Is Obama Trying To Purposely Start World War III?

August 29, 2013 by Wayne Allyn Root

Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. Two things are happening right now under President Barack Obama that are unprecedented.

First, Obama is about to go to war in Syria and risk your sons’ and daughters’ lives on behalf of our enemy, al-Qaida. Second, he is about to risk starting World War III.

Are you on board?

And then there’s Obama’s “red line.” Obama’s defenders say, “Syria passed the red line. We have no choice.” Really? So we now call extremist Muslims killing other extremist Muslims a “red line” that demands U.S. intervention. But extremist Muslims in Egypt burning more than 70 churches to the ground and killing Christians is not a “red line?” In one place (Syria), we want to go to war. In the other (Egypt), we continue to send billions of dollars in foreign aid as a reward for killing Christians.

Do you support Obama’s definition of a “red line?” I know I don’t.

So why the rush to war? Could it be because America’s unemployment problem under Obama is unfixable? Ninety million working-age Americans are not working. The labor force participation rate is the lowest for men since 1947 (since measurement began). Obama has no way out.

The same holds true for our partners in the European Union like the United Kingdom and France. Unemployment for the EU region is 12.1 percent, the worst in history. Almost 20 million Europeans are unemployed. Youth unemployment in the EU is just below 25 percent.

How do you solve such a human psychological disaster? You go to war.

Voilà. Suddenly, young people with no job prospects have a job — in the military. They have a check, a place to live, something to do. They no longer have time to commit crimes or riot in the streets.

America got out of the last Great Depression with the help of World War II. How convenient that Obama lit the fuse for the Arab Spring, helped to topple dictators friendly to U.S. interests and took the side of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, it’s all coming home to roost.

We fomented instability, supported the radicals who hate America and Israel, and now we’re feigning shock that the Mideast is in flames? Remember that line from the police captain in the movie “Casablanca”: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

What a funny coincidence that a war would solve Obama’s worst problems all at once:
A) War would stir patriotism and force Americans to rally around the President.

B) Obamacare is a nightmare for Obama and his party. It’s so unpopular even Democrats and unions are running away from it. Congress has passed a law to exempt themselves. Obama himself is postponing major aspects of Obamacare for fear it will lead to a GOP landslide in 2014. Going to war is the perfect distraction, at the perfect time.

C) Obama couldn’t create a job if it hit him in the face. He can’t spell J-O-B. War will create instant jobs. And, hey, if thousands of young men die, that, too, will reduce the ranks of the unemployed for years to come.

“Nonsense,” Obama’s supporters will protest. You know, those same people that marched in the streets protesting our involvement in Iraq, those same people who questioned CIA intelligence about “weapons of mass distraction” yet who now readily accept the CIA’s claims about Syria’s using chemical weapons, those same people who called Bush a murderer yet now accept Obama’s bombing and killing citizens in Syria. Syria is the new Iraq.

The key to life (and politics) is to choose your friends carefully. In Egypt Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the same group that supported the Nazis during World War II. Their leader, Muhammed Morsi, said in speech last year: “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.”

In Syria our new friends are worse than the Muslim Brotherhood (if that’s possible). The rebels fighting the Syrian government are al-Qaida. These are the murderous terrorists who are the sworn enemies of America and Israel. This is who Obama is asking our sons and daughters to die for? Not my sons, not my daughters.

How about yours?

Have we learned nothing from Iraq? I was gung ho about Iraq. I thought it was a noble cause to set the Iraqi people free from a tyrant. You know what I found out? We meant well, but it was a disaster. It was none of our business. It was not worth the cost — in dollars or human life. The Iraqi people we heroically risked and sacrificed for don’t thank us; they hate us. Why would we want to do it again? Our Mideast interventions cause more hatred, more terrorism, more death.

Let’s not forget that our intervention in Libya put weapons in the hands of radical Muslims who, it now appears, used those weapons to attack our own Libyan Embassy and murder our U.S. Ambassador and three brave Navy SEALs. You know, that’s the tragedy that was covered up by Obama and Hillary Clinton by blaming it on a movie. Who killed our brave men in that Libyan embassy? Al-Qaida, the people Obama now wants to partner with.

Have we not learned that our Mideast interventions always work out badly? Now, we are going to do it again. Except this time, it’s far worse. This time, Russia and China and Iran are on Syria’s side. This time, it could lead to World War III. Have we lost our minds?

I have obvious questions.

First, was this Obama’s plan from the start? Foment anger and instability in the Mideast, topple the friends of America and wait for war? Is this his only way out to save the U.S. economy from collapse? Is war the perfect distraction from the economic carnage caused by his policies?

Second, would you send your son or daughter to die to support al-Qaida? I know I wouldn’t.
This is a new level of insanity — even for Obama. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. Same time, same place.

God bless America.

…You Better Think Again

Despite what the cheerleaders of Wall Street, Washington, and the financial sector propound I foresee such troubled financial, social, and economic times that it will make the years since 2008 look like a glide down the Ol’ Mill Stream. Folks, we are in for some rough water; …most especially if we get into a tangle with the Syrian-Russian-China-Iran Alliance. Since 9/11 we’ve been strategically limiting the energy options of Russia, China, and India. These countries have had crude oil contracts with Iraq, Libya, and other rich oil producing states. With our various incursions into North Africa and the Middle East we have forced Russia, China, and India to seek other sources of energy for their emerging economies. Now with Syria firmly in the crosshairs and a lustful eye on Iran, these nations are drawing a line in the sand because their energy options are running out. Just this week both Russia and China warned that any intervention by the US will have catastrophic consequences and result in region wide conflict, however, there is a distinct possibility of igniting World War III. This could lead to the long dreaded thermo-nuclear devastation that folks of my generation have had dangling over our heads like the sword of Damocles.

 The effects of such conflict aside, the most immediate problem is the current state of economic doldrums which most of the world finds itself in, and with no viable solutions in sight. Most national economies are printing money in an attempt to debase their own currencies in the vain hope of better trade conditions. Such actions are really just playing economic Russian Roulette, sooner or later a live chamber is found and the results will be devastating. A unique feature of the global situation is that for the first time all national banks and financial institutions are following the same pattern of debasement. That being the case, we, in the West should look to the so-called PIGS nations to see what has been occurring there of late. In the past few weeks, before the Cone of Silence fell on the mainstream media we saw popular riots taking place as the citizens were forced to swallow the bitter medicine to reverse the fat years of false-plenty under Socialist economic leadership. First there were huge layoffs, even of government sector workers; then the utilization of so-called bail-ins, which virtually confiscated the life savings of many under the guise of being “investors” of the banking system. Additionally, many pensions were also seized under such phony policies. In many of these PIGS nations the populace was left to their own devices and as such black-markets and back to land subsistence has become a popular lifeboat.

Now apply this scenario to the current situation in the US and we can see that overtures, as previously reported in CRS, are being formulated to gain control of 401K, IRA, and pension funds. This likely will be in the form of forced investment in T-bills or other Federal vehicles with a “guaranteed” return. However, if the return is in inflated Greenbacks the net effect will be zero growth and thus zero worth. So the question is what to do about this? However, I don’t have an overall solution. Preparation will be up to each individual and his particular circumstances. Meantime, I’ve taken steps which, I hope, will safeguard my own particular situation. I urge the readership to do due-diligence and consider all your options.

Below is a web citation that will demonstrate all the above:

Financial Calamity- It’s Coming, Be Worried, Be Careful-Jim Rogers

http://usawatchdog.com/financial-calamity-its-coming-be-worried-be-careful-jim-rogers/

Richard of Danbury, D.S.G.

Government Agents are Coming to Check on Your Children

Botox-riddled Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is infamous for saying in 2009 that Congress needed to pass Obamacare so that we, the people, could see what’s in it. The phrase sounded idiotic when it was uttered, but Pelosi is smarter than she often appears. What she really meant to say was that the bill needed to pass before we could see what’s in it … and with good reason.

This week we learned that buried deep within what is quickly becoming the Unaffordable Care Act is a neat little section called the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program. In practice, MIECHV authorizes state agencies to send government inspectors to your house if a “home visit” is seen as appropriate per U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) guidelines – the ones meant to “create social and physical environments that promote good health for all.”

So no longer are suspicions of child abuse or neglect the proper criteria to justify government agents examining private residences. We’ve now reached a point where parents can expect a visit if their home doesn’t meet the government’s definition of an environment conducive to “good health for all.”

I’m not making this stuff up, folks. In fact, HHS has allocated $224 million to the state agents who will be carrying out the home invasions ... I mean visits. Home visits.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is on record stating: “Home visiting programs play a critical role in the nation’s efforts to help children get off to a strong start. Parenting is a tough job, and helping parents succeed pays big dividends in a child’s well-being and healthy development.”

Well, Ms. Sebelius, I’d like to introduce you to something called the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …,” and it supersedes your Orwellian blather about the right of government bureaucrats to supervise the lawful raising on one’s own children.

It’s only a matter of time before the MIECHV program produces additional constitutional challenges to Obamacare … and they won’t be just related to the Fourth Amendment. Is it too far-fetched to envision a day when HHS demands to inspect the homes of registered gun owners to make sure firearms are stored according to its definition of “child safety”? Are we to think that is beyond possible for an administration that brought us (and lied to us about) a massive, unlawful domestic spying operation and political targeting by the IRS?

Jim Signorile
Managing Editor, The Sovereign Investor

Food Stamp Nation

Her name is Dillie Nerios.
She’s 56 years old.
She lives in the Treasure Coast of Florida.
She’s a people person, with a warm, engaging personality.
She works as a recruiter, cruising trailer parks and retirement communities looking for new prospects.
And her job is to make people dependent on the government


Nerios was the subject of a recent Washington Post article that has caused quite a stir. She works for a local Florida food bank that is associated with a larger U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program to increase food stamp enrollment. Yes, you read that right … she gets paid to put more people on the public dole. In fact, she even has a quota to meet: 150 new enrollees per month.
People in her line of work must be doing something right. Among the roughly 80 means-tested federal welfare programs, the food stamp program is the second-largest and the fastest growing in the country. Today, more than 47 million Americans now receive the benefit. That means nearly one in six depend on taxpayers to buy one of life's most basic necessities, with food stamp spending more than doubling since President Obama took office.
Yet after seeing this historic increase, the Obama administration continues to use promotional campaigns to further increase enrollment. If you have ever wondered what it looks like when a nation has lost its way, this is it.

How Out of Hand Have Things Become?

The USDA has acknowledged a formal partnership with the Mexican government to boost food stamp enrollment among Mexican nationals. Chew on that for a moment. The United States government has been actively working with a foreign government to increase food stamp participation among non-citizens here at home. In fact, in response to oversight inquiries from Republicans in Congress, the USDA revealed that the current administration has met with Mexican officials approximately 30 times as part of the partnership.

The USDA has also adopted a range of strategies and programs designed to enroll more people in food stamps by overcoming the notion of self-reliance. A 2011 USDA Hunger Champions Award document reveals that local assistance offices have been rewarded for “counteracting” pride when pushing more people to sign up for benefits.
As The Daily Caller recently reported, the Ashe County Department of Social Services in Jefferson, N.C., for example, received a “Gold” award for confronting “mountain pride” and increasing food stamp participation by 10%. That office was rewarded for overcoming the resistance of those “who wished not to rely on others.”

The USDA even provides bonuses — totaling about $50 million per year — to states that meet high enrollment targets. This is progress in Obama’s America. We have now arrived at a place where our government rewards people for convincing others to reject virtue and embrace dependence.

