Obama's October Surprise: Will He Use the Military To Sway the Electorate?

American Thinker:

President Obama loves distractions. From the phony War on Women to gay marriage to attacks on Romney's Bain career, Obama has engaged in a "look over there" campaign to take the focus off of his dreadful record on the economy. But these manufactured issues seem minor relative to chronic joblessness and serial incompetence, and most have a short shelf life, even in the hands of the sympathetic MSM.

If his poll numbers continue to be tepid into October, Obama will need a big distraction to take him through Election Day -- something that will have strong appeal beyond his swooning acolytes.

Military action against Iran would fill the bill. I'm not suggesting Obama will make the "gutsy call" to take out Tehran's nuclear facilities; anything that would overtly help Israel is probably off the table. Besides, I think he'd want to try a much softer action, one from which he could extricate himself easily when his purposes had been served.

One possibility would be to gin up a kerfuffle over, say, "threatening" actions by the Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf, and mobilize our ships in the area to "protect the world's oil supply." Iran would bluster and threaten, but do little else, saving its apocalyptic chips for a bigger, nuclear play. Meanwhile, back at home, Obama would be portrayed as courageous and resolute, and his surrogates would remind voters that it's not prudent to change leaders in mid-crisis. Romney, as the candidate of the loyal opposition, will have to be at least tacitly supportive. And quiet.

After a few weeks, and post-11/6, Obama can declare the crisis to have eased, and unilaterally withdraw most of the ships. Then, Iran would bluster some more, claiming that America blinked first, and both sides would claim victory.

In the spirit of Obama's philosophy of never letting a crisis go to waste, he will have manufactured a crisis, benefited from it, and then defused it. Indeed, this scenario is totally in line with the down-and-dirty politics Obama and his crew have practiced for years.

Romney needs to be ready in October with some sort of strategy to counter such a Machiavellian ploy. I'm just stumped as to what that could be.

Monday, 04 June 2012 00:00

CFR & U.S. Army Chief of Staff: Use Army for Domestic Enforcement

Written by Joe Wolverton, II  - The New American -  Monday, 04 June 2012 00:00

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) proposes that the U.S. Army be used to plan, command, and carry out (with the help of civilian law enforcement) domestic police missions. So says a story appearing in the May/June issue of the influential organization’s official journal, Foreign Affairs. The article lacks a single reference to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits such actions.

In an article penned by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno, the CFR would see the Army used to address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe from domestic disasters, including terrorist attacks. Odierno writes:

Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.

That’s right. Should the sheriff suspect that a particular citizen in his county poses a threat to security and feels he doesn’t have the proper “skills and equipment” to deal with the situation, he can just call out the U.S. Army and bring a “rapid response” force that is robust enough to eliminate the problem.

These are not the musings of an unknown academic written in an obscure journal of little importance. These are the black-and-white plans for “building a flexible force” as laid out by the man in charge and published for all the world to read by the people who may have put him there.

In order to justify this new (and illegal) mission for the Army, General Odierno points to three “major changes” that have precipitated the re-tasking of the troops: First, “declining budgets due to the country’s worsened fiscal situation; second, “a shift in emphasis to the Asia-Pacific region; and third, a “broadening of focus from counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and training of partners to shaping the strategic environment, preventing the outbreak of dangerous regional conflicts, and improving the army’s readiness to respond in force to a range of complex contingencies worldwide.”

There are so many things wrong with every one of these points that each deserves its own article focused solely on its deconstruction. Unfortunately, there is only so much space and each of these considerations has one critical flaw in common: no constitutional authority for any of it.

Start with the woeful economic state of American affairs. Odierno lists this first among his unholy trinity of reasons the army must “transition” from its traditional role to one with a wider domestic and international scope.

Perhaps it has escaped General Odierno’s attention, but the decline of America’s economic fortunes may be in some significant part tied to the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that siphon about $13 billion per month from the U.S. Treasury. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, estimates are that Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion in military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care spread over three operations: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

There is a certain macabre irony to the claim by a military leader that his troops are forced to adapt to stringent budget considerations partially brought about by the use of his troops as the tip of America’s sword of empire.

General Odierno’s third “major change” is the need to use the Army to solve complex international conflicts. Again, these conflicts and the solutions to them are made more complex by the fact that there is not a single syllable in the Constitution that grants the President or Congress the authority to deploy American armed forces to work out the world’s difficult dilemmas.

On this point, regarding the rules to govern the creation and governing of a federal army, the Constitution says very little. In Article I, Section 8, Congress is authorized to “raise and support Armies” and to “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” That’s it. That paucity of information has been magnified by the Council on Foreign Relations and their members in positions of power to include the use of the Army in ways and means that would seem unimaginable even to the most martial of our Founding Fathers.

One of the unconstitutional missions advocated by Odierno and the CFR is the use of the U.S. Army as “a critical guarantor of stability in the Asia-Pacific region.” This is one of the many new “assigned missions” promoted by Odierno in his Foreign Affairs article.

This echoes the pronouncement by his Commander-in-Chief made in Australia last November:

This is the future we seek for the Asia-Pacific — security, prosperity and dignity for all. That’s what we stand for. That’s who we are. That’s the future we will pursue in partnership with allies and friends and with every element of American power.

That is to say, General Odierno and President Obama believe that deterring aggression against our allies in Asia and the Pacific trumps any constitutional stricture on the appropriate use of the Army. There is nothing it seems that will stand in the way of our Army being placed at the disposal of foreign princes and presidents, provided they appreciate their resulting status as satraps of the American Emperor.

Not to worry; other provinces of the emerging American empire are accounted for in the Odierno/CFR plan.

“The posture of the U.S. military in the Middle East is critical to maintaining regional stability there,” writes Odierno, again without any noticeable sense of irony.

Is the general privy to some reports of stability in the Middle East kept secret from the rest of us? There is no end to the media’s reminders of the instability in the Middle East. In fact, it is this very unsettled foundation upon which the need for ongoing American military presence there is built.

In other words, the Middle East is stable because of the Army, the Middle East will remain stable only so long as the Army remains on permanent patrol, and if we were to completely abandon our posts, the region would devolve into outright — instability. Thus is the quality of the reasoning demonstrated by those with command and control of the armed forces of the United States.

One of the timeliest tenets of the Odierno/CFR proposal is the integration of “cyberspace capabilities into our tactical and operational units.” According to an article published last Friday in the New York Times:

From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyber weapons, according to participants in the program.

For the CFR it seems the message from the Obama administration is ask and ye shall receive.

