaration of Independence, which states that “among which are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness”… of course the founders were bright enough to say “among which”, which meant that further rights were yet to be defined that were also Divinely Endowed. And the word “People” is equally important. They did not say that it is the right of the government to issue arms, rather the right of the people to keep their own arms outside of a government armory. These would be their personal arms, well known to the individual, and able to sue in times of necessary defense of their personal property… be it from a tyrannical government or in simple defense of their personal property.

“shall not be infringed” – the meaning of this line is self evident… it was stated very clearly and bluntly… “No Trespassing” on our afore mentioned rights.

So according to my most accurate interpretation of the amendment, it would read (in layman’s terms): For the protection of our God Given and Earned Rights, a trained and knowledgeable citizenry is necessary. There is no better way to ensure that the United States will always have a citizenry ready to defend than to ensure that the people are always armed and well versed in their personal firearms. This is a right that a government of, by, and for the people shall never take away.

The court is expected to have a ruling on this case by June. I expect that a court truly in understanding of the intent of the people who founded this country will vote unanimously against any bans on firearms by the government. Unfortunately we have a court full of very liberal activists, willing and waiting to strip the people of their Endowed rights. Luckily we have a slim conservative majority, so we can expect a 5-4 ruling in favor of freedom. And this is exactly why we must not allow Hillary or Obama to select our next judges… the very interpretation of our Liberty is at stake.

The Importance of Gun Ownership

When I mention the word TYRANNY, what does it make you think of? Perhaps you are reminded of the American Revolution, fighting against King George... or perhaps you think of our current involvement in Iraq, in which we are fighting the totalitarianism of islamofascism.

But what if I told you that our very own government is guilty of tyrant-esque behaviors?

Consider New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Law abiding gun-owners, lawfully carrying personal protection were subdued and had their fire arms unlawfully confiscated. That is right... if you choose to defend yourself, the government is guilty of taking away your endowed right of liberty.

And it is bound to happen nation wide unless we send a clear message to our elected representatives that gun ownership is not about hunting or sport, but about maintaining liberty!

Consider that the American Revolution could not have happened without an armed citizenry... In fact the Continental Army was made up of farmers using their own arms.

And consider that the founding documents were written with this very fact in mind, that a well armed citizenry is the only defense against tyranny, protecting our liberties, and defending ourselves against our own government!

And now consider the following two videos:





With conservatives who think like this, who needs liberals?

Implementing a nationwide gun ban, or gun confiscation is nothing less than a Casus belli for Revolution against a Tyrannical US Government. What is the last straw? This is... taking away my RIGHT to liberty... one of the three rights endowed by my Creator.

I hold the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution, because the Declaration of Independence establishes the rule of law as the continuation of our rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness... The Constitution merely sets up a government to protect the rule of law and outlines how the government can protect, but not infringe on our liberties!

We are now in a place where we fear our government... wire taps, spying internally, creation of the North American Union, and now the confiscation of our last means with which to protect ourselves.

I have five words for you:

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS