Scott to Replace Demint in the Senate as Hawaii Seeks to Replace Inouye

Senator-elect Tim Scott

After two weeks of speculation about who will replace Jim DeMint in the U.S. Senate, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley made it official and appointed second term Congressman Tim Scott to fill out the remainder of Senator DeMint’s term. (See video below)

In an overwhelming show of unity and support for her decision, the appointment was made by Governor Haley during a late Monday morning press conference where she, Tim Scott, and Jim DeMint were joined by several Republican members of the South Carolina Republican congressional delegation, and senior South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham.

With praise from all, the decision to have Tim Scott fill out the remaining two years of DeMint’s term was celebrated as one which help ensure that South Carolinians continue to be represented by the same type of conservative values championed by Jim DeMint, who has been considered the most conservative member of both houses of Congress. But filling DeMint’s shoes will not be much of a challenge for Tim Scott who in less than two, already established himself a strong conservative voice. In his first term, Scott turned heads as one of the staunchest supporters of South Carolina’s free-rider-anti-union laws and as South Carolina’s Club for Growth’s scorecard gave Scott a B and a score of 80 out of 100, he is praised by the South Carolina Association of Taxpayers, for his “diligent, principled and courageous stands against higher taxes. It well earned praise for his tireless advocacy for smaller government, lower taxes, and restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington.

After winning the general election in 2010, Tim acted upon his desires to regain fiscal sanity in the federal government and to limit its size and scope by acting on such issues with immediately and with urgency. The first bill he authored would defund and deauthorize the President’s health care reform package. e was also named to the influential House Rules Committee, asked to serve as a Deputy Whip and sits as one of two freshmen on the Elected Leadership Committee. Then he confronted our nation’s outdated and cumbersome tax code by sponsoring the Rising Tides Act. That initiative would lower burdensome corporate tax rates that discourage job growth and allow for the permanent repatriation of overseas profits. The latter would encourage American companies to bring home more than $1 trillion dollars that can be used for investment and job creation.

In general, Tim Scott is a consistent voice for significant cuts in federal spending, and staunch opponent of measures he believes do not go far enough. Tim was an original cosponsor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which would do just as it says – cut spending, cap our spending moving forward based on how much we bring in, and add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He also cosponsored two stand-alone bills that would create a Balanced Budget Amendment, and voted against raising our nation’s debt limit.

While Rick Scott is not the only member of Congress who holds such positions, he, like his soon to be predecessor in the Senate, he is one of the few who has been so consistent in those positions. However, while Tim may not be the only member of either house to hold those positions, he is the only African-American in the United States Senate and that distinction will make him a leading voice in the Party, within the conservative movement, and in the nation.

Hiram Revels

Being African-American, Scott will have an incomparable ability to respond to and discount the left’s persistent attempts to paint those who hold his beliefs and political ideology as anti-black. And for a Party that needs desperately to attract Hispanic and African-American voters, the ability to convincingly contradict such mischaracterizations is invaluable. Meanwhile, Scott takes his place in history as only the seventh African-American to serve in the Senate.

Coming before him were Hiram Revels and Blanche K. Bruce, who briefly represented Mississippi during Reconstruction.

Blanche K. Bruce

The The first African American elected to the Senate by popular vote was Edward Brooke of Massachusetts. Brooke served two full terms during which he championed the causes of low-income housing, an increase in minimum wages, and promoted commuter rail and mass transit systems. He also worked tirelessly to promote racial equality in the South.

Following Brooke in the Senate were Carol Mosley Braun and Barack Obama who were both elected from Illinois. Braun was elected in 1992, a year that saw more women than ever before elected to political office. For Braun the distinction was and is that she became the first and only African-American woman ever to serve as U.S. Senator.

Edward Brooke

In 2006, Illinois elected Barack Obama to the Senate and in 2009, after becoming President of the United States, another African-American, Roland Burris was appointed to fill out the remainder of his term.

Scott is expected to be officially sworn in to the Senate on January 3rd, 2013 and he has already committed himself to run for election to a full term in the Senate. That race will take place in 2014.