Lest there remain any doubt as to America’s resolve, Odierno wants our nation’s enemies (foreign and domestic) to understand that we are not afraid to “compel capitulation.” Should those “potential adversaries” be American, moreover, Odierno promises that the Army will “be ready to decisively achieve American ends, whatever they may be.”

Finally, we will, Odierno declares, demonstrate “our country’s commitment to global security.”

Sadly, Americans know this too well, as there are rows and rows of white headstones and flag-draped coffins already demonstrating the seriousness of that commitment.

Photo of Gen. Raymond T. Odierno: AP Images

Posse Comitatus is now Irrelevant: US Military Allegedly assisting Police by using Drones

John Galt:

See PDF document of a declassified Air Force intelligence report obtained by CBS News Radio KNX-1070 spells warning:  HERE

The report from KNX-1070 a CBS affiliate in Los Angeles by Charles Feldman (Click here for full story and audio report) has one extract which is particularly disturbing:

Under U.S. Air Force rules, drones are not allowed to conduct “non-consensual surveillance” on U.S. citizens or property, though there are some apparent exceptions.

What has critics alarmed is that data collected by drones accidentally, under the guidelines, can be kept by the military up to three months before being purged and can also be turned over to “another Department of Defense or government agency to whose function it pertains.”

The Air Force guidelines permit using drones domestically to assist law enforcement in “investigating or preventing clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, international narcotics activities , or international terrorist activities.” More vague is language that also allows military cooperation with local law enforcement for the purposes of “preventing, detecting, or investigating other violations of law.”

The bottom line is that the government and law enforcement at the local level has a complete disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the Fourth Amendment protections each citizen is entitled to. This is verified by a report in Wired Magazine last week on May 31st:

Feds Want Warrantless Spying Loss Overturned, Saying the Law Can’t Touch Them

Excuse me? Now those producing intelligence reports, be it viable, false, or real now feel they can not be “touched” by the Constitution nor the rule of law? This excerpt says it all:

Despite that, the government appealed, hoping to re-establish that citizens spied on by the government in the name of national security have no recourse in the courts, even if the government flagrantly violates the laws and the Constitution.

Wir sind alle Ostdeutschen nun.

(h/t Judge Napolitano for the link to the KNX story)

This is just the beginning of the scary treatment we can look forward to:  Police handcuff and hold at gunpoint every adult at an intersection for hours in front of their children ...

Related:

Globalist Imperial Network

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

U.S. Troops Wearing UN Colors – A Must Read

Globalist Plan to Disarm America

THE GLOBALISTS’ TAKEOVER OF AMERICA: Part 3 – WEAKEN MILITARY & CIVILIAN DEFENSE

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

Kissinger in 2008: There Will Be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever is Elected President  -  This is what they were counting on… and nobody expected the Tea Party and others to stand-up!

Technorati Tags: CFR,Posse Comitatus Act,educate yourself,military,Sheriff Joe Arpaio,sheriffs,localism,Council on Foreign Relations,Obama's Civilian Army,U.N. agenda,globalists,UN Small Arms Treaty,Tea Party Activists

Barrett: Wisconsin Revolution Has Only Just Begun

Normally, I would never use this forum to reprint verbatim a press release from a politician. But in this case I’ll make an exception. –KB on Veterans Today

Barrett: Wisconsin Revolution has only just begun!

“To hell with the Republicans. And to purgatory with the Democrats! Whatever happens next Tuesday, the Wisconsin Revolution has only just begun!”

Dr. Kevin Barrett, 50th cousin of gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett*, will be announcing his candidacy for US House of Representatives (2nd District) this Thursday, May 31st, at 6:30 p.m. outside the Barrymore Theatre, 2090 Atwood Avenue, Madison, WI.

Dr. Barrett will run as an independent. “I am running AGAINST the two major parties, and the corrupt system they dominate,” he explained. “Thanks to them, the USA is no longer a free country, and its middle class is being decimated. We need a revolution. I want to take the Wisconsin Revolution nationwide.”

Barrett explained: “The Wisconsin revolution isn’t just about teachers’ unions. It’s a revolution against the controlled demolition of the middle class, and the transformation of the USA into a fascist banana republic.”

What kind of revolution do we need?

“Most of the elite of this country – the big CEOs, the banksters, Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, top-tier FBI, CIA and military, top executive branch officials, election-riggers, media owners, the federal judges and the majority of congress-critters – need to be jailed. We need an American version of Tahrir Square in Washington, DC. And we need to put our entire elite in jail with Mubarak and Ben Ali.”

Barrett’s campaign platform includes:

• End the wars and jail the war criminals.
• Bring all troops home, close all foreign bases, slash military spending 90%.
• Repeal all post-9/11 police state legislation, jail those responsible for unconstitutional laws.
• Seize the “bailed-out” banks and jail the banksters.
• End the Fed, restore Constitutional currency.
• End “free trade” (NAFTA etc.) and rebuild our industry, infrastructure, and middle class.
• End the “drug war,” free all consensual-crimes prisoners
• Reveal the truth about 9/11 – the shock that will make revolution possible.

Geneticists say that all humans are at least 50th cousins.

Also… ‘elites’ does not necessarily mean the rich; it is an ideology, the ideology of the globalists, anti-sovereignty and anti-American crew.  There are many progressive professors, media-types and politicians who are elites and globalists who are not necessarily rich or among the very richest.  There are also many rich people who value freedom, free market capitalism and basic American values… after all, they and their families have more to lose than anyone.

As for president we have the choice for anti-American, anti-American values, Progressive Alinskyite elitist Obama or Pro-Free Enterprise, Pro-Freedom of Religion, Pro-Business , wealthy but down to earth Romney.  Getting rid of Obama and surrounding Romney with conservatives, Constitutionalists, tea party types, and some independents like this guy is what we need to do on November 6th 2012.

Related:

Referencing CFR Above:

This is Where Michelle Obama is Listed on CFR Board of Directors In Chicago

http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_board_directors.php

You might think that this is not affiliated with the CFR, but in fact, the name has been changed. If you run your mouse over where it says The Chicago Council on the left side then select FAQ, question # 7 reads the following:

7.Why did the Chicago Council change its name?
On September 1, 2006, The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations was renamed The Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
The world has undergone tremendous change since The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1922. Today, more than ever before, our world is shaped by forces far beyond capital cities. Chicago and the Midwest are affected by events and decisions that reach across national borders.
Our new name, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, respects our heritage while it signals our understanding of these changes and reflects our expanding efforts to contribute to the global discourse on the critical issues of the day. What has not changed is our commitment to nonpartisanship and public education.

Technorati Tags: elites,Romney in 2012,globalists,election-riggers,watch the otherhand,Dr. Kevin Barrett,saving America,CFR,Michelle Obama,The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

Exclusive: U.S. lets China bypass Wall Street for Treasury orders

(Reuters) - China can now bypass Wall Street when buying U.S. government debt and go straight to the U.S. Treasury, in what is the Treasury's first-ever direct relationship with a foreign government, according to documents viewed by Reuters.

The relationship means the People's Bank of China buys U.S. debt using a different method than any other central bank in the world.

The other central banks, including the Bank of Japan, which has a large appetite for Treasuries, place orders for U.S. debt with major Wall Street banks designated by the government as primary dealers. Those dealers then bid on their behalf at Treasury auctions.

China, which holds $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, still buys some Treasuries through primary dealers, but since June 2011, that route hasn't been necessary.

The documents viewed by Reuters show the U.S. Treasury Department has given the People's Bank of China a direct computer link to its auction system, which the Chinese first used to buy two-year notes in late June 2011.

China can now participate in auctions without placing bids through primary dealers. If it wants to sell, however, it still has to go through the market.

The change was not announced publicly or in any message to primary dealers.

"Direct bidding is open to a wide range of investors, but as a matter of general policy we do not comment on individual bidders," said Matt Anderson, a Treasury Department spokesman.

While there is been no prohibition on foreign government entities bidding directly, the Treasury's accommodation of China is unique.

The Treasury's sales of U.S. debt to China have become part of a politically charged public debate about China's role as the largest exporter to the United States and also the country's largest creditor.

The privilege may help China obtain U.S. debt for a better price by keeping Wall Street's knowledge of its orders to a minimum.

Primary dealers are not allowed to charge customers money to bid on their behalf at Treasury auctions, so China isn't saving money by cutting out commission fees.

Instead, China is preserving the value of specific information about its bidding habits. By bidding directly, China prevents Wall Street banks from trying to exploit its huge presence in a given auction by driving up the price.

It is one of several courtesies provided to a buyer in a class by itself in terms of purchasing power. Although the Japanese, for example, own about $1.1 trillion of Treasuries, their purchasing has been less centralized. Buying by Japan is scattered among institutions, including pension funds, large Japanese banks and the Bank of Japan, without a single entity dominating.

Granting China a direct bidding link is not the first time Treasury has gone to great lengths to keep its largest client happy.

In 2009, when Treasury officials found China was using special deals with primary dealers to conceal its U.S. debt purchases, the Treasury changed a rule to outlaw those deals, Reuters reported last June. But at the same time it relaxed a reporting requirement to make the Chinese more comfortable with the amended rule.

Another feature of the U.S.-China business relationship is discretion: The Treasury tried to keep its motivation for the 2009 rule change under wraps, Reuters reported.

Documents dealing with China's new status as a direct bidder again demonstrate the Treasury's desire for secrecy -- in terms of Wall Street and its new direct bidding customer.

To safeguard against hackers, Treasury officials upgraded the system that allows China to access the bidding process.

Then they discussed ways to deflect questions from Wall Street traders that would arise once the auction results began revealing the undeniable presence of a foreign direct bidder.

"Most hold the view that foreign accounts only submit 'indirect bids' through primary dealers. This will likely cause significant chatter on the street and many questions will likely come our way," wrote one government official in an email viewed by Reuters.

In the email, the official suggested providing basic, general answers to questions about who can bid in Treasury actions.

"For questions more extensive or probing in nature, I think it prudent to direct them to the or Treasury public relations area," the official wrote.

The granting to China of direct bidder status may be controversial because some government officials are concerned that China has gained too much leverage over the United States through its large Treasury holdings.

For example, economist Brad Setser, who is a member of the National Economic Council and has also served on the National Security Council, has argued China's large Treasury holdings pose a national security threat.

Writing for the Council on Foreign Relations in 2009, Setser posited that China's massive U.S. debt holdings gave it power over U.S. policy via the threat of a swift, large sale of U.S. debt that could send the market into turmoil and drive up interest rates.

But Treasury officials have long maintained that U.S. debt sales to China are kept separate from politics in a business relationship that benefits both countries. The Chinese use Treasuries to house the dollars they receive from selling goods to the United States, while the U.S. government is happy to see such strong demand for its debt because it keeps interest rates low.

A spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington did not respond to calls and emails seeking comment.

The United States has, however, displayed increasing anxiety about China as a cybersecurity threat. The change Treasury officials made to their direct bidding system before allowing access to China was to limit access to the system to a specially designed private network connection controlled by the Treasury.

China is among the most sensitive topics for bankers and government officials who court the country as a financial client because of its size and importance, and none would agree to comment on the record for this story.

A former debt management official at the Treasury who did not want to be identified said that as China's experience in the U.S. Treasury market has deepened over time, Chinese officials may have felt more comfortable taking the reins in the management of their holdings.

Their request to bid directly, in his view, came from a confidence that their money managers could buy U.S. debt more efficiently on their own than through Wall Street banks, which can often drive up the price of Treasuries at an auction if they know how much large clients are willing to pay. Such a practice that is not specifically illegal, though most traders would deem it unethical.

Evidence of China's growing sophistication as a money manager in the U.S. markets is clear in its expansion of operations in New York. Its money management arm, the State Administration for Foreign Exchange (commonly called SAFE), has an office in Midtown Manhattan and a seasoned chief investment officer -- former Pacific Investment Management Co derivatives head Changhong Zhu -- in Beijing.

A woman who answered the phone at SAFE's New York office said no one in the office was authorized to talk to the media.

(Editing by Martin Howell and Steve Orlofsky)

Related:

WHY IS CHINA OUR NATION’S NATIONAL BANK

Technorati Tags: banking,CFR,CHINA,globalists,national debt,New Economic World Order,Obamaland,radicals in the White House,Timothy Geithner,Treasuries,Treasury Department,U.S. economy,U.S. policy,U.S. Treasury Bonds,Wall Street,watch the other hand

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty In Secret

Obama, Clinton work in secret to surrender U.S. sovereignty

American Free Press:

By Victor Thorn

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On Feb. 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison. The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers.

A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.

Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.

Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.” Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order?

Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries.

Not surprisingly, a leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village..., she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.”

These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable. Interestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They [parents] have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.”

Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”

If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.”

A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Today, America is not on board, but this situation may change if Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order.

LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers. Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.

In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space.

When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?

Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership.

In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ”

The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul.

If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .[and] create an international gun registry.”

Globalist Treaties Terrible for America

By Victor Thorn

During a May 10 interview with AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Becky Fenger, a political columnist for Arizona’s Sonoran News, voiced her concerns to this writer in regard to a rash of globalist treaties being negotiated by the current administration.

