If you ever happen to come across a Republican on television these days, chances are that you will hear the name Ronald Reagan. Recent Republican debates are the perfect example of the love fest that the current Republican party has for Reagan as each candidate name drops the former president at every turn. If you only listened to conservatives you would think that Jesus Christ was the only person above Reagan on the totem pole of conservative love. They talk about his love of low taxes, less government and conservative family values. The problem is that when you step out of the conservative dream and come back to reality, you find that not only was Ronald Reagan a bad president, but he was one of the worst presidents we've seen in modern times. Reagan's policies have destroyed the United States for three decades, and for the eight years he was in office, here are eight reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime.

The protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement took to the streets to draw attention to corporate greed and the uneven distribution of wealth in the United States. In the end most media attention they got wasn't for their economic messages, but for the extreme treatment that they suffered at the hands and boots of the police. If the protesters can't expose corruption in the highest echelons of the banking system, perhaps they can expose the much more pressing and perhaps frightening development in the United States: The extreme militarization and illegal tactics of the police in the United States.

Over the years, the escalation of the "War on Drugs" has lead to increasing number of police stations across the country to begin training their officers in the use of more sophisticated weaponry and tactics. Due to fear mongering on all levels of government, the United States citizenry has sat silent over the years, believing that the increasing military style presence of the police all around them was for their own protection.

So when I show up to a peaceful protest in my hometown of Atlanta only to have it broken up by what I could only describe as black-clad, club wielding storm troopers, I begin to worry. So in this, our beautiful "land of the free", what are the freedoms that we hold so dear? Our freedom of speech is threatened. The government is voting on things like SOPA and Net Neutrality in order to limit our access to information online. Our freedom of press is limited. Media conglomerates control our media, and use their influence to seek private gains. Our freedom of religion is suppressed. Muslims in our nation are treated as outsiders and terrorists. And now we finally know that our greatest strength, our freedom to peaceful assembly is being slowly chipped away.

As every nation in the world marches forward to a completely integrated and globalized society, the control of food is an absolute necessity for those who seek to accelerate amalgamation. It is for this reason that we see an increase in domestic legislation that mirrors the guidelines and demands of international standard-setting organizations. These attempts at harmonization of national laws, specifically those regarding food, are coming in daily from all sides of the globe.

Whether it's the GMO fight in the United States, Mexico, and Europe, or the question of the level of vitamins and minerals in supplements, the Biotech Corporations are continually winning most of their battles with the help of mass ignorance, national governments, the World Trade Organization and similar entities.

Indeed, when one begins to examine many of the debates regarding food and food regulation, one name appears over and over - Codex Alimentarius.

For those who may be unaware of what Codex Alimentarius is, I refer you to my book Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom. Briefly speaking, however, Codex is an agency created under the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO)and thereby functions under direction of the United Nations (UN).

When London's Conservative mayor Boris Johnson travelled to Beijing in 2008 to receive the Olympic flame from the Chinese state, the promise was that the 2012 games in Britain would be a "people's games". This would involve the maximum participation of the local population of East London where the main Olympic site is based.

However, with four years of austerity and the districts surrounding the Olympic site sinking into desperate hardship, and the eruption of riots this summer, the games are being approached based on the calculation that Britain is a country on the edge of mass social conflict.

Preparations have assumed the character of an orgy of luxury and ostentatious displays of wealth by the financial elite, coupled with police-state measures directed against working class districts.

The main Olympic site in Stratford East London is surrounded by 17 kilometres of electrified fencing, with up to 900 cameras 50 metres apart and patrols by attack and search dog teams. New software has integrated the entire CCTV network, enabling an individual to be followed across the whole of London. "Threat Assessment and Behavioural Analysis Software" is under development. The government is planning "exclusion zones" around key Olympic sites.

Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) continues to rebuff the Obama administration's efforts to soften the amendment he authored with Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) that would effectively cut off Iran's central bank from the world financial system (see GSN, Dec. 6).

The Obama administration sent a letter to the conference committee proposing "technical fixes" to the amendment the Senate unanimously voted to include within the defense authorization bill last week, Kirk said on Tuesday at an event hosted by conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. The Kirk-Menendez amendment is meant to prohibit any financial institution that does business with the Central Bank of Iran from also doing business with the United States. A Kirk aide said the administration's proposed changes included a six-month delay for the implementation of all sanctions, not just for oil and related products, and an easing of penalties imposed on foreign institutions for doing business with the CBI.

Kirk, buoyed by the Senate's 100-0 vote last week to include the sanctions amendment in the defense authorization bill, denounced this letter and the administration's concerns, saying their proposed changes are simply meant to "undermine" the amendment and "provide a way out for the administration to say that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but to take no action."

Kirk and Menendez sent their own letter to the House and Senate Armed Services chairmen and ranking members on Monday night.

Canada and the United States will announce a new security perimeter deal Wednesday that is expected to move more inspections off the border and onto factory floors, expanding the type of goods - including food - that can be fast-tracked between the two countries.

Business groups say the expansion of trusted shipper programs to include the food industry will likely be among the most concrete measures in a deal that aims to tackle the long security delays creating expensive logjams for business.

Rather than a sweeping new border deal that will take effect immediately, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama are expected to unveil plans in Washington that are heavy on working groups and pilot projects. Many of the promised changes will roll out over the coming years, as both governments find the money for new border infrastructure like improved fast-track lanes for preapproved containers.

"Not all of it will be visible to the public," said Perrin Beatty, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who has monitored the talks closely. "A lot of it will be under the hood in a sense, in that it will be felt by business. For example, having one inspection instead of two. It will reduce compliance costs and delays significantly."

Exclusive: Though the 9/11 attacks occurred more than a decade ago, Congress continues to exploit them to pass evermore draconian laws on "terrorism," with the Senate now empowering the military to arrest people on U.S. soil and hold them without trial, a serious threat to American liberties, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

Ambiguous but alarming new wording, which is tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and was just passed by the Senate, is reminiscent of the "extraordinary measures" introduced by the Nazis after they took power in 1933.

And the relative lack of reaction so far calls to mind the oddly calm indifference with which most Germans watched the erosion of the rights that had been guaranteed by their own Constitution. As one German writer observed, "With sheepish submissiveness we watched it unfold, as if from a box at the theater."

The Department of Homeland Security has spent billions since 9/11 trying to keep dangerous people and dangerous explosives off airplanes, and treating us all air travelers like potential terrorists in the process. But according to a former security adviser to a leading airline, the terrorists have changed the game-and the government hasn't yet caught on.

According to Ben Brandt, a former adviser to Delta, the airlines and the feds should be less concerned with what gels your aunt puts in her carry-on, and more concerned about lax screening for terrorist sympathizers among the airlines' own work force. They should be worried about terrorists shipping their bombs in air cargo. And they should be worried about terrorists shooting or bombing airports without ever crossing the security gates.

Brandt says aviation security needs a fundamental overhaul. Not only is the aviation industry failing to keep up with the new terrorist tactics, TSA's regimen of scanning and groping is causing a public backlash. "From the public's perspective, this kind of refocusing would reduce the amount of screening they have to put up with in the United States," Brandt tells Danger Room, "and refocus it where it's needed."

Russian voters have sent Vladimir Putin a clear message that he must do more to keep them happy if he wants to extend his domination of the country for another 12 years.

Faced with signs of growing discontent from voters who cut back his United Russia party's parliamentary majority on Sunday, Putin faces a choice between spending his way out of trouble or getting tough to show he is still in control.

He will probably take the first option, addressing the economic problems that top many Russians' list of complaints as he prepares to reclaim the presidency in an election in March.

"He's likely to spend more. That's what he's done as prime minister. He's already raised the salaries of the army and pensioners, and he's about to do it for teachers," said Boris Makarenko of the Centre for Political Technologies think tank.

"Tightening the bolts would be the worst option. It won't work and it's not what voters who turned away from him want."

Several countries with overlapping claims in the South China Sea are reportedly building up their military powers in the territory - a move that may endanger regional security and stability.

According to Indonesian Center of Democracy, Diplomacy and Defense executive director Teuku Rezasyah, Malaysia has two battleships, the Philippines one, China 27 and Taiwan 26 operating in the South China Sea.

He said Vietnam had several escort vessels operating in the area, while no data was available for Brunei's operations there.

"China's 27 naval vessels do not even include the aircraft carrier and submarines [it operates in the South China Sea]," he told The Jakarta Post recently.

He said a Type 093 Shang class nuclear-powered attack submarine was observed at the pier under construction.