Another Seat Opens as Daniel Inouye Passes Away

Senator Daniel Inouye

On the same day that one replacement is named to the Senate, another seat became vacant as Democrat Daniel Inouye, the U.S. Senate’s most senior member and a Medal of Honor recipient for his bravery during World War II, died at age 88.

First elected to the Senate in 1962, Inouye’s tenure is second only to Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who died in 2010.

Under Hawaii law, it is required that the appointee be of the same Party as the person they are replacing. As such the state’s Governor, Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, will appoint a Democrats successor to Inouye until a special election can be held. State law also requires that the Governor base his decision on a field of three candidates provided by the state Party. The appointee will then serve until 2014, at which point a special election will determine who serves the final two years of Inouye’s term.

Rep. Colleen Hanabusa

Some of the names being considered for submission to Abercrombie by the Hawaii State Democrat Party include U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, 61, who was just re-elected to her second term the House in, and Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz. Other names include Rep.-elect Tulsi Gabbar, the first Hindu-American elected to Congress and who is set to take office in Januar. Also on the list are former Hawaii governors, Ben Cayetano, 73, and John D. Waihee, 66. Odds are though that Hanabusa will get the nod. She is said to have been Inouye’s preferred candidate to take his place one day, and news reports following Inouye’s death have indicated that the Senator informed Abercrombie that Hanabusa should get his job.

Advertisements

White House 2012 is Now White House 2016 and We’ve Moved to WhiteHouse16.com

Bookmark and Share   With our wounds licked since the victory of President Obama in November, White House 2012 has moved on and is now looking towards the future with White House 2016.

The new home for the old blog is now WhiteHouse16.com.

There you will find a redesigned website with new features such as a White House 2016 chat service that will enable readers to debate among themselves and the contributors to White House 2016.

While White House 2016 will continue to focus on the evolving race for the White House in 2016, we will also continue to bring you news, commentary, and analysis on the important political issues of the day.

White House 2012 has been covering politics from a conservative perspective now for over two years and great success.  We look forward to continuing our efforts with you, the readers in, the years to come.  So please visit us at and subscribe to us at our new web address;

http://whitehouse16.com/

Also “Like” us on Facebook at

http://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse2016

and follow us on Twitter at

https://twitter.com/GOPwh2016

Bookmark and Share

Just How Deep Is The Rabbit Hole In America?

Worldwide, financial watchdogs are barking for banks to restructure and hold more capital. This, of course, beats and batters a bank’s bottom line. As a result, investors are put off. Can you blame them? The robust returns of the past have been hurt badly. Let’s face it, buying bank stock just ain’t what it used to be.

Simultaneously, trading fees are falling. Deals are drying up. The huge salaries within the industry have become a liability since taxpayers were forced to provide banks with billions in bailout bucks. And scandals are, it seems, uncovered every week. Let’s face it, being a bank just ain’t what it used to be, either.

As a result of all this, banks are contracting and handing out pink-slips to employees.

“Of the 29 [major] banks, from Europe’s biggest bank HSBC to U.S. investment bank Morgan Stanley,” according to Reuters, ” just over 83,700 net jobs have been lost since 2009.”

In the same article, Reuters reports that since early 2011, “major banks have announced some 160,000 job cuts since early last year and with more lay-offs to come as the industry restructures, many will leave the shrinking sector for good as redundancies outpace new hires by roughly two-to-one.”

Recall back in September when Bank of America announced it was chopping 16,000 jobs by year end and perhaps as many as 30,000 before the ax swinging stopped.

And today, the Telegraph is reporting “Barclays could slash as many as 2,000 jobs from its investment banking arm as part of a broad restructuring of the company.”

That is about 10% of Barclay’s full-time investment banking workforce.

So, the story is that thin profits, restrictive regulation, scarce deals and soiled reputations have forced the banking industry into contraction.

It makes sense. But could there be more going on here?

Let’s consider a few things.