“What are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama thinking?” asked Mrs. Fenger. “I can’t understand why they would willingly hand over power to the UN. How can you reason with these people when it seems like they’ve lost their minds?”

When questioned about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fenger replied: “Do you know how detrimental they are to our nation? We used to worry about communism and those who wanted to take over the U.S. But now we’re surrendering our sovereignty to the UN, which is filled with petty dictators. America should get out of the UN, since we pay the bulk of dues and always get voted against anyway.”

According to Mrs. Fenger, the dangers facing us are monumental.

“These treaties become the equivalent of law,” she said, “and it’ll take 161 countries to release us from them. Worse, I’m not sure if Congress is even aware of what’s going on, or if they understand how binding these treaties are.”

She continued: “Look at the ICC. Aggression is described as going to war without UN approval, which includes Russia and China. What kind of mind thinks that succumbing to this is a good idea?”

Mrs. Fenger next addressed one of Mrs. Clinton’s favorite pet projects.

“Hillary said it takes a village, not a parent, to raise children,” she said. “Their goal is really to get these little minds and teach them from infancy to love global government dictatorship. But why should we relinquish parental control when it’s been a guiding light throughout history? They want to disintegrate the family unit and replace it with government. It’s unconscionable. Our personal liberties have always frightened them, so their goal is to take freedom out of the hands of every individual.”

AFP broached the subject of Obama’s increasing use of executive orders.

“I used to think that a law couldn’t pass if it was unconstitutional, but what about eminent domain and the Kelo decision?” she asked. “I’ve lost all faith in what used to be known as common sense and following the Constitution. Obama has proved he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution.”

The Kelo case refers to a 2002 Supreme Court ruling which found that private entities can take property for a price from private individuals who do not want to give it up if the private company can argue that the property will be used for the common good. Specifically, the case involved a house owned by Susette Kelo in New London, Conn. As it turns out, a developer bought Mrs. Kelo’s house, even though she didn’t want to move. After all the homes in the area had been bulldozed, however, funding for the developer’s project fell through, and the town was forced to take it over. It is now a landfill.

AFP also spoke with author Brandon Pierce, author of a novel about the Bilderberg group entitled Crisis Point.

He agreed, telling this writer on May 11, “Americans could be tried in a world court even after they’ve been acquitted in the U.S. It has a direct effect on all of us when an international body can decide what happens to our leaders and citizens.”

Is Hillary or Barack Wearing the Pants in the White House?

By Victor Thorn

Is Secretary of State and one-time Bilderberg attendee Hillary Clinton the shadow president of the United States, just as it was claimed she was de facto governor and president during her husband’s tenure in Arkansas and Washington, D.C.?

Doubters should be reminded of a Feb. 24, 2008 quote delivered by Barack Obama during a campaign stop in Loraine, Ohio. “She [Hillary] has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years.”

Obama knew full well of what he spoke. Journalist Scott Creighton’s Mar. 19, 2011 article, “President Hillary Clinton’s Shock and Awe,” began with this stark contrast. “While Hillary Clinton met with 22 world leaders to decide the fate of Libya, they kept Barack Obama in the back of the bus and let the real president take the lead.” Creighton also pointed out that while Obama golfed and vacationed, Hillary conferred with practically every world leader and dignitary imaginable.

A quick glance at the State Dept.’s travel itinerary reveals nearly 75 trips to foreign countries by Clinton where the real groundwork for a New World Order super-structure was being laid.

While some commentators call Hillary a “Globalist Grand Wizard,” her influence spread to the formation of Obama’s Cabinet after his 2008 election. In a March 18 article, Edward Ulrich wrote, “31 of the 47 people Barack Obama has named for appointments have ties to the Clinton administration, including Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner.”

To get a better idea of Hillary’s modus operandi, in a 2006 film entitled Inside Man, Hollywood actress Jodie Foster analyzed her character’s role in remedying delicate situations. “She’s a fixer, a rich Madison Avenue lawyer who fixes things when they go wrong. Say you were a mayor and you got caught in bed with three dead hookers, I would be brought in to fix the situation.” When asked how her character did it, Foster replied, “Call in lots of favors. You use people and kind of puppet behind the scenes, manipulate them. She’s a dubious bad guy.”

The above words perfectly describe Hillary Clinton’s entire political career. In fact, HILLARY (AND BILL) THE MURDER VOLUME contains the following passage. “Hillary acted as an enabler and fixer to cover-up for her husband’s serial philandering and sexual reign of terror.”

But being a handler for Bill’s raging libido was minor compared to Hillary’s role in trafficking drugs through Mena Airport, the cover-up of Vince Foster and Ron Brown’s murders, Chinagate, and laundering money through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to finance their campaigns.

Learning the ropes from Washington, D.C.’s former fixer extraordinaire—longtime Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan—Hillary has always nurtured a comfortable relationship with Wall Street bankers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Indeed, during a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed, “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

With the Obama administration pursuing a number of globalist treaties that undermine American sovereignty, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is the driving force behind these moves as she travels from country to country. According to the elitist’s worldview, individuals should be subordinate and powerless to collectivists, while nationalists are viewed as a distraction to be folded into the globalist whole.

During a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed: “We get a lot of advice from the council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

 As Obama’s numbers and campaign donations drop… the rumblings of adding Hillary to the ticket as Veep… are growing louder!

For anyone out there that is cheering… You better do your homework!  Hillary is just as much of a Progressive (pro-U.N., pro-NWO) as Obama; she supports the Muslim Brotherhood (More at: Weiner Fallout).

Hillary was George Soros’ Darling before Obama was!!

Don’t believe that… Read: The Shadow Party

Other Good Books:

Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off and Plundering Our Economy-and How Our Leaders Help Them Do It

Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

When you find yourself quibbling over whether you can vote for a Mormon or wishing your 1st choice for GOP had won the nomination… consider the options above.  This is the choice!

Technorati Tags: Hillary,Hillary Clinton,The Clintons,Obamaland,Bilderberg,CFR,Progressives,Progressive Movement,educate yourself,NWO,UN Small Arms Treaty,Weiner,the Shadow Party,globalists,George Soros,UNCRC,LOST,UN,Rights of the Child,ICC,sovereignty,wake-up America,Leon Panetta,Kony

Proponents of One World Socialism

Remember these photos below?  Well nothing has changed much except a few of the elites have changed seats and many more of the little people have woken up…

NEW WORLD ORDER PROPONENTS
"One World Socialist" Organizations - U.S. Democratic Party - Federal Reserve - Goldman Sachs - CRIME, INC. - Bilderberg - Council on Foreign Relations - United Nations - Trilateral Commission - Microsoft - Google - Apple – Facebook - More

HERE'S ONE FOR THE PHOTO ALBUM: Obama seems extremely pleased to be photographed surrounded by socialists, communists and terrorists... so much so, he gave the "thumbs up". Communist Obama and Communist Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, celebrate after agreeing on how to transform the world into a one big socialist planet via G20 financial reforms. Hugging them both is Socialist Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who has an extensive record of and criminal allegations, including mafia collusion, false accounting, tax fraud, corruption, sex with a minor, and bribery of police officers and judges. Summit host and socialist UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said the deal heralded a “New World Order”.

Also shown: Communist China's President, Hu Jintao; Socialists International member and South Africa's President, Kgalema Motlanthe; Prince Saud Al Faisal of Saudi Arabia (country source of fifteen 9/11 terrorists); Ethipoian socialist, terrorist and NEPAD head, Meles Zenawi; Turkey's domineering, anti-secularist and Islamic Extremist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan; and Thailand's Prime Minister and Democrat, Abhisit Vejjajiva, who ascended to power during the 2009 global economic crisis and may be forced from office due to dual citizenship (like Obama).

WHY IS THE U.S. LINKING ITS ECONOMY TO G20 COUNTRIES?

Video: Brzezinski (Obama Adviser) "its easier to kill a million people than it is to control them"

Who Are We?… And Is America Done?

John Bolton – Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and author of: Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and How Barack Obama is Endangering our National Sovereignty (Encounter Broadsides) said, “We need to have a serious conversation in the United States about how we feel about global government, global governance, the NWO or whatever they call it and seriously consider if that is what we want… and if not what we must do want and what we plan to do to save America!”

REUTERS:

Kissinger in 2008: There will be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever Is Elected President - Why? Because both Obama and McCain we Progressives. The Democratic party has been virtually taken over and transformed by the Progressives, but there are Progressives with the Republican ranks as well. Americans must educate themselves and then vote accordingly. Remember what Jefferson said… in order for our Republic to survive… the populace must be educated and involved~

Rothschild and CIA Publications Attack “Constitution-worshipers”… think about it: Rothchild and the CIA on the same side against Constitutionalists and tea party people… really?

Daniel Hannan - Member of European Parliament and Author of The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America, an important read!

Hannan says people make it sound like global governance is a conspiracy theory… it is not! It is real! European and American leaders are now already talking about it out in the open everywhere (like it is a done deal)… and like with Obama’s rhetoric, too many Americans are not really listening or are too distracted to pay attention!

Hannan also says that you can’t have global governance and democratic votes and freedoms at the same time!  He added that European press is showing the tea party as toothless yokels supporting unelectable candidates. And Hannan said that Chris Christy is exactly the kind of Politian we need to do what needs to be done and to win in these times, so if Christy is not going to run, the he is willing to support certainly seems like a better bet than what we have!

This is Global Governance 2025 by US & EU Intelligence Agencies

Video:  The men behind Barack Obama part 1

Video: The men behind Barack Obama part 2

Obama’s Dead Pool List

6-Jihad in Obama’s Connections

Video/Audio of the moment: Bachmann Calls ‘Rumors of War III’ Documentary Frighteningly Accurate, ‘Absolutely Profound’

Video: RON PAUL CONFIRMS NEW WORLD ORDER!!!

Elite Eugenicists Call For Mass Depopulation, Drastic Reduction In Energy Consumption

There are 78 - 81 Communist Party Members in Congress!

US President and Democratic Party Actively Supporting Communists Get Elected Abroad

“George Soros met with Hillary and Obama.
Soros said his agenda was to tear this economy down to the ground.
Obama said, ‘no problem.’ Hillary said, ‘no way.’”

--> Did Obama Assassinate Clinton Delegates?  <--

OBAMA-THREATEN CLINTONS DAUGHTER? - WHAT HAPPENED TO BREITBART?

Most people in the US, especially Democrats, believe that the Obama Birther Movement was started by Republicans and or the Tea Party. They believe it is a smear campaign aimed to tarnish the image of their hero of change. But they may be shocked to learn that the Birther Movement was actually started by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary back in 2008. In an exclusive interview by WND, Bettina Viviano was a vice president with Amblin Enterntainment, Steven Spielberg’s company, before launching her own film production company in 1990. In 2008, Viviano was asked to produce a documentary about voter fraud within the Democratic Party. At the time, she says she was not a Democrat or a Republican and in fact had never voted in an election. She went into the project with the sole purpose of producing the best and most accurate documentary possible. During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign. She also heard former President Bill Clinton say that Obama was not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact, she said it was common knowledge around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he would go public with the information when the time was right. Before that could happen, his close friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney was murdered in his office and then someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about Obama’s eligibility. In the video below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone associated with the Obama campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth. From that point on, the Clinton’s remained silent about Obama’s birth certificate or lack thereof. This is a powerful video from a lady that has nothing to gain and probably everything to lose by coming forward with her information. It could well ruin her career in Hollywood as so many of the film industry are flaming liberals. It could also cost her her life. I took note of how she described the Obama campaign’s reign of terror and intimidation and how well coordinated it was. I thought to myself that if they were bold enough to threaten the life of the Clinton’s daughter then have they made similar threats to all of the leading Republicans in both the House and Senate? Is this why Congress has remained so silent ever since Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1st news conference where he provided the American people with the evidence that Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Cards are forgeries? When you see how blatantly Obama has defied the US Constitution and federal law without any apology or excuses, it’s not hard to believe that he, like every other dictator in history, obtained his position by intimidation, threats and outright violence. Knowing he is capable of this has to make every single American extremely fearful if Obama gets re-elected. And if the voter fraud will be as prevalent in November as it was in 2008, it seems a sure thing that he will be re-elected. Obama has had the DOJ strike down every voter ID law and any other measure taken, to reduce the chance of voter fraud. They have set the stage for an old fashioned Chicago style election with padded and illegal votes. Wait a minute, he is a Chicago politician, so guess he’s just following local history at a national level. If he does get re-elected, I’m positive it will mean the end of free elections and free America. We will become another Soviet Union: a land run by an elite group of Marxists who will exploit all of the people for their own personal gain. America, for all intent and purpose will be dead if Obama is re-elected Just released on WND: GOP lawmaker: Eligibility too scary to take on

AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO BREITBART?

According the the Los Angeles Chief Medical Examiner Lakshmanan Sathyavaglswaran, 43 year-old Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure and “hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with focal coronary atheroscerosis”, which is thickening of the heart muscle and hardening of the arteries for those who don’t speak Sathyavaglswaran-ish. 

