PaperDetective

Mandatory Community Service = America now fascist & Fuehrer is Obama

87 posts in this topic

But, I can't disagree with you on your ultimate conclusions, although I'd take it back a notch: those who despair at this election should not equate it with the end of America. That's where we differ, I think, but there you have it...

I think Ayn Rand would agree:

The political ignorance and intellectual disintegration of our age become appallingly evident in a major election year. They range from the lethargic passivity of those who ignore elections as of no consequence-to the frantic hysteria of those who believe that the life or death of a nation is determined on a single Tuesday in November.

Things will get worse as the result of this election, but as long as we fight for and keep freedom of speech, we can come back.

Thanks, Betsy, that's a great quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may be earlier than you think, but I don't think it's too late.

I think it's too late in a couple of ways. First, 21st century technology - especially biotechnology - will make it possible for the enemies of civilization, which this country has done virtually nothing about lately, to attack it in a way never previously possible in all of history. That that hasn't happened yet is largely due to the irrationality of its enemies, not from the capability, and the capability gets easier, cheaper, and more compact by the year. America is not only not defending itself, it is knowingly voting in Presidents who actively hate the country.

Second, I am selfishly more interested in *my* lifetime, not what could happen in the next 200-300 years if the country even survives that long. I think there should be someplace on this planet where men can live in real freedom, where no compromises with evil are required. Unless there's a realistic plan to eliminate coercive funding, establish a gold standard, eliminate a gajillion 3 letter agencies especially the FDA, in my lifetime, it doesn't really interest me any longer. Not only is there no such possibility, the obvious trend is negative, with at least 4 and probably 8 years of Obama and company (not that the Republicans haven't miserably failed.) The New Deal didn't go away with FDR, it just got amplified, and no less should be expected of the machinations of the next 8 years which will add even more to that.

People have been picking up and leaving to form new societies since the dawn of humanity, because at a certain point, it is no longer possible to create a particular kind of society with particular kind of individuals while living in an existing one. America itself is the prime historical example. Israel for example is only about 60 years old but, for all of its problems engendered by mysticism and altruism, it is the best country in the Middle East. Creating one is not an easy problem in the 21st century, and it's not a problem suitable for stupid people (e.g. Libertarians) who think it can be done without a new government, but it is a solvable problem. It is certainly less "utopian" of a goal than trying to make modern America into a rational and free country in the lifetime of anybody reading this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS

Today I heard on the radio at Meet The Press Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of Fuehrer Obama's transition team talk literally about 'Obama taking POWER and starting to RULE on January 20'. If those typically dictatorial (so also fascist) words do not spell out their bad intentions what does?

"It's important that we take power and begin to rule on day one." The context was a discussion of getting ready during the "transition", i.e., there is no excuse for the words she used and no one called her on them.

The interview with Jarrett was from 12:00 to 12:15 PM and the whole show was adulatory towards the Messiah. The MSM is jumping out of its collective skin. The few questions to Jarrett that could have been embarrassing if truthly answered were artfully dodged with no follow up. All the exact opposite of what they do to grill and try to trip up Republicans.

All the talk about "governing from the center" on that show and elsewhere has become a cliche redefining the "center" as following the trend to the left. No matter what they do to "take power and rule" will be called "the center".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This man notices the danger:

from http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/10/re...a-dictatorship/

Republican Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This man notices the danger:

from http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/10/re...a-dictatorship/

Republican Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force...

First I wanted to note that Broun is already in backpedaling mode, having gone on a local Atlanta popular radio show and saying that the reporter misrepresented what he was saying. We'll see if that saves him from Obama's SA attacks.

But also of interest to the establishing of a Gestapo-like civilian security force is Obama's desire to create a controversial new system of justice. These would be courts independent of of the established civilian courts in the US.

While the idea of their creation has sprung from the new administration's desire to be rid of Guantanamo one way or the other, it will hardly matter why it was created in the long run. What matters is that it will be on American soil and it will be available for Obama's use. It is no stretch of the imagination to see how it could be connected to a "National Civilian Security Force" at a later date.

And no matter the reason for their creation, their can be no hiding the nature of "courts of justice" whose strongest characteristic is going to be their secrecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It's important that we take power and begin to rule on day one." The context was a discussion of getting ready during the "transition", i.e., there is no excuse for the words she used and no one called her on them.

"Take power and rule". Such words could indicate a mind set (I can only guess about that). I would have preferred the word "govern" to the word "rule". In a republic our government is supposed to govern us, not rule us.

I think we must watch Mr. Obama and his buddies very closely. He has a lean and hungry look and such men could be dangerous.

I had this waking dream (nightmare?) wherein President Obama declares an emergency and dismisses Congress so that the House cannot bring in a bill of impeachment when his true intentions become known beyond doubt. I hope it is just a dream (nightmare?).

I have a feeling (the cash value of feelings is rather doubtful). that if Congress gives Obama a hand, he will take the entire arm. We shall see. We are about to live in Interesting Times.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had this waking dream (nightmare?) wherein President Obama declares an emergency and dismisses Congress so that the House cannot bring in a bill of impeachment when his true intentions become known beyond doubt. I hope it is just a dream (nightmare?).

The U.S. President has no power to dismiss Congress, but Congress has the power to impeach *him* and throw him out if it came to that. We are not *quite* yet at the level of an African dictatorship that could experience a literal coup.

Well, not unless the new Commander in Chief exercises his authority to launch global thermonuclear war and a combined Russian and Chinese counterstrike obliterates every major American city. Fortunately that is not possible, since he loves America, as evidenced by his associations from childhood...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had this waking dream (nightmare?) wherein President Obama declares an emergency and dismisses Congress so that the House cannot bring in a bill of impeachment when his true intentions become known beyond doubt. I hope it is just a dream (nightmare?).

The U.S. President has no power to dismiss Congress, but Congress has the power to impeach *him* and throw him out if it came to that. We are not *quite* yet at the level of an African dictatorship that could experience a literal coup.

Well, not unless the new Commander in Chief exercises his authority to launch global thermonuclear war and a combined Russian and Chinese counterstrike obliterates every major American city. Fortunately that is not possible, since he loves America, as evidenced by his associations from childhood...

My position on these sorts of things, e.g., Obama's call for a "civilian national security force," is that it's far more subtle and insidious than a bunch of deputized thugs walking around with nightsticks. Rather, for example, in this case it's the natural extension of the Left's position that one can't be "secure" if one is unemployed, uneducated, lacks access to healthcare, etc., etc. Thus, Obama wants to expand the Americorps concepts to send extra "volunteers" into schools, caregivers into nursing homes, etc., etc. To a Leftist, that's as vital to "national security" as is the military, due to the conflating of "economic security" and national defense, if you will.

My point is: there's no need to talk about such extreme and, I think, in many cases paranoid, ideas. Obama is not going to do anything so explicitly evil, simply because he doesn't have to do so to accomplish his altruist/collectivist agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bastard didn't go into politics because he had an agenda. He went into it because he wanted POWER.

He's spent his entire life among Marxists, terrorists and racists. He is COMFORTABLE with the initiation of force, in ways that probably no other candidate has ever been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is stepping up the calls for "service". Here is the latest littany of official proposals expanding "nonprofit" and "service" to the whole world as his "cause" at Change.gov.

"Your own story and the American story are not separate -- they are shared. And they will both be enriched if we stand up together, and answer a new call to service to meet the challenges of our new century … I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate; I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States. This will not be a call issued in one speech or program; this will be a cause of my presidency..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Obama can keep asking and I will keep turning him down.

He's not asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Obama can keep asking and I will keep turning him down.

He's not asking.

You are right.

When diplomacy leaves the stage it is time for different tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously concerned about what he's going to do to us if we're hit with another 9/11 type of attack, or even a Katrina.

During the campaign, he said he was most disappointed by Bush telling the Americans to go shopping after 9/11. He believes we all should have been called to serve!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm seriously concerned...

Then I would offer that you start the intellectual battle with a vigor and valor that Obama and his ilk will not be able to conquer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm seriously concerned...

Then I would offer that you start the intellectual battle with a vigor and valor that Obama and his ilk will not be able to conquer.

I agree with your sentiments, but I believe the battle for individual rights has been started for quite some time, and by more competent advocates (Jefferson, Adams, Rand). I'm here and doing what I can. That said, most Americans buy into the idea of service of one type or another. As long as Obama isn't requiring us to serve on the front lines of a battlefield, he'll get little resistance.

I'm confident that if a major city is bombed or damaged somehow, Obama will want Americans to first reach out to those in need and then to reach out to compromise with the perpetrators. Perhaps, the first to be volunteered will be companies that took some of the Government Bailout money? He can easily say that if it weren't for the Federal Goverment, company X, and its employees, wouldn't be around. Now, in America's time of need, company X needs to give back by volunteering its resources (employee labor) to help out. If you happen to work for company X, it can pressure you to perhaps work a Saturday or evening helping the local CAIR charity or pick up a shovel and start digging.