Major countries outside of the West—China, Russia, India, Iran and others – have decided to do oil transactions outside the petro-dollar system. This is significant. America’s economy and the bankster’s profits are directly tied to the petro-dollar transaction. We know Bush, taking orders from the banksters, turned the rule of Saddam Hussein into rubble because he side-stepped petro-dollars. The message was clear—do oil deals with petro-dollars or be purged from power. But that message was apparently missed by Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi. He side-stepped petro-dollars in his oil transactions, too. And so, just last year, our current presidential-puppet, again on behalf of the banksters, had Gaddafi hauled out into the street and shot like a dog—a public execution being a rock solid exclamation point, don’t you think?

And now we have Iran. You’ve been told they have nukes. No, sorry, they are developing nukes. They have enough material for 10 missiles. No, sorry, it is probably more like six weapons. Israel, or more specifically the Zionists, are screaming that we only have six months until boom day. Others claim it is several years. Still others, typically those not receiving bankster payoffs and funding, state Iran is developing nuclear power but not developing weapons.

Do you see the point? Is Iran developing nuclear weapons? We just don’t know. But we do know Iran is selling oil outside the petro-dollar system—just like Iraq and Libya did. Could the “Iran is getting nukes” story be just that—a story, an excuse—to ratchet up public opinion in the West, so the banksters can tell Obama to force Iran back onto petro-dollars or it will be destroyed?

Jump quickly back to Iraq. In 2000, Iraq starts conducting oil business outside the petro-dollar system. In 2001, we have the “terror attack” of 9/11 and Iraq is immediately linked to the terrorists. The claim is weak and has troubling gaining traction. What happens next? In 2002, Bush starts his anti-Iraq chest-beating tour because—suddenly—there are reports of WMD within Iraq. Unfortunately, the public buys this tall tale and by 2003, America is in Iraq.

Isn’t this similar to what is happening now regarding Iran? Is the West and Israel really worried about a nuclear threat? Or is it that the banksters are pissed at Iran for cutting into their profits and they mean to make them pay, one way or the other?

But what does this have to do with global bank layoffs and contractions?

Well, in defiance of all the chest-beating, the countries doing oil deals outside the petro-dollar system are still doing oil deals outside the petro-dollar system. And apparently they mean to keep doing them because Russia has stepped in and said it will protect Iran.

By the way, if you didn’t know, the Russian debt owed to the Rothschild web of banks is paid in full. Russia is now ranked third in the world, behind Japan and China, as they possess approximately $277 billion in reserves. By contrast, we owe $16 trillion.

So, are we seeing the world’s largest banks contract and layoff people all over the world because of bad economic times? Or, could it be that much of the world has decided that it is time to close the books on the banksters? Perhaps it is only horrific economic times in Europe and America—countries controlled by the banksters. After all, China, Japan and Russia have money. Europe doesn’t. We don’t.

Could it be that the bailouts here in America were a scam—a theft perpetrated by our lawless federal government — to take our money and give it to the banksters because they are feeling the squeeze? Perhaps the endless banking scandals are the result of the banksters perpetrating fraud because they are desperate for cash. Could it be that there is a movement—official or unofficial—by non-Western societies to hurt the balance sheets of the banksters to bring them down?

Think about it. To stay in control the banksters need just two things. They need debt as money (the federal reserve note, our dollar) and they need everyone using it. They control the Federal Reserve so printing money, that is, “reserve notes” is a snap. But what good is the ability to print debt-dollars if no one is going to use them? You also need demand.

As for world demand for the debt-dollar, that is what the petro-dollar system was designed to do—make the world use “dollars” to sell and buy oil—create an artificial demand. And if anyone rejects it, like Iraq and Libya, then the banksters use the US military to remind these forgetful folks of the importance of petro-dollar transactions.

But if that demand falls off, where can they go? They really can’t turn here. They just robbed us. That is what the “financial crisis” was all about. And because the banksters and the politicians that they own have destroyed our economy as well as our retirement accounts, it will take decades for that wealth to be re-acquired – if it ever is. No, from a bankster’s perspective, America is just about used up.