But you ask anyone who knew Breitbart, follows politics and media closely and especially anyone who has followed the Clintons and the Obama and they say… not so fast. I think many conservatives suspect foul play in Breitbart's death.

After all Breitbart conveniently died the day before he was launching his new website and just as he was going to launch a new campaign to vet Obama that he had announced at CPAC.  Coincidental?

Then on April 27th… Michael Cormier, forensic technician for L.A. County Coroner, who worked on the Breitbart case,  dies under 'suspicious circumstances, possible arsenic poisoning'.  Another coincidence?

North American Union Isn't Going Away – Obama took over where Bush left off

Conspiracy to some… A frightening reality to more and more… 

You be the judge…

And even if something is a conspiracy… It does not mean it is merely a theory nor does it mean that it it not true~

China, the United States, and Global Governance: Shifting Foundations of World Order

First is a pdf file, with an excerpt then the article with the title in the subject line.

“China, the United States, and Global Governance: Shifting Foundations of World Order”

Workshop in Beijing, China  March 15 – 17, 2010

http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/CFR_CICIR_MeetingNote.pdf

Excerpt:

Prospects for effective multilateral cooperation on global and transnational problems in the twenty-first century will inevitably reflect the distinct national interests and international visions of the great powers. But the identity and number of the world’s leading states is changing, creating new challenges and opportunities for global governance. The world order that ultimately results from this transition period will reflect difficult negotiations between established powers—including the United States, European Union, and Japan—and emerging ones—including China, India, and Brazil.

Common World Order Visions?

Any discussion of divergences between American and Chinese global visions must begin with some historical perspective. Over the past four decades, China has shifted its foreign policy in a breathtak-ing fashion. Once a revolutionary power bent on overturning world order, China has become a prin-cipal beneficiary of globalization and a responsible member of most international regimes, from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Possessing a per-manent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and, since November 2008, a spot in the Group of 20 (G20), it is increasingly part of the global establishment. On balance, its aims tend to be modestly revisionist, focused on securing growing weight within international institutions (such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) and peacefully expanding its economic and politi-cal influence, particularly within Asia. Consistent with Chinese president Hu Jintao’s concept of a “harmonious world,” China places heavy emphasis on multilateralism—and especially the United Na-tions—as a necessary approach to the exercise of power. In some areas, particularly when it comes to national sovereignty and nonintervention, China has emerged as a more conservative power than the United States. This was especially clear during the administration of George W. Bush (20012009), when the United States—far from being a status quo power—embraced a doctrine of contingent sove-reignty.

Workshop participants perceived an ongoing, impressive shift of global power toward Asia (including China), particularly in the wake of the global financial crisis, and stressed the importance of navigating this delicate power transition in a smooth and peaceful manner.

The United States, meanwhile, enters the second decade of the new millennium with its continued global leadership role increasingly in doubt, thanks to the nation’s fiscal strains, U.S. public fatigue with fighting two large wars, and the evaporation of the bipartisan Cold War internationalist consen-sus. Given these domestic constraints, some U.S. participants anticipated a period of diminished U.S. global ambition, perhaps even retrenchment. Notwithstanding President Barack Obama’s commit-ment to international institutional reform, most anticipated that the United States would continue to pursue a mixed strategy of reliance on formal, treaty-based institutions and more ad hoc, flexible coali-tions composed of a smaller number of capable states to pursue its global agenda.

Much, much more at link.

CFR Convenes “Council of Councils” Linking Leading Foreign Policy Institutes From Around the World

http://www.cfr.org/global-governance/cfr-convenes-council-councils-linking-leading-foreign-policy-institutes-around-world/p27612

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has launched an international initiative to connect leading foreign policy institutes from around the world in a common conversation on issues of global governance and multilateral cooperation. The mission of the Council of Councils is to find common ground on shared threats, build support for innovative ideas, and inject remedies into the public debate and policymaking processes of member countries.

The founding membership of the Council of Councils includes leading institutions from nineteen countries, roughly tracking the composition of the Group of Twenty (G20). The network will facilitate candid, not-for-attribution dialogue and consensus building among influential opinion leaders from established and emerging nations.

CFR will convene the inaugural Council of Councils conference on March 12-13 in Washington, DC. Participants will tackle four major themes at this first gathering:

—the overall state of global governance and multilateral cooperation

—the status of the nuclear nonproliferation regime (with a focus on Iran)

—the dollar's future as the world's reserve currency

—the criteria for humanitarian intervention, in the wake of regime change in Libya and the ongoing crisis in Syria

Transcripts from two on-the-record sessions of the conference, featuring President of the World Bank Robert B. Zoellick and Undersecretary of State Robert D. Hormats, will be available on CFR.org after the event.

In addition to an annual conference, the Council of Councils will provide an ongoing exchange for research and policy collaboration among its members. CFR and its international partners will experiment with new technology, using state-of-the-art videoconferencing, wikis, and mobile platforms to collectively communicate and respond to breaking crises. The group will also consider long-term structural reforms that would enhance the global governance capacity of leading international institutions.

CFR President Richard N. Haass said, "The defining foreign policy challenges of the twenty-first century are global in nature. The Council of Councils draws on the best thinking from around the world to assess emerging threats and opportunities and formulate responses to them."

The Council of Councils initiative is funded by a generous grant from the Robina Foundation, as part of its ongoing support for CFR's International Institutions and Global Governance program.

Founding Council of Councils Member Organizations:
Australia: Lowy Institute for International Policy
Belgium: Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Brazil: Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV)
Canada: Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
China: Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS)
France: French Institute of International Relations (IFRI)
Germany: German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)
Indonesia: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Israel: Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Italy: Institute of International Affairs (IAI)

Japan: Genron NPO
Mexico: Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI)
Russia: Institute of Contemporary Development (INSOR)
Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS)
South Africa: South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA)
South Korea: East Asia Institute (EAI)
Turkey: Global Relations Forum (GIF)

United Kingdom: Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs);
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
United States: Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

***

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

CFR's International Institutions and Global Governance (IIGG) program aims to identify the institutional requirements for effective multilateral cooperation in the twenty-first century.

Related:

Globalist Imperial Network

OWS and the planned “endgame” for the U.S.

The Newt World Order… Worth a Look and Some Consideration

Kissinger in 2008:  There Will Be “Bi-Partisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever Is Elected President  -  They expected us to stay asleep and never counted on the tea party movement!

America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution

Brzezinski: Syria is Not Libya  -  Former Carter national security adviser and trusted Rockefeller minion Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated that military intervention in Syria will not work as it did in Libya. 

The spectre of 1932: How a loss of faith in politicians and democracy could make 2012 the most frightening year in living memory

Warning from the UK…

The dawn of a new year is usually a time of hope and ambition, of dreams for the future and thoughts of a better life. But it is a long time since many of us looked forward to the new year with such anxiety, even dread.

