HOW TO SUCCEED IN FRINGE POLITICS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING

HOW TO SUCCEED IN FRINGE POLITICS

WITHOUT REALLY TRYING

In our country today, we have we have the middle-income or middle-class American family, about which politicians from both parties have been raising an alarm. However, when it comes to our politics, we lack what can be called middle of the road, objective and the moderate middle of American politics.

The concept is nearly imperceptible.

Whatever is left is marginal and fringe and we laugh at the fringe – well, we used to and now we have the matriarch, the militant, the meek, the zealous and Bernie Sanders.

Can Bernie Sanders be as fringe as it comes?

Bernie is the poster boy for parapolitics, a fringe candidate, who is losing his fringe image.

Bernie Sanders is rapidly climbing in the polls and attracting huge audiences to his campaign events, Hillary Clinton is starting to attack him and wants to put him back into the fringe bin. After all, Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist. Many voters appear to be willing to look past the labels and listen to what Sanders is actually saying about the issues and the role of government in society.

Of course, few Americans know what “socialist” means. Some mistakenly associate it with Communism. It isn’t really, especially the kind of “socialism” he believes in, but the idea of asking Americans if they really want a socialist President is like asking if they want Dracula to participate in a blood drive.

However, the parapolitical climate has given license for the real vampires to gather like political vultures over the dead body of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday morning.

According to CNN, a government official said Scalia went to bed Friday night and told friends he wasn’t feeling well. Saturday morning, he didn’t get up for breakfast. And the group he was with for a hunting trip left without him. Now when I first heard of his death, I immediately thought the guy was pushing 80 and after reading how he died peacefully in his sleep.

Scalia’s death marks only the second time in sixty years a justice has died before retiring from the Court, and leaves the Court split 4-4 between fairly conservative and fairly liberal, during a heated presidential election year.

It was simple; it was a typical story of a sad death of an elderly judge passing quietly in his sleep, completely logical and reasonable.

I also thought of the irony since I recently watched a rerun of the cartoon “Family Guy” where because of some strange time line mix up, Lois is married to Quagmire. Peter wants to somehow put everything back to normal so he summons the Grim Reaper in order to find the place where he screwed up. When the grim reaper appears to Peter and his dog Brian, he says “Man it has been a busy day, Dick Cheney shot “Supreme Court Justice Scalia” in a hunting accident and the bullet went right through him and killed Karl Rove and Tucker Carlson.”

I thought it to be a sick coincidence and wondered if there was a show in there somewhere, but then talked myself out of it because I really don’t think I could milk three to 5 hours based on a twisted coincidence.

Then something weird happened – the entire country became conspiracy theorists.

After the San Antonio Express reported the story, they revealed that the man who found Scalia’s body was John Poindexter.

Poindexter is the owner of the 30,000 acre Ranch where Scalia was found dead.

John Poindexter is a Texas millionaire businessman who is known for being a donor to the Democrat Party and who also received an award from Barack Obama related to his military service in Vietnam.

Mr. Poindexter was also said to be the primary point man between the ranch location and federal authorities who were notably slow to arrive at the ranch.

Poindexter told the media he tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30, the morning of February 13, 2016, but the judge’s door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him.

Eventually, Poindexter entered the silent room, apprehensive.

“I was worried I was going to find something very tragic,” he said.

He spotted Scalia, still in his pajamas.

Poindexter said that he was in perfect repose in his bed as if he was taking a nap. His face wasn’t contorted or anything he then went over and felt his hand and it was very cold with no pulse. He also said discovered the judge in bed with a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,” said Poindexter.

Then the red headline was placed on the Drudge Report “SCALIA FOUND DEAD WITH PILLOW OVER HIS HEAD.”

While Scalia was pronounced dead “of natural causes” or heart failure, no qualified official had actually examined his body, and there was no autopsy performed, apparently it was the wish of his family.

However, why was an honorable member of the Supreme Court pronounced dead over the phone?

Presidio County Judge Cinderella Guevara said that there had been “no foul play,” but she had “pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing his body and without ordering an autopsy.”

A decoy gray hearse arrived Saturday to distract the news media. It wasn’t until about midnight that a van arrived to take Scalia’s body away.

Then came the strange story of a map of the property set under a bottle of water near the bed.

Poindexter reported “When I went to straighten his room up after he was removed this morning, I noticed he had a map of the property next to his bed, he had obviously been looking at it before he went to bed.”

Haven’t we seen this before? Maybe some predictive programming in a movie by Oliver Stone?

Not exactly, but this smells like the movie The Pelican Brief. Only in that movie two Supreme Court Justices were killed.

There are many people who will say that there were plenty of motives to ‘take him out.”

The animosity between Justice Scalia and the Obama White House was well known. Scalia considered the Obama administration to be a scourge upon the Constitutional-based tenets of the American form of government.

The Obama White House in turn privately viewed Scalia as a legal “dinosaur” who was horribly out of place amidst the ongoing “fundamental transformation” the Obama regime was pushing for the country.

