Posts Tagged ‘2012’

The Real 2012 Doomsday: U.S. Falls To Tyranny

UPI
Police release tear gas while blocking the way to City Hall where the Occupy Oakland encampment was dismantled and protesters dispersed, in Oakland, Calif., on Oct. 25.

The past year has been a bad one for democracy, and the Republic that once was the United States seems to live in name only. Because of the extreme abuses of power the Federal government has exercised just in the past year, the people of the Nation have been broken, discouraged and must now only be controlled.

A recent report in the state-run Russia Today cites an instructional military book, Non-Lethal Weapons Reference Book (leaked by PublicIntelligence.net) to outline the coming “high-tech crackdown” that may soon befall citizens of the United States deemed unruly.

If you have ever seen a farmer persuade his livestock to bend to his will with less-than-lethal methods such as cattle prods, whips and electric fences, you know how incredibly persuasive they can be to the animals. The U.S.
government also knows a thing or two about controlling groups; unfortunately, the target isn’t unruly livestock, but U.S. citizens.

The report references one device that has already made a military debut in Afghanistan and that will likely become commonplace for domestic crowd control as law enforcement agencies throughout the country become increasingly militarized. The Active Denial System, which is described as a “long range, directed energy, vehicle mounted system that projects an invisible electromagnetic millimeter-wave energy beam beyond small arms range,” can be used as a non-lethal way to create extreme discomfort and quell group dissent.

Other military implements that may soon see use within U.S. borders include Acoustic Hailing Devices that provide “scalable, directional warning tones” causing “auditory damage” and the Distributed Sound and Light Array which “uses a combined laser, non-coherent light, and acoustics to produce a synergistic engagement system.” Other systems can completely disable motor vehicles and emit acoustic waves that make it impossible for crowds to shout without discomfort and nausea.

While many Americans deny that the U.S. government will ever use such weapons on a widespread basis against dissenters, recent developments in the country appear to indicate otherwise. The crackdowns on OWS camps carried out by police in riot/military gear, armed with tear gas canisters and rubber bullets, indicate that when large masses of people cry out, no matter what the political agenda, they will be quieted by local, State and/or Federal officials.

Before the crackdowns on the OWS camps, the Federal government demonstrated its willingness to bypass the judiciary system anytime an individual poses a threat to its agenda. In September, the Administration of Barack Obama executed U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in the mountains of Yemen with a drone strike. Though he often spoke on behalf of al-Qaida, it could be reasonably assumed that al-Awlaki’s citizenship status gave him the right to trial before execution. The Administration disagrees: Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson said of the execution that only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

Johnson’s statement would be less alarming if the Administration — with the help of hawkish neoconservatives like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) — had not recently passed a military spending bill with provisions that effectively designate American soil a battlefield and every American a possible enemy. The bill gives the President the ability to indefinitely detain terror suspects, but this comes at a time when the lines of what constitutes “terror” are becoming increasingly blurry. The Federal government is currently in active negotiations with members of the Taliban, and Obama has made it clear that anyone who rejects his agenda is considered a “right-wing domestic terrorist.”

How long will it take for Federal government to decide it necessary to carry out al-Awlaki style executions on those deemed “domestic terrorists” as they sit in their homes in the United States? With the increasing use of military drones in U.S. airspace, the idea is not so far-fetched. The same Federal agencies that carried out fatally-flawed operations like those in Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in the 1990s now have aerial drones and a license to kill in the name of Homeland Security. Some people may think that the agencies have refined their methods since those days; others have been following news about Operation Fast and Furious, the most recent endeavor by the Department of Justice, and know better.

Those people who do not believe the Federal government is out to harm them by breaking their will, dehumanizing them and bending them to be the subservient masses that will keep it afloat should simply take a flight. If being prodded, poked and virtually stripped naked by poorly trained agents of the Transportation Security Administration is not bad enough, how about having very personal belongings fondled, food stolen and grandmothers groped by the TSA? All are tactics of dehumanization to create subservient masses, and all are things that happened to American travelers last year.

Aside from quashing unruly masses and making problems disappear, the Federal government wants to keep tabs on the information being put out by journalists and bloggers throughout the Nation with a new Homeland Security initiative. According to Russia Today, in a new report, the Department reserves the right to collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

And while Homeland Security is busy putting together a plan to rid the country of any bad press, Congress has been working to sanitize the Internet. Pending legislation like SOPA and the Protect IP Act will effectively give American citizens about as much online freedom as citizens of China.

Some Americans may think that if they are not in the public eye, don’t regularly protest and are not members of al-Qaida, they are not subject to government intrusion. But a recent decision by Magistrate Judge David Noce in United States v. Robinson says that as long as you park your vehicle in public parking lots or use public roadways, law enforcement has the ability to install a GPS tracking device with no warrant to log where you travel if they believe you “may be involved in criminal activities.”

When the First Congress enacted the original Crimes Act in 1790, with only 17 recognized Federal crimes, it may have been reasonable to assume that as long as a person was a law-abiding citizen, he was not at risk of intrusion. Today, though, there are more than 4,500 Federal crimes — and many are so obscure that they are nearly indecipherable. In addition to the 4,500 Federal crimes, there are tens of thousands of Federal regulations. Many people commit criminal acts daily without even knowing they are doing so.

Last year was a very busy one for all of those interested in ending American life as it is and has been known. The United States that was a Republic has already collapsed and has very quietly become a totalitarian regime, complete with a dictator named Obama and a Congress that bends to his will and continually legislates in such a way that would make any totalitarian regime proud. Together they have done everything in their power to undermine the Constitution and name themselves as the all-powerful ruling class. And with the undoing of the ideas of the Founders and the ruination of but a few more checks and balances, they will effectively claim their supremacy.

So what have Americans lost and why does the ruling class have to do away with the Constitution and the rights it gives to every American citizen? It is explained by James Madison, who contended that there was no way American lawmakers could declare themselves a ruling class under the provisions of the Constitution, in the 57th volume of the Federalist Papers:

If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America — a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

Those who are working so hard to claim themselves a ruling class know that their goal cannot be achieved if there is such a thing as a population that holds dear its “vigilant and manly spirit.” And they know how to slowly break that spirit without alarm by dehumanizing populations — luring people into accepting tyrannical rule in the guise of laws claimed to exist for public safety, homeland security or the better good of humanity. Unlike Madison, they always leave out words like freedom and never discuss the great threats government poses to the people, but contrarily advise vigilance to combat the people’s threat to the government.

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been warning the public of many of these frightening developments for more than 35 years. Now, as he vies for the Nation’s highest office, many of his predictions have come true. Maybe it is time Americans listened to the “kook,” because those things he said would happen — predictions Americans once considered to be crazy and far-fetched — are now reality. He may be the Nation’s last hope to a path back to some semblance of the Constitutional Republic created by the Founders.

  • Youngsters abandoned as parents struggle
  • 4-year-old found clutching note: ‘I can’t afford her’
  • Country also running out of medicine
  • Aspirin stocks low as austerity measures bite

Children are being abandoned on Greece’s streets by their poverty-stricken families who cannot afford to look after them any more.

Youngsters are being dumped by their parents who are struggling to make ends meet in what is fast becoming the most tragic human consequence of the Euro crisis.

It comes as pharmacists revealed the country had almost run out of aspirin, as multi-billion euro austerity measures filter their way through society.

Abandoned: Children are being dumped on Greece's streets by their poverty-stricken families who cannot afford to look after them any more (file picture)Abandoned: Children are being dumped on Greece’s streets by their poverty-stricken families who cannot afford to look after them any more (file picture)

Athens’ Ark of the World youth centre said four children, including a newborn baby, had been left on its doorstep in recent months.

One mother, it said, ran away after handing over her two-year-old daughter Natasha.

Four-year-old Anna was found by a teacher clutching a note that read: ‘I will not be coming to pick up Anna today because I cannot afford to look after her. Please take good care of her. Sorry.’

And another desperate mother, Maria, was forced to give up her eight-year-old daughter Anastasia after losing her job.

She looked for work for more than a  year, having to leave her child at home for hours at a time, and lived off food handouts from the local church.

She said: ‘Every night I cry alone at home, but what can I do? It hurt my heart, but I didn’t have a choice.’ She now works in a cafe but only make £16 per day and so cannot afford to take her daughter back.

Sold out: Greece is quickly running out of medicines as austerity measures start to filter through societySold out: Greece is quickly running out of medicines as austerity measures start to filter through society

Centre founder Fr Antonios Papanikolaou told the Mirror: ‘Over the last year we’ve had hundreds of parents who want to leave their children with us. They know us and trust us.

‘Over the last year we’ve had hundreds of parents who want to leave their children with us. They know us and trust us.’

– Fr Antonios Papanikolaou

‘They say they do not have any money or shelter or food for their kids, so they hope we might be able to provide them with what they need.’

Further evidence of Greeks feeling the pinch of austerity measures is the lack of aspirin and other medicines now available in the country.

Pharmacists are struggling to stock their shelves as the Greek government, which sets the prices for drugs, keeps them artificially low.

This means that firms are turning to sell the drugs outside of the country for a higher price – leading to stock depletion for Greeks.

Mina Mavrou, who runs one of the country’s 12,000 pharmacies, said she spent hours each day pleading with drug makers, wholesalers and colleagues to hunt down medicines for clients.

And she said that even when drugs were available, pharmacists often must foot the bill up front, or patients simply do without.

Meanwhile, talks about private sector creditors paying for part of a second Greek bailout are going badly, senior European bankers said tonight.

That raises the prospect that euro zone governments will have to increase their contribution to the aid package.

‘Governments are mulling an increase of their share of the burden,’ said one banker, while another said ‘Nothing is decided yet, but the bigger the imposed haircut the less appetite there is for voluntary conversion.’

A third senior banker told Associated Press: ‘Private sector involvement is going badly.’

There are suggestions in euro zone government circles that ministers are coming to the realisation they may need to bolster Greece’s planned second bailout worth 130 billion euros if the voluntary bond swap scheme, which is a key part of the overall package, falls short of expectations.

Stumping up yet more money would be politically difficult in Germany and other countries in the northern part of the currency bloc.

endoftheamericandream.com

 

Newt Gingrich is so angry right now that his head just might explode.  Less than a month ago, Gingrich had a massive lead in Iowa.  At one point he was averaging 31 percent support in Iowa polls.  But after an unprecedented onslaught of negative advertising his numbers began to drop like a rock.  Ultimately, he finished in fourth place in Iowa with only 13 percent of the vote.  Pro-Romney “Super PACs” spent over $3 million on negative ads that just ripped Gingrich to shreds.  Of course considering his track record, that is not hard to do.  But Newt Gingrich is not someone that is just going to “forgive and forget”.  Gingrich honestly believed that he was going to win Iowa.  In fact, he was so confident at one point that he told ABC News that he would “be the nominee“.  Now that his dreams have been shattered by pro-Romney forces, Gingrich has apparently decided that he is going to make it his personal mission to destroy Mitt Romney.  The next few weeks of the Republican race should be very entertaining as Gingrich pursues this vendetta.

Of course both Romney and Gingrich are absolutely horrible candidates and nobody should ever vote for either of them.  Both of them are virtual clones of Barack Obama.

But the Gingrich vs. Romney feud does have the potential to shake up the Republican race.

At this point, the mainstream media is portraying Mitt Romney as the inevitable nominee.  The conventional wisdom is that nothing can stop him now.

But if Gingrich is able to derail Romney, at least to a certain extent, it could present an opportunity for another candidate.

For most of this campaign, Newt Gingrich had been trying to take the “high road”, but Gingrich has become visibly angry in recent days, and after his dismal showing in Iowa Gingrich could barely contain himself.

According to a Politico article that just came out, Newt Gingrich plans to never congratulate Mitt Romney for his win in Iowa.  In fact, Gingrich seemed even angrier on Wednesday than he was on Tuesday night….

At a news conference in Concord, N.H., Gingrich was asked by CBS correspondent Dean Reynolds why he congratulated Rick Santorum but not Romney.

Gingrich stared at the reporter and raised his eyebrows in silence, eventually drawing laughter from some of the reporters.

“Because I know you would be a man of great professionalism, I know that’s a rhetorical question. And a good one,” Gingrich said.

Normally following a loss, it is customary to give a speech congratulating the winner.   On Tuesday night, that is not what Gingrich did.  He refused to mention Mitt Romney by name and he sounded like a man that was ready for war….

We’ll have — one other great debate and that is whether this party wants a Reagan conservative who helped change Washington in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan and helped change Washington in the 1990s as Speaker of the House, or we want a Massachusetts moderate who, in fact, will be pretty good at managing the decay but has given no evidence in his years in Massachusetts of any act to change the culture or change the political structure or change the government.

Let me be clear, because I think it’s important given all the things that were done in this state over the last few weeks.  We are not going to go out and run nasty ads.  We’re not going to run 30-second gotchas.  But I do reserve the right to tell the truth and if the truth seems negative, that may be more a comment on his record than it is on politics.  So this is going to be a debate that begins tomorrow morning in New Hampshire and and will go on for a few months, and I’m convinced that the Republican party will pick an era of Reagan and somebody with a track record of changing Washington.

But this is not something new for Gingrich.

In fact, he has a long history of playing nasty when it comes to politics.

The following comes from a Mother Jones article that was just posted….

