Civil Unrest: Do Our Rulers Actually Want It To Happen?by Scott Lazarowitz
Sep. 21, 2012
1.Hysterical Bloomberg Columnist: Trump's 'America First' Speech Reminiscent of 'Nazi Era'
2.Student Rep. On Free Speech: "Some People Have More Equal Rights Than Others"
3.The Guardian Says Correcting People On Their Grammar Is Racist
4.Trump Foreign Policy Speech Signals Death of Neocons and Peace With Russia
5."All He Could Say Was 'Sex, Sex, Sex'": Wave of Muslim Migrant Sex Assaults Hits Austria
6.South African Sports Associations 'Too White'
7.Prosecutor: "Many People" Will Riot in Baltimore If White Cop in Freddie Gray Case Is Acquitted
8.Former House Speaker and "Serial Child Molester" Dennis Hastert Sentenced to 15 Months in Prison
There have been several different predictions and scenarios involving how inflation and austerity measures in the U.S. could bring about food shortages and other shortages, food riots, looting, violent protests, flash mobs, and martial law. All these things can be prevented, of course, if more people could wake up to the fact that government central planning in money and economic matters is inherently flawed and doomed to failure, societal self-destruction and collapse.
Some people see the recent German court decision to approve German bailouts of irresponsible European governments as a new dictatorship for Germany and a boon for investors. And there are others who see this new scheme as the beginning of runaway hyperinflation in Europe that will spread to the U.S.
Following this decision by the high German court, the U.S. Federal Reserve has announced a new round of quantitative easing (QE3). Some people believe that QE3 will cause more economic instability, and further destruction of the dollar.
Eventually the austerity measures we have been seeing in Europe will reach the U.S.
Austerity measures will hit public employee benefits and pensions, and welfare and Medicare recipients (but not the bloated salaries, benefits and pensions of Congressmen and their beloved bureaucrats).
But it seems that the U.S. government has been pushing hard to get as many people dependent on government as possible. Food stamps spending has more than doubled since Barack Obama became President, although the number of Americans on food stamps almost doubled from 2001 to 2009 during the presidency of George W. Bush as well.
And the Obama Administration has gone so far as to push U.S. food stamps onto Mexicans! (And Mexicans can’t even vote for Obama this November – theoretically, that is.)
Also distressing is how private corporations profit from the government’s exploiting the population’s vulnerabilities that the government’s own interventions cause. One example is JP Morgan Chase’s shamefully profiting from the food stamps program.
Incidentally, employees of JP Morgan Chase donated over $800,000 to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and, so far over $155,000 to Obama’s 2012 effort. (There certainly has been no quid pro quo here, as former President George Bush the Elder might say.)
Now, regarding eventual shortages, austerity and civil unrest in America that would involve the unavailability of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) payments, in large part affecting food stamp recipients, one scenario I’ve seen details how rioting and turmoil could unfold, mainly beginning in the cities, but eventually flowing out into the suburbs. It is not a pretty picture.
One would think that the government bureaucrats who control these social programs could see ahead what would happen when withholding such benefits, especially with millions of people dependent on them for their daily sustenance. So, in the case of possible future EBT cards not functioning followed by rioting and violence, one has to wonder whether such an action by the government could be purposeful.
In the aforementioned scenario, the writer emphasizes urban minorities as the ones mainly perpetrating the flash mob rioting and violence. But, in 2010 34% of food stamp recipients were white, 22% black and 29% Hispanic, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
However, the flash mobs committing acts of violence in the cities in recent years do not seem to be associated with government austerity measures, food stamps, hunger, etc. In some instances, such violence has been racially motivated, black against white, as witnessed in this account, for example. Unfortunately, the mention of such a modern social phenomenon in the U.S. is politically incorrect, as many newscasters and newspapers reporting on those events censor the race of the perpetrators and that of victims, as author Thomas Sowell has noted. Race demagogues such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel have gained much fame and popularity from such "race-hustling."
So are the Chicago-Washington community organizers and agitators trying to promote race riots? Obama and his "social justice" cohorts do not seem to have any comments on the violence committed by inner-city punks. The Holder Justice Department has refused to prosecute black against white voter intimidation cases. And Obama wants public schools to stop disciplining misbehaving black students. Hmmm.
And why have U.S. military recruiters allowed so many white supremacists to join the military?
It appears that the efforts of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and now the election of Barack Obama as President do not seem to have healed the friction among the races in America.
So there seem to be extremists on both sides, and the rest of us are caught in the middle.
But when there will be government austerity and EBT card non-functionality, the flash mob violence we have seen recently will probably be much worse, regardless of race or ethnicity.
But, racial conflicts aside, why have the Bush and Obama Administrations increased spending on food stamps so much? Social programs such as food stamps rob people of their incentive to provide for themselves, and they become serfs to bureaucrats.
It is as though these imbecilic bureaucrats are encouraging the masses to get dependent on these bureaucrats, and for devious purposes.
No, they wouldn’t do that. Not that there hasn’t been enough information about Obama and his immoral, unconstitutional acts as President to indicate any sort of deviousness, no.
With the moral hazard of government bureaucrats’ luring people into this kind of dependence and serfdom, QE3 will cause further economic instability, part of the inherent moral hazard of having a central bank and lack of freedom and competition in money and banking. Such Fed policies continually rob the people through inflation, particularly the lower and middle classes.
Added to those moral hazards of these professional bureaucrats are Congress’s raising the debt ceiling, Washington’s lack of prosecuting criminally irresponsible banksters, the 2008 extortion-like bankster bailout, and foreclosure fraudsters.
And Obama’s pushing through Congress the bill allowing for indefinite detention of Americans without charge or evidence, and his signing it into law, followed by his appealing the judge’s striking it down – there probably isn’t any deviousness behind that, and probably won’t be any targeting of political dissenters during future civil conflicts in America, no. (There certainly hasn’t been any of that, not in America, no.)
All these acts of government criminality could be leading America into a total breakdown of society.
So these people in Washington are either extremely clueless and don’t know what they’re doing, or they are doing these things intentionally, in which case they are just plain evil.
So, could the ruling elites be purposefully trying to cause so much massive dependence on government and such massive weakening of the financial and monetary systems, followed by a false-flag type economic collapse and sudden withholding of government benefits and unavailability of our own money in the bank, to intentionally bring about rioting and violence?
And, if Romney is elected in November, would he be any different from Obama?
And so, if these scenarios play out, and there is indeed massive civil unrest in America, we already know that various federal agencies and local and state police as well are preparing for it. The police state that J. Edgar Hoover, Oliver North, and Dick Cheney put in place is being fully embraced by Obama, the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, FBI and CIA, as well as many local police neanderthals all across America – it is as though they are drooling for some action, and for a chance for them to show the rest of the world just how tough they are.
Can you imagine people with the kind of extremely questionable character and level of dishonesty and untrustworthiness as Obama and Romney presiding over a situation of military martial law?
In addition to all this, the Obama Administration has allowed foreign troops onto U.S. soil. NATO troops were in training in Tampa just prior to the Republican Convention. They now have Russian soldiers training in the U.S., and some insiders believe that these foreign troops are joining with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security toward some sort of illicit action against Americans under the pretense of "peacekeeping" during a time of civil unrest in America.
In my opinion, having foreign troops coming into the U.S. for any reason is dangerous, and Sheriff Richard Mack agrees with me.
And now, because of inner-city gun-related crime rates, and recent isolated shootings and mass killings, the emotionalistic calls for gun control have been on the increase. This despite violent criminals who disobey laws against assault, rape and murder probably are not inclined to obey gun laws as well.
And, as John Lott has noted, would-be assaulters, rapists and murderers are less likely to commit their crimes when they know their prospective victims are armed.
But because of the emotionalism surrounding certain tragedies, even Republicans such as SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, radio host Michael Savage and TV host Bill O’Reilly have shown irrationality on the matter. How will Americans, in their cars stuck in busy intersections when flash mobs rampage and attack them, be able to defend themselves if they have been disarmed by the government? When looters and burglars break into their homes and businesses, how will disarmed homeowners and businesspeople protect themselves?
And you can say what you want about anti-UN "conspiracy theories" and so forth. But, mirroring a zany 1961 U.S. State Department call for complete civilian disarmament, the 2012 UN Arms Trade Treaty would require signing member nations to enact much stricter national gun ownership restrictions. That was up for a vote in July but has been postponed until probably later this year. Some analysts have interpreted Article 15 of the Treaty to allow for foreign troops in the U.S. to confiscate guns from Americans in their homes. Even having U.S. troops going around door to door to search for and confiscate firearms is itself illegal and unconstitutional, but foreign troops?
It should not be difficult to believe that not just local police but our own U.S. troops would go door to door to seize Americans’ means of self-defense, when we know that they have much experience in doing just that in Iraq, a country in which U.S. troops had no business or reason to be, violating private Iraqi civilians’ own right to bear arms and defend themselves.
As the people’s right to defend themselves against looters, rioters, rapists and killers, as well as against government tyranny, is being criminally whittled away by the degenerates in charge, those same degenerates are arming themselves up and preparing for something that could be interpreted as outright treason.
I have already expressed concern about martial law and explained that U.S. military and other federal armed goons and local police, who have all sworn to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, are obligated to disobey unlawful orders by commanding officers including the U.S. President.
Unlawful orders include those in which a soldier or an officer is ordered to violate a presumably innocent civilian’s rights to free speech, protest, dissent and criticize the government, right to bear arms and defend oneself against criminal assailants including government criminals, right to due process, and "right to be secure" in one’s person, home and effects. If the officer or soldier does not suspect a civilian of some actual crime, then that agent of government is obligated by law to leave the civilian alone, no matter who ordered otherwise. (The Oath Keepers have made a list of orders they will not obey.)
Further treasonous is the rulers’ inviting foreign troops in to aid in the rulers’ abuses.
And, given the criminality of monetary easing to enrich bankers while creating inflation that robs the poor, one might very well describe those actions as treasonous as well.
If only Americans had listened to the American Revolutionaries’ warnings about paper money and tyranny, wealth redistributionism, and their warnings against foreign entanglements.
Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his blog.