The New American “Dream”

Helping those who have been struck by unforeseeable misfortune is something that few oppose. But that is fundamentally different from making dependency a way of life. When we go from a society that offers help to those who need it, to one in which the government tries to overcomes its citizens’ self-sufficiency, our national character has fundamentally changed.
When you look a bit deeper, it’s clear that something else is at work here. The enthusiastic drive to increase the number of people dependent on government handouts is pure political calculus, not kindness. The more people dependent on government, the more likely they are to vote for politicians who are giving them the handouts.

It’s that simple.

Barack Obama understands this. Dependency pays off in votes, which is why his administration is tirelessly working to increase the size of the dependent base. This is all done in the name of “compassion.” But there’s a much more sinister plot at work.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker recently wrote: “How many of us grew up with the dream of someday being dependent on the government?”

I certainly didn’t. Yet our government is now spending millions of our tax dollars trying to convince people that such soul-crushing enslavement is something to aspire to.

We either turn the tide now or risk living in a country where the takers have more votes than the makers. Where politicians promise to give away ever more spoils from the public kitty in exchange for power.

We’ve all seen this movie before … and we know how it ends. It’s called the Motor City Meltdown, and a version of it opens nationwide sooner than you think.
In Wealth & Prosperity,


Erika Nolan
Executive Publisher, The Sovereign Society

Here's The Law That's Driving Record Numbers Of Americans To Renounce Their Citizenship

By Josh Barro | Business Insider – Mon, Aug 12, 2013 3:32 PM EDT

 A record number of Americans are giving up their U.S. citizenship. The Wall Street Journal reports that 1,130 Americans renounced their citizenship in the second quarter of 2013, more than did so in all of 2012.
To my surprise, the list of new ex-Americans is publicly available; I didn't recognize any of the names on a quick scan.

According to the Journal, the surge in expatriations seems to be driven by the upcoming implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), a 2010 law that forces foreign financial institutions to disclose more information to the IRS about Americans' accounts and investments. Starting in 2014, foreign financial institutions will have to tell the IRS about income accruing to American clients (or businesses owned by Americans), and they'll have to withhold American income tax as appropriate.

In other words, it's going to become a lot harder to hide your income with a Swiss bank account.
The IRS can't directly tell foreign banks what data to turn over. But it has a pretty big stick — it can impose a 30% withholding tax on payments from the U.S. to foreign financial institutions unless they cooperate. As a result, many foreign banks and foreign countries have been entering into agreements with the IRS to comply with FATCA.

If you're an American living in the U.S. and your strategy for hiding income abroad isn't working anymore, you may have few options but to pay up. But if you live abroad, you have another choice available: Renounce your U.S. citizenship so you're not liable for American income tax.

That's one driver of the surge in renunciations. Another likely factor is the increase in capital gains and income tax rates in 2013, meaning that wealthy American expatriates can get a bigger tax saving by renouncing citizenship than they used to.

But a third factor is that FATCA creates compliance headaches apart from the actual tax bills it leads to. As the WSJ describes:

Some U.S. citizens say they are exasperated by a growing raft of paperwork that forces U.S. citizens living abroad to declare the minutiae of their financial holdings and other assets. That has increased the attraction of becoming a citizen in places such as Hong Kong, where the individual tax rate is capped at 15%.
"My decision was less about the actual amount of taxes I had to pay, and more about the system," said one investment banker, who renounced his U.S. citizenship and is now a Hong Kong citizen. "I'm not an ultrawealthy dude. It was the hassle with all the paperwork."

A few months ago, I attended a dinner where I sat between two Americans living abroad who complained that FATCA has made foreign banks less willing to provide American expatriates with checking accounts, credit cards and mortgages. This has been a major point of complaint for organizations representing American expatriates.

FATCA also complicates matters for foreign businesses with American investors (and for Americans who want to invest in foreign businesses) since American ownership makes a business subject to FATCA reporting.