So, if the outside world knows the American peasants have been plucked clean, then they also know it is now their money the banksters seek. And if they realize this and they want to stop it, then it makes sense to not do petro-dollar transactions, regardless of the threats.

So what do you think–just how deep is this rabbit hole?

Is rejecting the petro-dollar really a movement, organized or not, to rid the world of the tyrannical behavior from elite banking families like Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Soros and their lesser known associates? We know Russia paid Rothschild in full, wiped their hands clean and walked away. Putin has bad-mouthed the NWO in numerous speeches. He has also said he will step in to protect Iran if necessary. Additionally, if you read between the lines or if you can escape the propaganda bubble, you’ll discover much of the griping in the Middle East is directed at Zionists, not Jews. They are different. Could it be that much more of the world than we know is actually against the NWO — or at least against the banksters promoting it?

Could it be that folks in Asia or Russia actually know what is going on and are taking action, while you and I and all the American peasants sit on our hands and look through the wrong end of the telescope? How embarrassing would that be?

Might our country ultimately be saved then, not by its flabby, selfish, ignorant and unmotivated citizens, but by an outside world that has decided to do what America will not—save itself. We, as a people, were given the Constitution, the stated right to confront tyranny and remove traitors, and yet, we fail again and again and again to use it. How else do you explain the freedom of Bush, Clinton, Obama, Boehner, McCain, Reid, Pelosi and every other political scoundrel, when we all know they really should be jailed for treason? Unfortunately, it seems the modern American would rather carry a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag than do some actual treading upon. Sadly, to the rest of the world, we probably look pretty foolish.

Even more bizarre, could America’s salvation from bankster and political corruption actually come from countries—China, Russia, Iran, etc. — that we have been indoctrinated to demonize? Could wonderland be this strange?

Nah.

Clearly, the bank contractions and layoffs are just a sign of tough times.

GET FREE WEEKLY HEADLINE LINKS – SUBSCRIBE NOW

It’s Inevitable…

Did you hear the food stamp presidency is confirmed? That’s right, crusaders, it is official.

A new report put out yesterday by the U.S. Census Bureau proves American households on food stamps increased in 2011 by about 10 percent over 2010.

But the good news isn’t just related to household participation.

Individual participation, a different statistic than household participation, has increased every year since Obama took office. The 33. 5 million participants during fiscal year 2009 jumped dramatically to 40. 3 million in 2010 and surged again to 44. 7 million participants in 2011. As of August 2012, there were 47. 1 million individual food stamp participants.

Can we expect it to improve?

Unless you’ve been hibernating, you know the “fiscal cliff” is looming. What you may not realize is that both parties—if you believe there are two parties—can actually benefit politically by allowing automatic tax hikes and spending cuts to occur. Think about it. What side can you blame if, because they can’t reach a deal, the tax hikes and spending cuts occur automatically? Perhaps you’ve heard select individuals from both sides floating this idea in the press.

Remember, too, Obama called off his EPA Army prior to the election to keep energy related headlines out of the papers. But don’t think for a second that Lisa Jackson wasn’t developing more regulations. When these are unrolled more plants will close and energy prices will increase. There are pending gasoline regulations that will raise the price at the pump, too. Obviously, these things will further extract money from your wallet.

And because the Federal Reserve continues to flood the economy with dollars, the little money you have left—after shelling out for gas, utilities, taxes and life—will be worth even less.

As you might expect, all this will make for a terrific 2013. And if you can successfully budget your way through all that, you get Obama-care in 2014.

So, as the peasants continue to get steam-rolled by an abusive and lawless federal government, the question of whether food stamp participation will rise becomes a rather silly one, yes?

The better question is: when will you be signing up?

Get Citizen post links sent to you weekly. Free. Subscribe here.

Mainstream Media And The Illusion Of Reality

Did you hear about the news clip CNN ran late last week? The footage, supplied by Reuters and picked up by CNN, was of a Palestinian man injured by recent missile strikes conducted by the Israelis. A crowd gathers around the injured man, lifts him and hauls him away.

Except it was a staged event.

And hopefully by now you know that the mainstream media (MSM) basically ignored the Benghazi story and the scandalous deaths of four Americans for over a month prior to the election. Perhaps you recall earlier this year when NBC got caught selectively editing the 911 emergency call during the Trayvon Martin circus.

Of course, this slice and dice game, the intentional manipulation of details, is nothing new. Thankfully, more and more Americans are learning the secrets and tactics of today’s media.

The fact is the establishment media is owned by just a handful of companies—Comcast (NBC); Newscorp (Fox, Wall Street Journal, NY Post); Disney (ABC, ESPN); Viacom (BET, MTV, Nick Jr); Time Warner (CNN, Time, HBO); CBS (60 Minutes, Showtime).

According to Businessinsider.com, that’s down from about 50 companies since the early 1980’s. As a result, virtually all the news you hear or see comes from these six sources. And Obama is supporting further contraction.

These companies decide not only what stories you will hear but how loud the message will be and when you will hear it. Worse, this “news” isn’t presented with objectivity, a critical element of genuine journalism. There is spin, opinion and rhetoric woven into the stories. And, as the CNN and NBC examples prove, important details are often intentionally fabricated or lifted out of stories to further persuade the American peasants into particular outlooks or opinions.

In today’s America, all our politicians and most major corporations and institutions work with media consultants, interact regularly with media big-shots or dedicate resources to maintain media departments. By the time any given message reaches you it has been evaluated, changed and polished at numerous editorial levels. Factors such as when the message is delivered and how often it will be repeated have been meticulously considered. In a very real sense, you are seeing and hearing exactly what they want you to see or hear, when they want you to hear or see it.

The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. – J. Edgar Hoover

Even the most rabid news junkies, if they rely predominantly on the mainstream media, are actually still in the dark. These readers may possess incredible detail relating to any particular narrative but all that minutia is worthless if the story is a fabrication from the start. What good is it to know, for example, that protestors were outside the Benghazi consulate at 7:30 PM, if protestors were never really there at all?

That the media giants have moved from objective reporting into developing, shaping and managing public opinion is bad enough. But because politicians must have their support, the media has become an active participant in American politics. They are no longer watch dogs holding politicians accountable. At best they are cheerleaders rooting for one side or the other. At worst, they are actively engaged, intentionally slanting or editing details to help bring about victory. One can make the argument that the mainstream media has now won, or has been a significant factor in determining the winner, of the last two elections.

You can, with a high degree of confidence, call the mainstream media a propaganda press.

What can be done?

Well, if we want our country back, crusaders, the dismantling of the propaganda press is a fight we must win. Stop buying most of your newspapers and cancel most of your subscriptions. The propaganda press deserves neither your time nor your money. Stop watching or severely limit your exposure to network and cable news and the “morning” shows. MSNBC and CNN are struggling badly right now because viewership is down big time. Boycott the products of advertisers that use the propaganda press when you can. If you can let them know why you’re doing it, even better. Damage advertising dollars and you will force change.

Currently, the internet is our most valuable tool. The media (and their politicians) know this. Do not allow them to control it, for any reason — especially “national security.”

Use the web and expose yourself to “alternative” media and writers. Consider going beyond just reading. Help them do what they want to do — spread legitimate information. Assist them, if you can, with financial donations, or story leads or supporting materials.

You can introduce into your reading news from sources outside America. You will be surprised — and sometimes horrified — at what you will learn about your country from people who view America from outside our limited media bubble.

And most importantly, use your brain — think for yourself.

(For more ownership detail of television, print and telecommunications visit HERE.)

Get Citizen post links sent to you weekly. It's Free. Subscribe here.

Is There A Darker Side To The Patraeus Scandal?

The idea that retired General David Patraeus has been suddenly “caught” in an affair so scandalous it warrants his resignation is preposterous. Men and women of power and celebrity have entourages. They have groupies. A little bump and grind is one of the perks of power.

The guy is a retired career military man. He was the Director of the CIA. He was a man of power, a man with personal connections. He was a man with government resources at his disposal.  Do you actually believe this kind of man is going to resign because of an affair?