Here in Britain, many economists believe that by the end of 2012 we could well have slipped into a second devastating recession. The Coalition remains delicately poised; it would take only one or two resignations to provoke a wider schism and a general election.

But the real dangers lie overseas. In the Middle East, the excitement of the Arab Spring has long since curdled into sectarian tension and fears of Islamic fundamentalism. And with so many of the world’s oil supplies concentrated in the Persian Gulf, British families will be keeping an anxious eye on events in the Arab world.

The Battle of Cable Street: Mosley's fascists tried to march through the Jewish East End, a scene that could be repeated

Wall Street Crash 1929: Scenes outside the New York Stock Exchange on the day the stock market crashed may once again become a reality

Meanwhile, as the eurozone slides towards disaster, the prospects for Europe have rarely been bleaker. Already the European elite have installed compliant technocratic governments in Greece and Italy, and with the markets now putting pressure on France, few observers can be optimistic that the Continent can avoid a total meltdown.

As commentators often remark, the world picture has not been grimmer since the dark days of the mid-Seventies, when the OPEC oil shock, the rise of stagflation and the surge of nationalist terrorism cast a heavy shadow over the Western world.

For the most chilling parallel, though, we should look back exactly 80 years, to the cold wintry days when 1931 gave way to 1932.

The ultimate warning from history: If our political leaders fail to provide adequate direction the results, as demonstrated 80 years ago, could be catastrophic

Then as now, few people saw much to mourn in the passing of the old year. It was in 1931 that the Great Depression really took hold in Europe, bringing governments to their knees and plunging tens of millions of people out of work.

Then as now, the crisis had taken years to gather momentum. After the Wall Street Crash in 1929 — just as after the banking crisis of 2008 — some observers even thought that the worst was over.

But in the summer of 1931, a wave of banking panics swept across central Europe. As the German and Austrian financial houses tottered, Britain’s Labour government came under fierce market pressure to slash spending and cut benefits.

Bitterly divided, the Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald decided to resign from office — only to return immediately as the leader of an all-party Coalition known as the National Government, dominated by Stanley Baldwin’s Conservatives.

Like today’s Coalition, the National Government was an uneasy marriage. Sunk in self-pity and spending much of his time flirting with aristocratic hostesses, MacDonald cut a miserable and semi-detached figure. By comparison, even Nick Clegg looks a model of strong, decisive leadership.

As for the Tory leader Stanley Baldwin, he had more in common with David Cameron than we might think. A laid-back Old Harrovian, tolerant, liberal-minded and ostentatiously relaxed, Baldwin spent as much time as possible on holiday in the South of France, preferring to enjoy the Mediterranean sunshine rather than get his hands dirty with the nuts and bolts of policy.

Meanwhile, far from offering a strong and coherent Opposition, the rump Labour Party seemed doomed to irrelevance. At least its leader, the pacifist Arthur Henderson, could claim to be a man of the people, having hauled himself up by his bootstraps from his early days as a Newcastle metal worker.

Not even his greatest admirers could possibly say the same of today’s adenoidal, stammering Opposition leader, the toothless Ed Miliband.

The end of Democracy: The dire situation in 1932 led to many threats to the democratic system we so value, including the assassination of the French President Paul Doumer

With the politicians apparently impotent in the face of the economic blizzard, many people were losing faith in parliamentary democracy. Their despair was hardly surprising: in some industrial towns of the North, Wales and Scotland, unemployment in 1932 reached a staggering 70 per cent.

With thousands more being plunged out of work every week, even the National Government estimated that one in four people were making do on a mere subsistence diet. Scurvy, rickets and tuberculosis were rife; in the slag heaps of Wigan, George Orwell saw ‘several hundred women’ scrabbling ‘in the mud for hours’, searching for tiny chips of coal so they could heat their homes.

Feeling betrayed by mainstream politicians, many sought more extreme alternatives. Then as now, Britain was rocked by marches and demonstrations. In October 1932, a National Hunger March in Hyde Park saw bloody clashes between protesters and mounted policemen, with 75 people being badly injured.

Toothless: Ed Miliband can hardly claim to be a man of the people like the pacifist Arthur Henderson

And while Left-wing intellectuals were drawn to the supposedly utopian promise of the Soviet leader Josef Stalin — who turned out to be a brutal tyrant — thousands of ordinary people flocked to the banners of the British Union of Fascists, founded in the autumn of 1932 by the former Labour maverick Sir Oswald Mosley.

Never before or since has the far Right commanded greater British support — a worrying reminder of the potential for economic frustration to turn into demagogic resentment.

But the most compelling parallels between 1932 and 2012 lie overseas, where the economic and political situation was, if anything, even darker.

Eighty years ago, the world was struggling to come to terms with an entirely new financial landscape. In August 1931, the system by which currencies were pegged to the value of gold had fallen apart, with market pressure forcing Britain to pull the pound off the gold standard.

Almost overnight, the system that was supposed to ensure global economic stability was gone. And as international efforts to coordinate a response collapsed, so nations across the world fell back on self-interested economic protectionism.

In August 1932, the British colonies and dominions met in the Canadian capital, Ottawa, and agreed a policy of Imperial Preference, putting high tariffs on goods from outside the Empire. International free trade was now a thing of the past; in this frightening new world, it was every man for himself.

Today’s situation, of course, is even more frightening. Our equivalent of the gold standard — the misguided folly of the euro — is poised on the brink of disaster, yet the European elite refuse to let poorer Mediterranean nations like Greece and Portugal leave the eurozone, devalue their new currencies and start again.

Should the eurozone collapse, as seems perfectly likely given Greece’s soaring debts, Spain’s record unemployment, Italy’s non-existent growth and the growing market pressure on France’s ailing economy, then the consequences would be much worse than when Britain left the gold standard.

The shockwaves across Europe — which could come as early as next spring — would see banks tottering, businesses crashing and millions thrown out of work. For British firms that trade with Europe, as well as holiday companies, airports, travel firms and the City of London itself, the meltdown of the eurozone would be a catastrophe.

If the eurozone crisis intensifies, then it is no idle fantasy to imagine that Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and their Brussels allies will demand an even greater centralisation of powers

Vladimir Putin looks almost cuddly in comparison to the rule of dictatorial Stalin in 1932

And as the experience of 80 years ago suggests, the political and social ramifications would be too terrible to contemplate. For in many ways, the 12 months between the end of 1931 and the beginning of 1933 were the tipping point between democracy and tyranny, the moment when the world plunged from an uneasy peace towards hatred and bloodshed.

In the East, new powers were already on the rise. At the end of 1931, Imperial Japan had already launched a staggeringly brutal invasion of China, the Japanese armies pouring into the disputed province of Manchuria in search of raw materials.

Today the boot is on the other foot, with China ploughing billions into its defence programme and establishing de facto economic colonies across Africa, bringing copper, cobalt and zinc back to the mother country.

Indeed, future historians may well look back and see the first years of the 2010s as the moment when the Chinese Empire began to strengthen its global grip.

In the Soviet Union in 1932, meanwhile, Stalin’s reign of terror was intensifying. With dissent crushed by the all-powerful Communist Party, his state-sponsored collectivisation of the Ukrainian farms saw a staggering 6 million die in one of the worst famines in history.

By these standards, the autocratic Vladimir Putin looks almost cuddly.

Barack Obama cuts a similarly impotent, indecisive and isolationist figure. The difference is that in 1932, one of the greatest statesmen of the century, the Democratic politician Franklin D. Roosevelt, was waiting in the wings (Most Americans who understand history and what is really behind Obama and his agenda would see this statement a bit different!)

And yet we should not forget that Putin himself described the fall of the Soviet empire as one of the greatest catastrophes of the century — and that half of all Russian teenagers recently told a survey that Stalin was a wise and strong leader.

By comparison, Europe’s democratic leaders look woolly and vacillating, just as they did back in 1932. Indeed, for the democratic West, this was a truly terrible year.

Democracy itself seemed to be under siege. In France, President Paul Doumer was murdered by an assassin. In Portugal, the authoritarian, ultra-Catholic dictator Antonio Salazar launched a reign of terror that would last into the Seventies. And in Italy, the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini strengthened his grip, consolidating Italian power in the looted colonies of Albania and Libya.

Eighty years on, we have no room for complacency. Although the far Right remains no more than a thuggish and eccentric minority, the elected prime ministers of Greece and Italy have already been booted out to make way for EU-approved technocrats for whom nobody has ever voted.

In the new Europe, the will of the people seems to play second fiddle to the demands of Paris and Berlin. And if the eurozone crisis intensifies, then it is no idle fantasy to imagine that Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and their Brussels allies will demand an even greater centralisation of powers, provoking nationalist outrage on the streets of Europe’s capitals.

Sadly, there seems little point in looking across the Atlantic for inspiration. In 1932, President Herbert Hoover, beleaguered by rising unemployment and tumbling ratings, flailed and floundered towards election defeat.

Today, Barack Obama cuts a similarly impotent, indecisive and isolationist figure. The difference is that in 1932, one of the greatest statesmen of the century, the Democratic politician Franklin D. Roosevelt, was waiting in the wings.

Today, American voters looking for alternatives are confronted only with a bizarre gaggle of has-beens, inadequates and weirdos, otherwise known as the Republican presidential field. And to anybody who cares about the future of the Western world, the prospect of President Ron Paul or President Newt Gingrich is frankly spine-chilling… just as is the re-election of Barack Obama.

In Italy, the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini, pictured with Hitler, strengthened his grip, consolidating Italian power in the looted colonies of Albania and Libya

Above all, though, the eyes of the world back in 1932 were fixed on Germany. As the Weimar Republic staggered towards oblivion, an obscure Austrian painter was setting his sights on supreme power.

With rising unemployment eating away at the bonds of democratic civility, the National Socialist Party was within touching distance of government.

And in the last days of 1932, after the technocrats and generals had failed to restore order, President Paul von Hindenburg began to contemplate the unthinkable — the prospect of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.

We all know what happened next. Indeed, by the end of 1932 the world was about to slide towards a new dark age, an age of barbarism and bloodshed on a scale that history had never known.

Eighty years on, it would be easy to sit back and reassure ourselves that the worst could never happen again. But that, of course, was what people told each other in 1932, too.

The lesson of history is that tough times often reward the desperate and dangerous, from angry demagogues to anarchists and nationalists, from seething mobs to expansionist empires.

Our world is poised on the edge of perhaps the most important 12 months for more than half a century. If our leaders provide the right leadership, then we may, perhaps, muddle through towards slow growth and gradual recovery.

But if the European elite continue to inflict needless hardship on their people; if the markets continue to erode faith in the euro; and if Western politicians waste their time in petty bickering, then we could easily slip further towards discontent and disaster.

The experience of 1932 provides a desperately valuable lesson. As a result of the decisions taken in those 12 short months, millions of people later lost their lives.

Today, on the brink of a new year that could well prove the most frightening in living memory, we can only pray that our history takes a very different path.

By Dominic Sandbrook  -  Last updated at 11:13 PM on 30th December 2011  -  MailOnline

More...

• Government to government plan to seize control of all foods
• MAIL COMMENT: The lessons of a year of horrifying violence
• A Must Read Letter from Austrian Born American, Kitty Wirthmann
• The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues
• Video:  The Agenda 
• Teaching for Change:  Co-opting the Minds of our Children
• PBS Special:  UN Ordered Depopulation of 3-Million People by Food Malnutrition Has Begun
• Was ObamaCare Designed for “Distribution of Wealth”?
• Video: Fed secretly bailing out Europe
• Council on Foreign Relations  -  Please Read
• Kissinger in 2008: There Will Be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever is Elected President
• Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Obama Term??

If you think all these things (the article as well as the links above) are not connected, you are not paying attention or are a product of the Dumbing Down of America which included the re-writing of history and the decline in public education (the teaching of history and the 3-R’s) as well as developing a world of distraction from what is important (family, religion, community, the Constitution…) and a promotion through media of division (through political correctness and multiculturalism instead of promoting the melting pot that was America) promoting Progressive ideals. We are at the end of the cycle, not the beginning, of the elite ruling class attaining their NWO.  They just didn’t count on the Tea Party Movement and enough patriots waking up at the last minute to stop them.  It is why the Progressive Main Stream Media so vehemently went to war with the Tea Party and candidates like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain.

Election 2012 is our last chance to save America… and freedom, at least in our lifetime(s).  So each of us must give it our all in 2012 to make sure that ‘anyone’, other than Obama is elected in 2012 along with a Constitution friendly Congress that will reverse the present direction.  Hitting our knees regularly during this process and enlisting the man upstairs would be a great idea as well.  We have all been warned and only have to look back into history less than 100-years.  Help others to connect the dots and immerse yourself in the 2012 Election process, especially in the fight against voter fraud and for the honest counting of the votes. 

We will only be able to blame ourselves this time around if we find ourselves back in 1932… and so will future generations both here at home and around the world blame us!!  Ask Marion~