Scalia famously blasted the administration for critical acts such as Obamacare, illegal immigration, states’ rights, and executive authority.

Scalia also blocked Barack Obama’s, Clean Power Plan with a delay. Just last Friday, Ground Zero reported that the 5-4 order halted the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan until at least the final months of Obama’s presidency – and shed doubt on its ultimate fate before the nation’s highest court by suggesting concern among a majority of the justices.

The delay is a blow to Obama’s environmental agenda, highlighting the prospect that his signature program for combating climate change disruption could be in legal jeopardy. It also risks undermining the U.S. commitment to pare greenhouse gas emissions as part of an international accord reached in Paris last December.

The court gave no explanation for its order. Also voting to grant the delay were Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Dissenting were the four Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

This may put the fate of the Clean Power Plan into the hands of Obama’s successor which by all odds will be a Republican.

Elections are not that mysterious of events; they are not all that unpredictable. They’re actually highly predictable. History bears witness to this and in this era of fringe politics with fringe stories now making the rounds, you can be assured that the political climate is most certainly changing and is now in the process of disruption.

The reason why the odds are in favor of a Republican win is not by any means a theory related to any conservative or even liberal agenda, it is because when an incumbent isn’t running voters statistically turn away from the party currently in power. In fact, a successor candidate in the same party as a lame duck President is three times less likely to win.

Unless there is a surge in Obama’s approval ratings, it will be an uphill battle for the fringe candidate Bernie Sanders, and the legacy candidate Hillary Clinton to win.

Here are some more grim odds to consider — more Justices are getting so old that they too are in the dead pool. The fate of the Supreme Court is now a key election issue, given the possibility that the next President could get the chance to nominate at least two or three Justices due to the age of those on the bench and the possible shift of the ideological balance of the court.

Within two hours of Scalia’s death being reported, presidential candidates along with Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill were feuding over whether Obama should appoint a replacement for the Chief Justice or wait for the next administration to make a decision.

After observing a moment of silence to honor Scalia, the GOP candidates, who clashed in South Carolina, turned his death into a political football and drew battle lines in the debate over his successor.

Doesn’t the timing of everything seem like something out of the Twilight Zone?

Was there motive for taking out Scalia? Is it suspicious that he died in such a remote area at a ranch owned by Democratic supporter of Obama’s?

More times than not, I can conclude in my experience that a lot of whatever happens in government that is fringe and parapolitical is planned and prepared, meaning that the old axiom attributed to President Franklin Roosevelt still applies: “If it happens it is because government planned it that way.”

This is going to end up being one of the greatest political and ideological battles in United States history.

Scalia’s death means that the 2016 election could effectively evolve into a battle involving all three branches of the U.S. government, the White House, the Supreme Court and Congress given that there is a real chance the GOP could lose control of the Senate.

It also comes at a time when the Court is expected to decide several cases with huge political implications, including on abortion and affirmative action.

The Senate Republicans recognize how important it is to maintain a conservative majority on the court.

This leaves a wide open set up for the question, “What would Obama do?

And the answer is a simple, duh.

Published February 15, 2016

Source

http://www.groundzeromedia.org/

GUN WARS THE FORCE RETAKEN

Posted on January 5, 2016

by Ron Patton
in Articles

GUN WARS THE FORCE RETAKEN

I woke early this morning to the wall-to-wall coverage of the presidential hard sell to the American people that changes to the gun laws and zeroing in on the mentally ill will somehow reduce the risks of gun crimes, terror, and lone nut shooting incidents which become such political footballs, it fuels the speculation that most if not all of these incidents look like false flag events.

A teary-eyed President Obama announced plans to expand background checks and make other changes to America’s gun rules. Once again, Obama used the dreaded pen and phone to use executive action‎, which of course circumvents Congress and once again fuels allegations of executive overreach.



While most of what he said sounded like the whaa whaa whap sounds heard from parents in a Charlie Brown cartoon, there was a part of his speech that stood out for me because it centered around constitutional rights and how we have somehow accepted over time the idea of surrendering rights for safety.

Obama stated:

“We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society.”

What he fails to point out is the reason we are paying this price for living in a so-called civilized society is that we have been fed a diet of fear and thus we see a constitution with conditions that go from reasonable to complete negation of civil liberties.

Obama seems to feel that the people will allow for the weakening of things like the second amendment in order to feel some sort of renewed sense of security.

President Obama wants us to believe that we take comfort in hearing the same worn out and tired tropes of how all of these provisions have somehow prevented “who knows” how many terror attacks.

The “who knows” remark can be a vague form of negative logic, for those who are awake but for the police state it is a doublespeak euphemism for a consensus mind numbing where the people can assume that all of their so-called foiled plots are reasons for constitutional tinkering.

I don’t want reduce the various American tragedies to mere statistics – but they are very telling of how afraid we have become and how we now accept government overreach as a way of life.

There have been only 38 Americans that have been killed on American soil by radicalized Islamic terrorism since 9/11.

While that is 38 too many, it is a drop in the bucket compared to those killed in car accidents or those that have died as result of intestinal illnesses brought on by eating in restaurants.

The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls; most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack or even these first person shooter events.

I know that it is hard to persuade a constantly re-frightened American public that the constitution should not be weakened because of gun crimes and terrorism, but the facts are very telling of how easy it has been for the Obama Administration to mislead us on the idea that we need more surveillance and strict gun laws to prevent terrorism and mass shootings.

At the centerpiece of Obama’s plan is a more sweeping definition of gun dealers that the administration hopes will expand the number of gun sales subject to background checks. At gun shows, websites and flea markets, sellers often skirt that requirement by declining to register as licensed dealers, but officials said new federal guidance would clarify that it applies to anyone “in the business” of selling firearms.



Almost all of our homegrown lone gunmen and terrorist shooters trend on Google and their notoriety is pushed through the newsfeeds of Facebook to the point that everyone is under the impression we are breeding trigger-happy unstable miscreants in need of control.

The Obama Administration has now finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.

While no one wants an unstable person with a gun, the definition of someone who is “mentally ill’ is so broad and expansive. Most of us probably assume a mentally ill person is a violent person. However, a mentally ill person can also be someone overcome by post traumatic stress disorder or one who suffers from high anxiety or one who is depressed. Why should these people who show no indication of intent to harm others be discriminated against and lose their right to own a firearm?

America falsely believes the easy scapegoat is the so-called terrorists, the mentally ill or perhaps even violent T.V. or video games, but the reality is that most of these horrible events are coming from within the political and military complex and are somehow slipping by the national security infrastructure that we have been told is there to protect us from such events.

In fact, if you look at the track record, since all of these so-called safeguards have been employed, we have seen an increase in these “tragic” and “senseless” events and thus, we have become trapped in an unsafe environment.

Regardless of what you are hearing, it is becoming more apparent that these shootings are less random and are actively being planned in order to traumatize us into thinking the state can only protect us with their militarized police forces and our own guns and self-defense skills can’t neutralize an active shooter.



Human sustainability far outweighs the political sphere of influence and yet the political discussions go on incessantly in a country that seems to fixate its tiresome national dialogue about our lack of leadership, our need for more national security and the right to defend one’s own family and property.

The Second Amendment argument should not even be argued. There should be no infringement on the right to bear arms and yet it’s now an issue up for debate, all because of a number of “senseless acts.” Do we not see these shooting incidents as expedient for gun control agendas being proposed by the few and not by the majority who know safety of property and family is a priority in times of crisis?

The most devastating truth facing us in the event of national crisis is that urban areas are the most unsafe places on the planet and the convenience we cherish will become our undoing as the aftermath of a crisis inevitably leads to civil unrest and the armed populace that is constitutional becomes the armed horde who can be your enemy in the face of all resource depletion.

We know now that 2016 is the year designated for “full spectrum” operations, as requiring the military to prepare for internal campaigns against radicalized American citizens.

There will be if necessary, “full spectrum operations in the coming two decades according to the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 – 2028, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, dated 19 August 2010.

With this document we learn that the plan for the United States in a major crisis is not for anyone’s benefit but for the continuity of government.

Police and military units are training to deal specifically with urban uprisings and civil unrest because emergency services planners understand that America’s metropolitan death zones, which is military speak for major cities, will be completely devoid of law & order.

These agencies are already planning on the American people to turn into gun toting outlaws if there happens to be a government decapitation, meaning that if a crisis is so dire that the government can’t function, the country will be divided into regions and governed like military territories.

The Obama Administration has demonstrated with all of its political doublespeak that the entire national security infrastructure he defends and lies about has done nothing to insure the safety of the American people.

It is also important to note that no campaigns for disarming Americans or even weakening of the second amendments for stricter background checks will make us any safer in scenarios of national crisis.

All of the lame arguments we are having now for political reasons will amount to nothing but affluent in a future for America that seems to be evolving into a repressive despotism with a militarized foothold that with the help of Executive Orders, will create a battlefield in our backyard.

While the warnings of police state are dismissed by those who have not been in one, it is evident what we are seeing transpire, from deadly force in the open market place, to riots and civil unrest are pretext to a turn in the evolution of how law enforcement restrains the populace and secures the peace.

It must be reiterated that the evolution of the country’s views on social issues are right in your face and if you are not paying attention, you may find yourself in a world more foreign and hostile than you can imagine.

Obama says to all of us that his new gun policies do not infringe on second amendment rights, but we need to understand it does begin the weakening process of the rights of the citizens to bear arms and avoid government entanglements.

We know that the agenda of government is to disarm America, and surprisingly, you may want to wait and realize that the next administration and the administration after that will conduct the gradual process of dismantling the constitution in order to pave the way for a new globalist treaty that we know will be enforced by the year 2030, if not before then.

If we disarm the people or make it harder to obtain a firearm, there will be limited resistance to a hostile takeover of a sophisticated tyrannical criminal element that uses organized crime to sustain their full spectrum control of everything we do.

We all know that in a war or in a crisis, it is a good strategy to disarm your enemies.




Source

/

.