Behind the curtain, propagandists constantly use the “sex scandal” and “lone gunman” story to explain events. So predictable is this, it is laughable. That the American sheeple buy into these manufactured soap operas time and time again, is just sad.

What about Paula Broadwell? She is not just some freelance writer that landed a man of elite power for a biography. We know she is a West Point graduate. She has a master’s degree in international security. She has active-duty military experience. Have you seen her? She’s fit and ripped. She once considered joining the FBI. There’s little doubt she has an active role within the military or intelligence community.

And Jill Kelley, the “victim” of threatening emails, is more than a Florida socialite. She got an appointment as honorary Korean consul in Florida. It seems she regularly hobnobs within the Florida political circles.

And what about the other top dogs that have recently been put down? The casualty list includes Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, US Army General Carter Ham, Brigadier General Jeffery A. Sinclair, and US Navy Commander Joseph E. Darlak. Did you know about them?

On October 27, ABCnews ran a story about Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette getting yanked off an aircraft carrier patrolling the waters of the Middle East due to an investigation regarding “inappropriate leadership judgment”. Conveniently, no other details were provided.

On October 31, the DOD issued a press release regarding General Ham’s departure. In it, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt compelled to say that “The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on [Sept. 11,] 2012 is absolutely false,” he said. “General Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been ongoing since July.”

And it was reported by CBS that on November 2, Commander Darlak was relieved of duty for throwing a big bash on his big boat.

Hearings began November 5, against Brigadier General Sinclair. RT.com ripped him up big time in a piece dated November 6, hinting he is a power-crazed sex fiend. In fact, so serious is this that the AP reported “Eugene R. Fidell of Yale Law School expects the case to lead to a reduction in rank and forced retirement for Sinclair.” Apparently, Sinclair’s fiendish sexual behavior is just too sick and twisted for a jail cell. No, it is much better to force his retirement and have him prowl the population.

So, we have a General close to Benghazi announce a “routine” retirement. We have a Rear Admiral patrolling waters in the Middle East removed for an “inappropriate leadership” investigation. We have a party animal that turned his ship into Animal House. We have a sex fiend and now we have Patraeus, the unfaithful husband. All unfolding within about six weeks.

Is all this just an unconnected series of events or is this an orchestrated purging?

Well, let’s think it through. What type of activity warrants the removal of a General, Admiral, Commander and a CIA Director?

A fight over entitlement policy at a White House dinner party? A fight is a good start. But you need to push yourself a little more. How about a fight over power and influence within the top levels of our government and military?

Now we’re getting somewhere.

And to whom do all these men answer? The Commander-in-Chief, of course, the supreme ruler himself.

So it seems President Obama may have purged some top military men and his CIA Director. But why?

Benghazi?

Perhaps. Four Americans are dead. Something went horribly wrong. There is talk of gun-running. There is also talk that the Benghazi annex was actually a CIA take and torture facility, pardon me, detain and question facility. There is also the story that Ambassador Stevens was killed accidentally during a false flag kidnapping. Obama was going to “rescue” the Ambassador in October to pump up Americans for their vote. Whatever the real story, Benghazi was scandalous. Is Obama, as a good guy, dumping Petraeus and the others — cleaning house, so to speak — because of ineptitude and incompetence? That story works. Obama lovers will buy into that.

The great thing is you can flip it, too. The administration has been ducking the issue for two months. Maybe the false flag kidnapping is closer to the truth. Perhaps Obama is the bad guy and it was his dreadful mistake(s) regarding Benghazi that led to the deaths and he feels to survive politically, he needs to purge the men that know the details. That story works. Obama detractors will buy into that.

Either scenario works, doesn’t it? Is it A or B?

And it is that choice, A or B, that is the best indicator that all this probably has very little to do with Benghazi.

It is the classic presentation of false choices. You’re dedicating your time trying to solve for A or B, but you forget that A and B were presented to you as your choices, so you do not explore option C. Or option D.

Shall we go there?