If you intend to move back to the U.S., you're probably not going to renounce your citizenship because it was hard to get a checking account, or even because you had to forego an investment opportunity. But if you're a dual citizen with weak ties to the U.S. and the law is materially interfering with your financial dealings, it might be a reason to go ahead and quit being an American.

Marie Sapirie, the legal editor at Tax Notes, even says the IRS proposed renouncing citizenship as an option for an American with a complicated tax situation who had long resided abroad.

Last fall, I attended an American Swiss Foundation trip to Switzerland and FATCA was the number one hobby horse for the Swiss participants. The difficulty in evaluating the Swiss complaints is that the Swiss have a combination of good and bad reasons for hating FATCA. The law creates compliance burdens for Americans living in Switzerland and Swiss who do legitimate business with Americans. But it also undermines tax evasion strategies that are the key reason that some Americans were interested in banking in Switzerland in the first place.

Of course, every law has compliance costs, and it's not even clear that it's such a big problem if more Americans, presumably dual citizens living abroad with relatively weak ties to the U.S., are renouncing citizenship. But the benefits of FATCA may also be relatively modest: It's expected to raise $7.6 billion in added taxes over 10 years.

In 1999, the State Department estimated that there are between three and six million Americans living abroad; if those numbers are similar today, that means FATCA will generate about $170 in extra annual taxes per expatriate.

The revenue estimate for FATCA may prove incorrect in either direction; it's based on a guess about how much unreported foreign income will be discovered when the new reporting and withholding requirements come into effect. As the law is implemented next year, we'll start to see how much revenue actually rolls in — and whether the law is worth the compliance costs and expatriations that it causes.

What You Can Learn from Edward Snowden

By Bob Bauman, JD

I’ve spent my fair share of time in airports over the years, and if there’s anything I’ve learned from that experience, it’s that I wish I hadn’t spent my fair share of time in airports over the years.

Edward Snowden, the American who blew the whistle on the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) spying program, knows first-hand what it’s like to spend too much time in an airport. He spent more than five weeks avoiding U.S. authorities by living in the transit area of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, an unthinkable amount of time for anyone familiar with the travails of global travel.

Whether you agree with his actions or not, Snowden made a courageous decision by outing the activities of the NSA. It’s a decision that’s caused him to have his passport revoked. But he would now be far better off if he followed the strategy I've recommended for years...

Snowden was granted temporary asylum (to last one year) in Russia at the beginning of August, meaning he won’t be extradited back to the U.S. in the near future.

Snowden’s situation is an important lesson to all of us. You’ll likely never be in danger of being extradited...but it’s just one of the added safety nets a second passport can provide you.

A second passport can expand your legal rights. For an American, that means allowing for freer world travel. Edward Snowden’s current situation would be quite different were he to be holding one. Plus, a second citizenship/passport can serve as the key to reducing your taxes and protecting your assets. It can open doors that would otherwise remain closed to you.

It may seem like a radical idea to those who were born and raised in only one country, but almost anyone with the financial means and determination can become an international citizen. This is accomplished by acquiring a legal second citizenship and, with that enhanced status, an official second passport.

I’m sure that Edward Snowden never envisioned being holed up in a Russian airport avoiding U.S. authorities. But, he would now have far superior options if he had previously established a second citizenship abroad in a country with a favorable extradition policy—part of a larger offshore living strategy that I have been advocating for years.

These days, the scope and power of government at all levels have led many to consider the prudent path of a second citizenship, particularly in a country where taxes are more reasonable and there exists a greater respect for individual freedom. Individuals, therefore, need to develop a plan to protect their rights by "internationalizing" themselves and their wealth.

I explain all about the many other important aspects of holding a second passort in my popular book, The Passport Book, (The Complete Guide to Offshore Residency, Dual Citizenship & Second Passports), now in the tenth edition.

In light of Mr. Snowden’s current fate, there has never been a more urgent need for you to read it.