No blog, letter to the editor, or community activism will stop him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, I agree with your statements and that is why I added the terms "vigor and valor" to my original post. To change the direction we see America going, different tactics are going to be needed which might demand that some individuals step up and take the reins when others will not. Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ayn Rand are no longer here to do the fighting for individual rights and those rights now require someone else (or a group of people) with the same type of vigor/passion and valor/courgage that they had.

I can guarantee people that pain is going to be a part of the future. What type of pain, of which there are two types, is what is up to each individual to choose. One type of pain will be the type one feels while fighting, intellectually or physically, for their rights. The second type of pain will be the type felt by slaves that comes from carrying around the intellectual and physical chains. The choice is up to each individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The choice is up to each individual.

Here Here... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm seriously concerned about what he's going to do to us if we're hit with another 9/11 type of attack, or even a Katrina.

During the campaign, he said he was most disappointed by Bush telling the Americans to go shopping after 9/11. He believes we all should have been called to serve!

Is your main concern how this will affect your life? If so, that is a very proper concern and something we should all make plans for.

During the Vietnam War there was a military draft which Objectivists fought on an intellectual level. Objectivist males of draft age also contacted lawyers who figured out how to get them exempted. Many states have "service" requirements for high school graduation and the Ayn Rand Institute has special "volunteering" projects they can use to satisfy them.

One way to avoid anxiety over what will happen if Obama does this or that is to make specific plans for dealing with various contingencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is your main concern how this will affect your life? If so, that is a very proper concern and something we should all make plans for.

In the very short term, the impact to me is simply a continuation of misspending the money taken from me to "Invest" in these service programs, which should be enough of a concern. I have 2 children ages 2yrs. and 5yrs., so they shouldn't be impacted by his integrating service into learning for another decade. I'm most concerned of the possibility, as I mentioned in a previous post, of expanding this call to service to all Americans in the event of another catastrophe.

One way to avoid anxiety over what will happen if Obama does this or that is to make specific plans for dealing with various contingencies.

I agree. It really sends me to have to make contingencies against a politician sworn to uphold the constitution, which is designed to protect our individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is your main concern how this will affect your life? If so, that is a very proper concern and something we should all make plans for.

In the very short term, the impact to me is simply a continuation of misspending the money taken from me to "Invest" in these service programs, which should be enough of a concern. I have 2 children ages 2yrs. and 5yrs., so they shouldn't be impacted by his integrating service into learning for another decade. I'm most concerned of the possibility, as I mentioned in a previous post, of expanding this call to service to all Americans in the event of another catastrophe.

Or a manufactured catastrophe. Politicians don't need much of an excuse to declare an "emergency" to rationalize "needed wider powers". Obama already wants service (and indoctrination) throughout the school years and even wants retired engineers to serve in foreign countries. This time the threat isn't just for those of draft age.

One way to avoid anxiety over what will happen if Obama does this or that is to make specific plans for dealing with various contingencies.

I agree. It really sends me to have to make contingencies against a politician sworn to uphold the constitution, which is designed to protect our individual rights.

Such planning requires keeping up with the details of what they are doing, both to protest it to try to head it off and to be familiar enough with specific impending regulations in time to know how to dodge their plans where possible. You can't count on making "reasonable arguments" against things that people say "can't happen in this country" because they don't care. Citing the Constitution isn't enough at that point and you have to keep up with details. Without that, "contingency planning" has no meaning.

No blog, letter to the editor, or community activism will stop him.

Obama has already made it clear that he explicitly regards Constitutional limits on government power to be an obstruction to his agenda. His oath of office is a more cynical farce than usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is not hesitating to impose his agenda of sacrifice to the collective for his planned massive socialist transformation of the country.

Stephanopoulos (former Clintonista): Are you talking about a grand bargain ... where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, except change, for the greater good?

Obama (emphatically): Yes.

... but, what you described is exactly what we're going to have to do. What we have to do is take a look at, uh, our structual deficit, how we are paying for government, what are we getting for it, and how do we make the system more efficient.

Stephanopoulos: And eventually sacrifice from everyone?

Obama: Everybody is going to have to give, everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game.

Video

Posted at The Dougout blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have got some skin to give Obama and his ilk, but I do not think it is exactly what they are expecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have got some skin to give Obama and his ilk, but I do not think it is exactly what they are expecting.

They're expecting it from someone because they know how much they are threatening people. If they get it from anyone they will go after someone like you just for for talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always some form of pain involved when someone fights to gain or regain their freedom. It is what is on the other side that makes the pain worth enduring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites