The media have, with few exceptions, not covered the passage and signing by Obama of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) in a fashion that would alert the populace to the momentousness of what is afoot. Even among those who know of the NDAA, many are reacting with astonishing muteness, with all too many of those who despise the Republicans still planning to vote for Obama on the sole grounds that they can't stand the GOP. If you can't stand the GOP but can stand what Obama's been doing, then pray tell what distinctions are you making that would puzzle even the angels dancing on the head of a pin? Fortunately, there are those who are appropriately alarmed.
Obama in his signing statement upon the NDAA on New Year’s Eve stated that he would never use the provisions of NDAA against American citizens. Whether he uses it or not is moot since he is not going to be president into perpetuity. If he didn’t want the law to be used against Americans, then why not veto the bill? An even more salient point is that it was his administration that asked for the inclusion of American citizens in the bill before Congress passed it. If you don’t want American citizens to be subjected to indefinite detention merely on an accusation, then why would you insist that it be put into the bill in the first place?
Obama’s words and actions can only be viewed as a calculated attempt to mislead people into thinking that what he’s doing is not as monstrous as it is. If one is not blinded by partisanship or by personality cultism, when one looks at what he’s been doing since he won the election, it is impossible to conclude anything else than that his candidacy and his presidency were a ruse in the first place to try to mislead Americans about what their government is doing. Republicans and Democrats can only continue this path of relentlessly and ruthlessly refashioning the norms of governance through considerable subterfuge and by instilling fear among the populace. In this excerpt from my book Globalization and the Demolition of Society, I discussed this from the particular angle of the “War on Terror”:
“Bush and Cheney’s approach was to use the fear of attacks to consolidate their power and control (witness the USA PATRIOT Act and illegal spying) rather than to take obvious steps that would truly help make America safer. In the spring of 2002, for example, the Bush White House slashed the Energy Department’s requests for funding to protect nuclear plants and waste against terrorism by 93 percent. The Bush White House’s priorities in response to 9/11 indicated that they were not even particularly interested in preventing another attack. Beginning in the summer of 2007, several people who supported or represented the White House made it brazenly clear that another 9/11 would in fact be good and necessary because it would justify White House policies.
“Dennis Milligan, Arkansas GOP Chairman, stated on June 3, 2007: ‘[A]ll we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [9/11], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.’
“Rick Santorum, ex-Senator from Pennsylvania, speaking on the Hugh Hewitt Show on July 7, 2007, stated: ‘Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view.’ [Boldfacing added]
For the rest of this article, please go to dennisloo.com.