Gingrich, as is widely known, entered the House in the late ’70s, throwing bombs. He aimed them at both the stodgy leadership of the Republican House minority and at Democratic leaders, whom he routinely called “corrupt.” For years, he hurled harsh and bombastic rhetoric, routinely comparing those with whom he disagreed to either Nazis or Nazi appeasers. It was often hard to keep track of his faux historical analogies. (For a partial list of his excesses, see this run-down.)

During his venom-laced rush to the top, Gingrich sought to institutionalize his hate politics. His political action committee, GOPAC, sent out a memo to Republican candidates counseling them to use particular words when describing Democrats, such as “decay,” “betray,” “traitors,” “pathetic,” and “corrupt.”

And Gingrich has already begun his assault on Romney in New Hampshire.  On Wednesday a full-page ad appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper which contrasted the “Bold Reagan Conservative” Newt Gingrich with “Timid Massachusetts moderate” Mitt Romney.

In addition, Newt Gingrich is now publicly criticizing Mitt Romney during public appearances, which is something he had not really done before.  For example, Gingrich made the following statement during a public appearance on Wednesday….

“Governor Romney was first a independent; then repudiated Reagan-Bush; then voted for Paul Tsongas, the most liberal candidate in the 1992 campaign; then ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy in 1994 [in Massachusetts]; then became a moderate to run for governor in 2002; and then with ‘Romneycare,’ for example, included state-funded abortions and specifically designated Planned Parenthood as a Romneycare; appointed liberal judges in order to placate Democrats and raised taxes on business, which I think will be a job killing approach. So the contrast will be very wide and that will be a key part of what we describe going forward.”

Not only that, Gingrich has also floated the idea of forming an “anti-Romney” alliance with the other candidates.

So will the attacks by Gingrich work?

It is certainly possible.

The truth is that the national poll numbers for Romney have been in the mid-20s for months.  He just can’t seem to go much higher.

Romney may have “won” Iowa, but he still only got 25 percent of the vote.

Just like in the rest of the nation, 75 percent of the Republicans in Iowa did not want Mitt Romney.

But the Republican establishment desperately does want Mitt Romney.  They have been showering him with money and they have been trying to pump him up as the most “electable” candidate.

For the Republican establishment, there are two scenarios at this point.

Scenario A: Mitt Romney wins the nomination

Scenario B: Make sure no other candidate wins 50 percent of the delegates and force a “brokered convention” where the Republican establishment can handpick a nominee.

So could Gingrich or some of the other candidates spoil the party?

Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

Posted: December 13, 2011 in Politics
Tags: , , ,

Bloomberg

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Before Republicans put Newt Gingrich at the top of their party, they should consider what happened the last time he led it.

In the mid-1990s, Gingrich was the de facto head of the Republican Party. He helped lead it to victory in the congressional elections of 1994, which brought about real accomplishments such as welfare reform. But once he attained power, both his popularity and that of his party started to plummet. In the aftermath of his leadership, a Republican was able to take the presidency only by pointedly distancing himself from Gingrich.

Conservatives who dislike George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism have Gingrich to thank for it. After Gingrich lost the budget battles with President Bill Clinton, it took 15 years for any politician to take up the cause of limited-government conservatism that he had discredited.

Although Gingrich isn’t solely responsible for the Republican policy defeats of those years, his erratic behavior, lack of discipline and self-absorption had a lot to do with them. He explained that one reason the federal government shut down in 1995 was that he was angry that Clinton had snubbed him during an international flight. The Clinton White House then released pictures of the two men gabbing on the plane. Later negotiations didn’t go well, with Gingrich saying, “I melt when I’m around him.”

Erratic, Undisciplined, Grandiose

Gingrich’s fans say that he isn’t the same man he was then; he has “matured” in his 60s. Maybe so. But he’s still erratic: This year he flip-flopped three times on the top issue of the day, the House Republican plan to reform Medicare. He’s still undisciplined: He went on a vacation cruise at the start of his campaign. He still has the same old grandiosity: In recent weeks he has compared himself to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and said confidently that the nomination was his.

He still has the same need to justify his every petty move by reference to some grand theory. Plenty of politicians competing in Iowa come out for ethanol subsidies; only Gingrich would proclaim that in doing so he was standing up to city slickers in a culture war invented in his own mind. He still has a casual relationship with the truth. In recent weeks he has said that Freddie Mac (FMCC) paid him to condemn its business model, only for reporters and bloggers to find out that he had in fact shilled for the organization in return for about $1.6 million.

He still has the same penchant for sharing whatever revelation has just struck him, as with his recent musings about getting rid of child-labor laws. “He goes off the deep end and throws things out there,” says Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the Manchester Union Leader, which has endorsed Gingrich. He means it as a compliment, but it doesn’t strike me as one of the top traits to seek in a president. Many voters may have the same reaction.

The race for the Republican nomination appears to have come down to two intelligent, knowledgeable men in Gingrich and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Neither of them has a history of down-the-line conservatism. Gingrich can match Romney flip-flop for flip-flop and heresy for heresy. He has supported cap-and-trade legislation, federal funding for embryonic stem- cell research, the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs and a federal requirement for everyone to buy health insurance. He has been neither more consistent nor more conservative than Romney.

True, Gingrich has done more to advance the cause of conservatism than Romney. But he’s also done more to damage it. He lost his job as speaker of the House because conservative representatives were fed up with his inconstancy.

A Riskier Choice

There’s no guarantee that any Republican will win next year, of course. But Gingrich would be a riskier choice for the Republicans to nominate against President Barack Obama. The last time the country got a good long look at him, he turned very unpopular very fast. His decades in Washington, some of them spent essentially as a lobbyist, would muddle the party’s message. So would his unfortunate marital history.

We already know the basic strategy of the Obama campaign. It will be to portray the Republican nominee as a dangerous right-wing extremist. Romney’s demeanor — his steadiness, his reasonableness — would undercut that strategy. It seems likely to be much more successful against Gingrich. After all, it already was: In 1996, Clinton ran against Gingrich as much as he ran against his nominal opponent, Bob Dole. Clinton portrayed Gingrich as callous and radical, and used Gingrich’s ill- considered words, such as his claim that Republican plans would cause the Medicare bureaucracy to “wither on the vine,” against him.

Gingrich’s energy and creativity are admirable, within limits. But recognizing his own limits is not a Gingrich specialty. Voters are likely to see, as he cannot, that he is temperamentally unsuited for the presidency.

(Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review. The opinions expressed are his own.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/27/curl-does-obama-really-want-to-win/

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“Over the last decade, we became a country that relied too much on what we bought and consumed.”

– President Obama, Nov. 19, 2011

“Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns.”

– President Carter, July 15, 1979

There are only two ways to look at the Obama re-election campaign right now: Either the upstart candidate who stunned the world when he defeated the Clinton machine to capture the Democratic nomination three years ago has lost every bit of that massive mojo, or the bruised and battered president, after three years in office, just doesn’t want another spin in the Oval Office.

How else to explain the nonstop missteps, the stammering and stuttering campaign, not to mention the brazen attacks on American voters, who, he has said, have “fallen behind,” lost their “ambition and imagination,” gotten “lazy” and “a bit soft” – this is a guy seeking the support of America?!

For the past 36 months, Americans have hoped for the best. But it hasn’t turned out that way. In fact, some argue that Mr. Obama actually made the economy worse – the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last week that his 2009 stimulus package may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak and that over the long run it will be a net drag on the economy.

But then, this. The president, traveling the country purportedly to look for votes in 2012, decided to lecture the American people on their shortcomings: fat, lazy, stupid. And now, he’s channeling – of all people – Jimmy Carter.

Don’t doubt the premise here. Democrats must spend – spend and spend and spend. It’s in their DNA. Mr. Obama offered a $3.8 trillion budget this year, to be paid for by – $2.1 trillion in revenue (read: your money). He knows that over the next four years, with automatic budget cuts set to take effect and the American people’s rising ire over the profligate spending in Washington, he’s going to have no money to redistribute to the masses.

So, why bother? It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Who needs it? Why preside over a government that, instead of giving everything to everybody free, takes it all away, cuts so deeply that nearly every American will be affected? Especially if you think Americans are lazy, lack ambition – they’ll never rise to the challenge, so why not just bail?

Crazy? Not according to two Democratic strategists. Patrick H. Caddell, who coincidentally worked as a pollster for Mr. Carter, and Douglas Schoen think Mr. Obama should follow LBJ and just pack it in.

“He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside,” they wrote, “for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

Of course, Mr. Obama’s hubris will not allow such a move. But consider this, 344 days before Election Day 2012: The president’s greatest advocate, Chris Matthews, who got a chill up his leg every time he heard the candidate speak, has thrown in the towel.

“Once having won the office,” the MSNBC cheerleader said, “he seemed to think that that was the end of it in terms of his connection to the American people. … I think everybody feels an absence of communication from the time he’s been elected. And it’s not about not being left-wing enough or too left. That’s not his problem. It’s connection. And Mrs. Obama, she’s an amazing asset. And what has she done? Obesity? How about connecting with the American people about being Americans? I don’t think she’s happy. I don’t think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don’t seem thrilled at the fact the American people have selected them as our first family. I don’t sense the gratitude, the happiness level, the thrill of being president.”