If Benghazi has nothing or very little to do with the purge, what else could be the spark? We know the combatants are Obama versus some military men. Could Obama’s power have been threatened? Could these military men have concluded that Obama’s unconstitutional ways and his lawless government have gone too far? Perhaps, as part of their oath to protect America, they were conspiring to remove Obama from power. But before they met with success Obama discovered the plot and the purge began. In short, was there an attempted coup d’état?

Outrageous? Not really. Do you actually think America is immune to the struggle over power? American presidents and elite political leaders — Lincoln, Garfield, JFK, King, Malcolm X, RFK and others — have been and will continue to be assassinated. And if you actually believe the absurd “lone gunman” scenarios the propaganda press slaps on each and every one of these assassinations, stop here and re-join the herd of sheeple at the barn because you are part of the problem. The destruction of political rivals is part of the power game.

Politics is just as dirty in America as any other country. It is probably worse given the country’s global stature. The only difference between the American political power struggle and those of other countries is that the media in America is a vast propaganda machine. It is an active player within the struggle for power.

Ultimately, a coup is just as credible a scenario as the “Benghazi purge” or the “series of random events” scenario. It is actually more credible if you admit to yourself the media is participating in the power struggle for America and therefore it has a vested interest in distorting details, spinning events and keeping you in the dark.

And by the way, you can flip this “topple Obama” scenario, too. What if Obama, Petraeus and the others are all actually on the same team? That would mean there is another team, somewhere within the military and intelligence community, that is initiating these scandals to try to bring them all down. If this is the case, then this team seems to be making progress.

Is the Petraeus scandal and the recent military purges the result of  Obama removing incompetent men? Or is Obama at fault and he is purging men with direct knowledge of his miss-steps? Is Benghazi, although a real event, being used as a side-show to hide Americans from the fact that there is a very serious and dangerous internal struggle for power occurring within their government? Or, as the media portray it, is the downfall of a General, Admiral, Commander and CIA Director just unrelated events that happen to occur within six weeks of each other?

Which scenario do you think Russia, China, Israel, Britain and the rest of the world believe?

Get Citizen post links sent to you weekly. Free. Subscribe here.

The $100,000 Raise

Picture this, tomorrow you march into your boss’s office and demand a $100,000 raise.  What do you think?  Would you walk out of that office with a job?  What if you demanded a $2,000 or $3,000 raise?  Perhaps that is more likely.  But it should be no shock that companies have been laying of tens of thousands of workers now that Obamacare is the permanent law of the land.

Starting in 2014, companies with 50 or more employees  must offer their employees corporate health insurance plans, or employee #50 will cost the company an additional $100,000-$150,000 in taxes.  That’s $2,000-$3,000 per person.  So if you are employee #50, you may want to brush up your resume.  In fact, if you are employee 50-100 you may be starting to sweat just a little bit.

So why won’t companies simply offer their employees health insurance?  Probably because with a price tag of $16,000 per family for a corporate plan, it simply isn’t economical.  Companies could pay their employees the $5,000 or so for a private plan through a defined contribution benefit package as Sears, Darden Restaurants and others are opting to do, but that does not save them from the $100,000+ tax.  Imagine being able to get money from your company to go out and buy your very own tailored healthcare plan where single men don’t have to pay for maternity and women don’t have to insure against testicular cancer.  Unfortunately, the insurance lobby was able to convince Obama that personal choice is a bad idea.

I’ve heard a lot of people suggest that companies who are laying off en masse are doing so only to protest the Obama re-election.  Yes, that’s right, companies are intentionally hurting themselves to show Obama how upset they are.  Really??  That would be like suggesting a pro-choice lesbian would get knocked up and have a baby to protest a Romney win.

It’s more like this, if a company can’t afford to pay $16,000 per family in health insurance coverage, they just might lay off 200 workers in order to save between $400,000 and $600,000.  By the way, most small businesses with 5o employees can’t afford  $100,000 in additional taxes.

If you think companies are just bitter and that is why job losses are up 78,000 since the election, consider this: with Obamacare companies just saved $156 million by laying off those 78,000 workers.  Obama is incentivizing layoffs by taxing employment.

%d bloggers like this: