http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m10d28-Obama-administration-Pentagon-prepare-for-homeland-military-deployment
"While I've served in the military and continue as a reservist, as a [New Jersey] cop I'm troubled about the use of federal troops coming into our communities during any emergencies," said Detective Lieutenant Stephan Rodgers
Mike - I have a similar background to you, and your perspective is right on target. There are many in Congress and the current administration who want ultimate power and control of the citizens. THAT is what this is all about, taking control of the citizenry. Does ANYONE really believe that Pelosi and Barney Frank gives a rat's rear end if I have good healthcare? After all, the plan they are trying to ram through is a different one than they have voted for themselves already.
Government takeover of the media (nearly done), the money and banking (nearly done), healthcare (trying, hurrying to ram something through), and limit/restrict/take away the guns (good luck), to name a few key elements, all in the name of "protecting" us.
PLEASE, take ALL my resources Congress, and give me back what YOU THINK I should have, because I'm too STUPID to manage them on my own. And may I kiss your ring, sire? You are soooo wonderful, and I soooo want to believe.
Does ANYONE here really believe and trust that big government can manage our money better than we can?
It is very difficult to understand the high level of gullibility, stupidity, ignorance of the many followers who fail to recognize that nothing in life is free, and freedom means sacrifice, not handouts.
Our military has yet to weigh in, and will not be easily swayed or fooled like the many in the general populace who contend that big government and freebies fulfill all the answers to their problems.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."
When will it stop? Next election, hopefully, before it is too late for our country, and for our children's future.
Intreasting article,however the last paragraph about "Waco" should be the give away. i supose if a republican administration wanted the same exercise,most on the right would not be care,only now that its being done now causes concern.
Hello Steve...no, I would be just as concerned if it was a Repub doing this (I am now on record...if a future repub president does this, I will be just as critical).
One event I recently read about really sealed my thoughts on the military being deployed in the U.S...I was reading about the 1906 earthquake and fires in the San Francisco bay area. A local military commander (stationed at the Presidio) essentially took over the city as the fire started to spread...because he did not think the civilian government could handle the issue. In some ways he was correct...but the end result of this move was quite tragic...and highlighted the intrinsic problem of such involvement by the military.
TOny
Statements to note;
1 - "the command was established in 2002", so the Republicans are as guilty in this as anyone else.
2 - "Barack Obama appears intent on using our military at least until he can create his promised 'Civilian Security Force' which he said would be as big and powerful as the military,", WTF!!! Did Obama actually 'promise' this?!?!? What legitimate purpose can this be for?
3 - ""While Obama and his team are making it sound as if they will use the military in a non-combative roll, part of the training being conducted is in urban warfare," claims Mike Baker.", why would they need this training, and I'm sure it was conducted under other administrations as well.
4 - ""Obama appears oblivious to Posse Comitatus and to the US Constitution when it comes to using the military against civilians within US borders," he added. ", substitute any of our dear politicians names at the beginning of this statement. Is there really a single one of them worth keeping???
Why is this not the "topic of the day" everyday until it's halted???
There is only one reason I can think of for this kind of action. BO wants to be Dictator of the USSA. I hope our military leaders are well versed on the constitution and what a "Lawful" order is. They can stop this nonsense at the source.
[quote=slywelder]
Intreasting article,however the last paragraph about "Waco" should be the give away. i supose if a republican administration wanted the same exercise,most on the right would not be care,only now that its being done now causes concern.[/quote]
No Steve, ANYONE who proposed this would come under scrutiny. This also treads very close to unconstitutional in all but marshal law. I pulled this tid bit....
"While the rationale for using the US military domestically had been debated for years, [size=medium]President Barack Obama appears intent on using our military at least until he can create his promised 'Civilian Security Force' which he said would be as big and powerful as the military,"[/size][/b] said political strategist Mike Baker.
"The fact that the military -- in this instance NORTHCOM -- is being trained to operate with our borders should be setting off alarms throughout this nation. But it's being ignored even by those who profess to be conservatives," he said.
And this:
"While Obama and his team are making it sound as if they will use the military in a non-combative roll, part of the training being conducted is in urban warfare," claims Mike Baker.
[b][size=medium]"Obama appears oblivious to Posse Comitatus and to the US Constitution when it comes to using the military against civilians within US borders," he added.[/size]
While So-called military experts appear excited about this use of soldiers within the borders of the United States, many police commanders and officers are less enthusiastic. (end quote)
I am posting prior to checking out the source and it's "possible bias" But on the basis of the link, THIS is scary stuff!
Obama’s ‘Civilian Security Force’ Prompts Questions
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33752
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html
and if you would like to delve deeper here is the search link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+civilian+security+force&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I guess the "usual suspects" acting as Obama apologists are having a hard scramble to turn this into a BushBash off thread topic....
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
Last month, The Army Times reported that for "the first time an active [U.S. Army] unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The brigade, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, has spent most of the last four years fighting a war in Iraq, and will now be assigned on a permanent basis to engage in numerous domestic functions -- including, as the article put it, "to help with civil unrest and crowd control."
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/381348_amyonline02.html
Use of military in quelling domestic unrest a scary sign
The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&feature=player_embedded
Financial Disaster Will Lead to Civil Disorder in 2009 or 2010, Says Secret Citibank Memo
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000556_gold_civil_unrest_financial_bailout.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/3526645/Citigroup-says-gold-could-rise-above-2000-next-year-as-world-unravels.html
The
Posse Comitatus
Act of 1878
http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html
[quote=kirks-auto]
I guess the "usual suspects" acting as Obama apologists are having a hard scramble to turn this into a BushBash off thread topic....[/quote]--------------------No GWB bashing from me. However there is something seriously wrong when people become so spiteful,so hateful that they will just outright lie and distort just to justify there own parnoid thinking.
Sly,
In the spirit of trying to get along I would hope you aren't implying I am of the mentality you mention. There is substantive problems in the BHO approach to governance. It has to do with Rahm etc, black balling FNC, a known critic but a journalistic standpoint none the less, this issue which may or maynot have legs....I hardly see employing the US Army as local Peace Corps....even the sound of that doesn't ring true.
GWB set this up in the wake of 9/11 when there was a mandate to keep America safe. Why is it that so much later, on the surface, it would seem these Storm Troopers are being enabled, to protect not only USA, but anyone who might gather to speak about curent policies...
There is a very fine line when US armed fources are employed to keep domestic tranquility.
Sly, kindly, this is not an affront on you, this is an issue which any American could or should have an issue. No spite and no hate. He may be your Prez but he happens to be mine due to your electing him. Abandon the inferred and address the facts. BHO has a very profound agenda and its not all Union or working class. The wealth distribution will involve you and me as much as anyone else.
Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff on MANDATORY CIVIL SERVICE PLAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y
this one is really good,. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp2VFN-w9d0&feature=related Obama Military Youth Brigade March in Formation
[quote=kirks-auto]
Sly,
In the spirit of trying to get along I would hope you aren't implying I am of the mentality you mention. There is substantive problems in the BHO approach to governance. It has to do with Rahm etc, black balling FNC, a known critic but a journalistic standpoint none the less, this issue which may or maynot have legs....I hardly seen employing the US Army as local Peace Corps....even the sound of that doesn't ring true.
GWB set this up in the wake of 9/11 when there was a mandate to keep America safe. Why is it that so much later, on the surface, it would seem these Storm Troopers are being enabled, to protect not only USA, but anyone who might gather to speak about curent policies...
There is a very fine line when US armed fources are employed to keep domestic tranquility.
Sly, kindly, this is not an affront on you, this is an issue which any American could or should have an issue. No spite and no hate. He may be your Prez but he happens to be mine due to your electing him. Abandon the inferred and address the facts. BHO has a very profound agenda and its not all Union....States of or working class. The wealth distribution will involve you and me as much as anyone else.[/quote]
I find it interesting that you challenge 911 as a conspiracy wingnut, I think that's what you have referred to him as
and then you make a post like that.
Kirk, you are the conspiracy wingnut !!
[quote=kirks-auto]
Sly,
In the spirit of trying to get along I would hope you aren't implying I am of the mentality you mention. There is substantive problems in the BHO approach to governance. It has to do with Rahm etc, black balling FNC, a known critic but a journalistic standpoint none the less, this issue which may or maynot have legs....I hardly seen employing the US Army as local Peace Corps....even the sound of that doesn't ring true.
GWB set this up in the wake of 9/11 when there was a mandate to keep America safe. Why is it that so much later, on the surface, it would seem these Storm Troopers are being enabled, to protect not only USA, but anyone who might gather to speak about curent policies...
There is a very fine line when US armed fources are employed to keep domestic tranquility.
Sly, kindly, this is not an affront on you, this is an issue which any American could or should have an issue. No spite and no hate. He may be your Prez but he happens to be mine due to your electing him. Abandon the inferred and address the facts. BHO has a very profound agenda and its not all Union....States of or working class. The wealth distribution will involve you and me as much as anyone else.[/quote]----------Actually i was thinking your a little to smart to suscribe to this notion that Obama will put armed milita on every street conner to "control'' the civilians. Frankly i have no intreast in pursueing this,its a desperate attempt. You may have valid issues with his governing but lets keep it serious and shelf the "storm trooper" nonesense. You keep reminding us constantly that GWB is not the president and the time is now,i totally agree but you cant talk about Obama blackballing Fox and turn a blind eye to the tactics of the former administration and the tactics they employed against certain liberal news organizations. It just sounds so hypocritical,it might be better taken if you'd at least ackownelge two wrongs dont make a right
Blues on the face of it it ts frightening...but I have my doubts about its being enacted.
[quote=wyatt]
Blues on the face of it it ts frightening...but I have my doubts about its being enacted.[/quote]
I hope you re right,. we shall keep an open eye,. and keep your powder dry,.
[quote=slywelder]
but you cant talk about Obama blackballing Fox and turn a blind eye to the tactics of the former administration and the tactics they employed against certain liberal news organizations. [/quote]
Sly,
Please refresh me on that. Did the GWB intentionaly not invite any network with a standing DC press corp to an open White House News Conference. Your not the first to allude to this but I would like to know patently. If anyone had a phobia it might have been RMN but I also don't ever recall anything as blatent as the BHO folks and FNC ...but please, if there is such an example of the former administration kindly post it.
[quote=slywelder]
...it might be better taken if you'd at least ackownelge two wrongs dont make a right[/quote]
Spot on i agree, I will give you that. Did your watch the Utube of the black children? Does that not smack a little of events in China and Europe under certain fromer leaders....just a little? Isn't it just a little bit discomforting?
Sly,
Unlike those who wish to label we not enchanted with BHO, I am not a Bush apoligist. I think he made several mistakes. But I was not privey to the why and accept that what was done was done for good reason. My issue is that your new President who campaigned so eloquently about change, unification, and so on, redefines the agenda and maintains very much of the same policy. The questionable need of policy now endorsed and continued under BHO, gives a stamp of approval it would seem to much that GWB did. If it was so bad for him why is it still being used and ramped up by BHO?
This is no rant, no anti this, no apology that. These are very real concerns by me and my "side", a lot of folks who claim to be independent of thought and increaseingly those who endorsed beyond simply voteing for BHO. Or so the recent polls would suggest.
be careful everyone, Kirk the conspiracy theorist is back.
remember, Kirk claims this
"it would seem these Storm Troopers are being enabled, to protect not only USA, but anyone who might gather to speak about curent policies.."
(queue Twilight Zone music here)
[quote=kirks-auto]
[quote=slywelder]
but you cant talk about Obama blackballing Fox and turn a blind eye to the tactics of the former administration and the tactics they employed against certain liberal news organizations. [/quote]
Sly,
Please refresh me on that. Did the GWB intentionaly not invite any network with a standing DC press corp to an open White House News Conference. Your not the first to allude to this but I would like to know patently. If anyone had a phobia it might have been RMN but I also don't ever recall anything as blatent as the BHO folks and FNC ...but please, if there is such an example of the former administration kindly post ithttp://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028-----------it would seem GWB's administration did similar things but why no outrage over that. The point is no administration should look to silence the press
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028
Joe,
You are not functionally literate to respond.
Sly,
I asked you point blank to respond to me intellectually. If your guy simply advances the former guy in policy and ramps it up....does that not lend legitimacy to the former guy. Patentenly simple, please explain why obie is doing the exact same thing as GWB. IF he does, it gives credibility to the GWB stategy. If I am mistaken, tell me how, why, where and etc.
Your guy, in the slip toungue rehoric (I applaud him for that grace), does the same as his former. How
then does the former be called a disgrace while your guy employees the exact same policy? It would appear BHO embraces the
GWB polices and even ADVANCES them.....I don't see any other read to these issues. GWB=M BHO=M. M = midesat policy.
Both admisistrations are/were engaged in the same polichy if M=Mideast policy...which it does...BHO = GWB on the issue. Thus they are the same and equal....WHY is that so hard for you folks to follow?
Obie is doing nothing but continuring GWB policy in the mideast. Obie doesn't deal
with the truth or false of WMD...he simply continues the same policy.. I don't give a whit darn to who you love...but this is patent....its the same policy....its nothing but a rehash...When does your group wake up and smell the brew??
Obie is lost and confused and unable...he just carries on what can be viewed a faulty admisistratin decision
and objective...BUT, your man offers NOTHING NEW while continueing the SAME...What does that tell you about the BHO adm. and objective...I offer he is clueless, and otherwise agenda
non-orientad and not vetted. YOU???????
thanks for the warning,. I shall get back in line,.
http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield176.htm
very good SJJ, but you forgot the most obvious one in your litany of idiocy...."progressivism is the way".....can't you see you have crash landed into the same "subculture".
The road to reason is full of twists and turns Robert,I dont pretend to have all or many of the facts,i do try and read the political page as well as watch the news,working as i do that is all time allows. Ob inherited a stalled ecomony,millions out of work,the demise of wall st and the banking scandel. Of course the most important was the war,unrest in the middle east,need i say more. No doubt the american public knows Obama is not a miracle worker or a magician,but my 401k is almost back to were it was before. Were backing hunting for the mastermind of 9/11.What the right is attempting to do is pull of a scam,the man takes over the begining of the year and now in November your side wants world piece, and the decifcent erased,economy booming all in ten months. Spare me the word games,im also not paricularly fond of pointing fingers or dregeing up the past but it goes without saying we all know how we got here.You asked about GWB censoring the press during his administration,he did it also,its a fact and not hard to prove. What right wing radicals are doing is a dis-service to the country,there spreading fear,lies,mis trust of gov,but only a democratic administration. In all my years ive never seen the level of hate as i see now,we all should be ashamed.
We have a different read on censor. I offer that while its the media’s job to out the politicians, its only a natural reaction that politicians show bias to certain media. To me the faux pas of the White House, intentionally failing to give notice to FNC borders close on pre censorship. FNC has a standing press corps to cover such events.
Now NOT inviting certain news groups onto an airplane paid for by a campaigner or the USA is in my mind a different matter. It is a signal. The news org. can always opt to fly the reporters to the destination on its own dime. This was a different issue. But the White House made its point, FNC only got a lot of sympathy and/or attention so the damage was probably not as severe as had the White House effectively accomplished its mission...
I think what a lot of Americans want is the change that obie promised. It was a "good line" and I understand why a majority voted him and his "slick" ideas into office. I also felt the angst of the GWB adm.....we all did to a degree. None the less unlike certain of your group...not you particularly.... I hold that GWB also did the best with the cards he was dealt...
In this case, which I doubt you will neither see nor agree BHO indeed was handed a load. He also had 150 days of serving in DC. He is and was seen as a profoundly literate, eloquent, and inexperienced man. He asked and got the job. We, those not as enamoured as you, just want to see the positive change he promised. Sir, it isn't happening and it won't. He is spending your money, my money out children’s money our grandchildren’s, great and great great grandchildren’s money frivolously and wantonly.
Not totally on thread (I suspect Mike will forgive me while Joe will attempt to banty me), but an illustration of the failing policies of the mandate Obie asked and got and kinldy notice profound treatment of the basket case Obie got handed:
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON — Old Soviet joke: Moscow, 1953. Stalin calls in Khrushchev. “Niki, I'm dying. Don't have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble."
A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: "Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe."
A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: "Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe."
Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: "Prepare three envelopes."
[b]In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad — everything but swine flu.
It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.[/b]
This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision. "My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats," the president assured us. "We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations" and "with members of Congress. "
Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right -- indeed duty — to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.[/b]
There is nothing new here. The history of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is a considered readjustment of policies that have failed. In each war, quick initial low-casualty campaigns toppled enemy governments. In the subsequent occupation stage, two policy choices presented themselves: the light or heavy "footprint."
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we initially chose the light footprint. For obvious reasons: less risk and fewer losses for our troops, while reducing the intrusiveness of the occupation and thus the chances of creating an anti-foreigner backlash that would fan an insurgency.
This was the considered judgment of our commanders at the time, most especially Centcom commander (2003-2007) Gen. John Abizaid. And Abizaid was no stranger to the territory. He speaks Arabic and is a scholar of the region. The overriding idea was that the light footprint would minimize local opposition.
[b]It was a perfectly reasonable assumption, but it proved wrong. The strategy failed. Not just because the enemy proved highly resilient but because the allegiance of the population turned out to hinge far less on resentment of foreign intrusiveness (in fact the locals came to hate the insurgents — al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan — far more than us) than on physical insecurity, which made them side with the insurgents out of sheer fear.[/b]
What they needed, argued Gen. David Petraeus against much Pentagon brass opposition, was population protection, i.e., a heavy footprint.
In Iraq, the heavy footprint -- also known as the surge -- dramatically reversed the fortunes of war. In Afghanistan, where it took longer for the Taliban to regroup, the failure of the light footprint did not become evident until more recently when an uneasy stalemate began to deteriorate into steady Taliban advances.
That's where we are now in Afghanistan. The logic of a true counterinsurgency strategy there is that whatever resentment a troop surge might occasion pales in comparison with the continued demoralization of any potential anti-Taliban elements unless they receive serious and immediate protection from U.S.-NATO forces.
[b]In other words, Obama is facing the same decision on Afghanistan that Bush faced in late 2006 in deciding to surge in Iraq.[/b]
[b]In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not the result of "drift," but of considered policies that seemed reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time, but ultimately turned out to be wrong.
Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made on March 27. He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He's used up his envelopes.
http://troyrecord.com/articles/2009/10/30/opinion/doc4ae9dd0ca765d007719998.txt
Robert there is more to GWB shutting out the more liberal media then on Air force 1,again you cant have it both ways.--------------------------------------Enamored???? Me ????Again you lump anyone who voted for Obama as a blinded star struck liberal. I think this far along in the game you'd figured out while i am a responsible union advocate and loyal democrate,im also a average middle class person trying to provide. The suttle but un-mistakable put down is a common thread in this line of thought,please save it for some of the other more outspoken members. id like to think of myself as a realist,while i wont just excuse GWB because he had to play the hand (cards) he was dealt,i certaintly will acknoweldge he had a tough road to follow after we were attacked. We who are real,understand the repercussions of such a hideous act. I do see it a mockery when the blame 9/11 on Clinton releases came out and now the hostility if anyone dare invoke the former administration as responsible for our current woes. I suspect quite a few on the other side of the fence might say they wanted change when obama came into office,but in fact they wanted buissness as usual . Like so many others i was delivered a set of goods in the form of hope,im not unrealistic but i expect more then words and empty promises,we shall see
Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel: Pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land.
Nearly 75 years ago Roosevelt said: Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a camel; this is the promised land.
Now Obama has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of camels, and mortgaged the promised land.
HHhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa...................
[quote=kirks-auto]
Sly,
In the spirit of trying to get along I would hope you aren't implying I am of the mentality you mention. There is substantive problems in the BHO approach to governance. It has to do with Rahm etc, black balling FNC, a known critic but a journalistic standpoint none the less, this issue which may or maynot have legs....I hardly see employing the US Army as local Peace Corps....even the sound of that doesn't ring true.
GWB set this up in the wake of 9/11 when there was a mandate to keep America safe. [size=large]Why is it that so much later, on the surface, it would seem these Storm Troopers are being enabled, to protect not only USA, but anyone who might gather to speak about curent policies...[/size]
There is a very fine line when US armed fources are employed to keep domestic tranquility.
Sly, kindly, this is not an affront on you, this is an issue which any American could or should have an issue. No spite and no hate. He may be your Prez but he happens to be mine due to your electing him. Abandon the inferred and address the facts. BHO has a very profound agenda and its not all Union or working class. The wealth distribution will involve you and me as much as anyone else.[/quote]
Conspiracy theory.....
Anyone remember the free speech zones where under Lord W people who didnt agree with his, I meant Cheneys policies couldnt protest near the presidential figurehead?
This has been going on for quite some time.. heck even look at your local police, they are militarized now... this has been ramping up for several years under both Reps and Dems... we are now the enemy of the state... we are terrorists to them.. this is the new America..
Dictators dont they all dream about total control:
Dick Tater
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
— Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000 The Shrub...
I give you "Employees Free Choice Act"....or...."The Fairness Doctrine".....or any number of legislative tyrannical acts thrust upon the free citizens of the United State by the Marxists in the Democratic party who now hold the reins of power in our country. Benedict Arnold was wanted for treason for doing less........
What about the Patriot act Wyatt? Whats your thoughts on that?
What about spying on Americans Wyatt?
Next time you fly, be sure to dump your water bottle out... its for your safety.
I got into this thread late but I thought the issue that GWB was dealing with was the same that Roosevelt dealt with in 1942. GWB was only making plans for the eventuallity that we could actually have to fight a group of terrorists on the homeland and could the police handle it. I also thought that was what the supplemental spending money was used for in 2002 and on to change how the metropolitan police departments were outfitted.. They bought, trained and warehoused the equipments to fight an engagement and the military was then organized to help fight that if it got out of control. Bush clearly understood the law and did not violate it and even when authorizing military reserve funds to be used by the Military on the Southern border did not allow them to carry bullets. They had Border Patrol and Police attached to do the shooting and apprehension.
The Obama concept was more outside the law as I recall how he discussed it in the campaign. At first it was somesort of community soical army who were doing service in the cities but as paid participents. Then he made a flip remark about them being a domestic Army.
Is there some new concept he has been talking about. I have been away from everything for several days.
walshja the Democrats do not have the sole franchise on trampling liberties, but they are the "Hertz" of the two parties when it comes to tyrannical legislation.
http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/01/bob-barr-civil-libertarian
[quote=wyatt]
very good SJJ, but you forgot the most obvious one in your litany of idiocy...."progressivism is the way".....can't you see you have crash landed into the same "subculture".[/quote]
Er, nope.
"Progressivism is the way" is an opinion. Just like those CATO pieces you post. Thoughtful... but opinion pieces. Ideologies that cannot be objectively argued. Whether you argue for the greater good of the individual, the greater good of society or some kind of hybrid mix offering the best (worst) of both worlds, it's an amorphous thing to pin down with no correct answer... a bit like abortion. We all have our digging-in points. Everyone is wrong to someone... yet everyone's right as well.
On the other hand, the "litancy of idiocy" in the cartoon directly refers to theories that fly in the face of objective facts: Young Earth Creationism, Moon Landing was Faked, Perpetual Motion. Theories which directly contravene the observed facts.
......that's your opinion.........
which is a wonderful reply.........
Fortunately, the Constitution and its checks and balances on power make sure we will never have a standing army such as this.
(That was sarcasm, for anyone who missed it.)
........nobody missed it......altho nobody accused us of being the brightest bulb on the porch......
I love it - you guys HATE DEMOCRACY when it your guys lose... yet you are happy to go around imposing democracy on others at the point of a gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKJk5gmsByk&NR=1
......don't forget the bamboo shoots under the fingernails if you forget to vote. we take freedom seriously in Amerika . We don't hate anybody...we just love people to death ....sweetie.
[quote=wyatt]
I give you "Employees Free Choice Act"....or...."The Fairness Doctrine".....or any number of legislative tyrannical acts thrust upon the free citizens of the United State by the Marxists in the Democratic party who now hold the reins of power in our country. Benedict Arnold was wanted for treason for doing less........[/quote] We need protection from employers like YOU
thats right, I'll work ya to death then sell your liver..........
[quote=wyatt]
thats right, I'll work ya to death then sell your liver..........[/quote]-------------------Thats a laugh,your a worn out windbag,has been or maybe never was.
...thats why it's so important that I get to OZ with Dorothy.............and toto.
[quote=wyatt]
...thats why it's so important that I get to OZ .[/quote]
I'd vote to sink your boat before it got halfway here - refugees and asylum seekers fleeing strife-torn countries are one thing. Those with multiple properties and independent wealth can wallow in the murk of suddenly finding out it isn't all about them (and that is not enough reason to let them into our country).
I'm personally sick of our "do gooders" in government thinking they can convert everyone to democracy. I say we let those countries figure it out on their own. If they ask for our help against an invading enemy, sure, run the bastards out and make sure they can't make another attempt. Then, get the hell out. Pretty soon, we'll be protecting our borders from the invasion that is currently taking over Europe. I feel sorry for them, they saw it too late.
I prefer a republic over a democracy.
' invasion that is currently taking over Europe'
eh? what invasion is this? Europe has always, due to being connected/close to other continents, had large population shifts and movements. Africa to France for example has been going on a long time. We in the UK have had an influx of people from eastern europe, and this has now begun to be an efflux since the UK went bust. There are negatives to this of course - but these could have largely been avoided, had this been managed properly for example - 'we have an area that is poor, lack of housing, school places, medical attention etc. So, lets dump these folks here, exacerbate the issue even more, and ensure bad feeling'. that was smart! I was in a taxi recently, and the driver was banging on about eastern europeans. I asked what he disliked:
1. criminals
I pointed out that the UK has these too, and so why would a forgein criminal be worse than a Uk criminal?
2. taking our jobs
load of crap - doing the jobs we are too lazy/think ourselves above - that is why its worth coming here in the first place!
3. um, just because
says it all
I then pointed out that
1. the number of small food shops has risen and they sell excellent bread and sausages.
2. a job sector that we didnt want to do is being filled, permitting the lazy bastards of the UK to sit back and live on our taxes
3. influxes of attractive women are to be welcomed, esp. in the UK.
The overall point I am trying to make though is that even if you want to call it an invasion, its not locusts, or aliens - its people. people who have the right, in my opinion, to go where they want to. Its up to governments to decide what they get and don't get once they get there. Mismanagement being let off the hook by whipping up tabloid frenzy of lies and hatred.
Dont believe the hype.
Good morning, Mick - thanks for the insight from Scotland, very interesting! Welcome to this forum, as well! Glad to have you aboard.
In your opinion, what effect and impact does religion have on your region, both now and for the immediate future?
Thanks, Chuck, Aiken, SC USA
Hi Chuck,
I'm the wrong man to ask about religion, being a dirty heathen and all. However, I'm also the wrong person geographically, as in Scotland we havent had the same level of immigration that England has seen. But for what its worth I'll have an opinion!
Scotland is a strange place, where religion is used to exscuse and abuse, as well as comfort and help. In my region, from what I read and hear from friends who do follow a particular brand of god, as far as the traditional churches go, attendance is down. I take that to mean that religion is on the wane, on the other hand, maybe people are moving away from organised collective religion and getting into self-religion - I guess you dont have to attend church to be christian, more what you think, believe and do, in my opinion at least (but as I say, I am not well informed). We had a mosque built where I live over 20 years back, its all been part of the community for so long that the religious mix is just part and parcel of the community. But how many younger folks are into any form of religion is debatable - I don't have the answer, just a perception that its decreasing. Whats concerning to me though is that as we move from the 'traditional' religions, I see an increase is new-age hocus pocus, pseudoscience, crystal healing, spiritualism, raiki etc etc - almost like folks have said 'oh i dont believe that god stuff, and so i need to believe/have faith in something else. Okay, faith in a bit of rock never started a war or anything, but really, I find the whole thing to be laughable were it not so concerning - and fleecing folks out of money - have you seen the price of a dream-catcher, made by the native american indians of Scotland:)
The impact for the immediate future - I think the impact religion has is lessening, and suspect this will continue. It would be unlikely that any other religion would gain much of a hold around here, as numbers of practitioners would be unlikely to achieve enough of a mass vs those who don't practice/those who are of the christian faith. So, I see the enlightenment continuing, so long as the long-haired-crystal botherers don't get in the way too much!
As a caveat, can I just say that I am aware that christianity is perhaps a bit stronger in the USA than UK. And so, since the majority of posters here are USA folks, I do not want you to think that I am particulary anti-religion / have anything against your religion (though I may have a lot agaiunst using it as an excuse for various nefarious acts - such as saying condoms are bad news to africans - there can be no excuse for this in my eyes) - each to their own. I feel the same way about islam as i do about hindu and christianity - whatever floats your boat, if it doesnt sink mine, sail away! I have my own views on topics such as abortion, that I can have as my own, without a concern that they don't agree with the book I read/who I pray to. I do however, as a scientist, get rather riled with the pseudoscientific claims made from the new age world.
Sorry if this is a poor answer to your question - let me know if so, and I will try to be more specific where/if I can.
all the best
Mick
wow - this is all going fantastically off-topic - hope this is okay! From the Pentagon to a piece of crystal - a true new ager might be able to see a connection there. I can't.
racer76...I was talking about Oz as in Wizard of Oz as in humor...you idiot...but thanks for the murderous reply. edited for the squemish.
Mick, I was referring to the Islamic invasion. It is slow, steady, but surely taking over in Europe. It won't be good for any indigenous people because radical Islamists don't assimilate into the local society and culture, they drive it out. Just my opinion, your's may differ.
[quote="John Hamilton"]
Mick, I was referring to the Islamic invasion. It is slow, steady, but surely taking over in Europe. It won't be good for any indigenous people because radical Islamists don't assimilate into the local society and culture, they drive it out. Just my opinion, your's may differ.[/quote]
That's true John, but the mistake you make is to assume that all Muslims coming to Britain are radical Islamists. That's simply not the case - indeed, it's far from it; the majority are peaceable people who simply want to practise their old-fashioned superstitions undisturbed. Like their theist cousins, the Christians, Muslims come in all shapes and sizes. I've got mates that identify themselves as Muslims but enjoy a drink, ferchrissakes...
as Steve says. We have lived side by side with Muslims in the UK for years, and no take over bid has been made, nor do I think would be wished for. Cultural diversity for sure - no bad thing. I work with muslims, teach muslims, enjoy a laugh with muslims, do business with muslims. and christians. and non-believers. I might draw the line at scientology (only kidding - until they piss me off they are okay with me too!). if folks want to believe in something that I can't any longer buy, then in so far as they don't expect me to get into it, fine by me. I find the whole idea of any particular religion trying to take over in this day strange - it won't happen by force, as the resistance would be too great (try telling a housing estate round here that there is a new boss in town, and you will find out rapidly that the old boss aint having it). It sure won't happen by ideology, as too many folks can think for themselves. If anything, in my view, I am living through the last kicking and shouting struggles of religious survival as we know it - what will replace religion, I hope rational thinking. But should people wish to be religious it is their right, just as should they wish not to be, again, their right, and I don't see anything changing this fast. I will take my hat off to whatever religion manages to drive out the indigenous people of scotland - the romans failed (we ate them, they put up Hadrians wall), and its worse today - I really don't see the population transitions that have and are occurring as a muslim invasion. Again, I can only speak from my own personal experience of the Uk and Europe, in which I travel a fair bit - i have seen no evidence.
Obamamania
from hollywood,.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/11/04/elementary-epidemic-11-uncovered-videos-show-school-children-performing-praises-to-obama/
Each one of the videos below is creepier than the last because the further down you go, the younger the children — brace yourself for kindergartners – except for the last and most disturbing video, which you have to see to believe.
Mike,
Link does not access....
Im getting some error too,.?
I shall try to find this important link,. I was watching this thru out the day
,.,.
Did I read somewhere that Sharia Law was being adopted in parts of the UK? I could be wrong on that, but it rings a bell.
What is disturbing is the silence you hear from the peaceful majority in any group. It is almost always the fringe element that makes the most noise, gets the most attention and is catered to the most, appeased. Will the peaceful majority band together against any attempt at radicalizing the Muslim population in Europe, or will they try to blend in, hoping not to be injured in the fray? Where will their loyalties lie? I hope I'm wrong about Radical Islam, but their history and teachings don't support that. Doesn't Islam teach "All Infidels will convert to Islam or die"? Sounds pretty drastic, but religion will make people do stupid things.
Having said all that, I know very few Muslims personally. The one's I've met have been pleasant, intelligent people. I hate to lump them all into a group, but all of the terrorists that I'm aware of all have this in common.
John
The majority prefers to remain neutral and not upset the cart. They are the ones who generally ask "what went wrong" after the fact. You'll find them sitting it out and not voteing because their vote won't count. They make every excuse to not participate and follow the scape goat into the slaughter. They don't make much noise even then. Its not in their nature. While the OTP is filled with passion the problem and issue is all who take a look and say nothing as opposed to those willing to rant and rave and perhaps offer a sound point of view. Some call it the silent majority, I call it the silent sychophants....
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/11/04/elementary-epidemic-11-uncovered-videos-show-school-children-performing-praises-to-obama/
it is back up,. just in case, I shall add the videos here,.
Young captive minds, easily influenced, eager for direction, enlisted into a cult of personality focused on an individual who, other than being the first black president, has yet to accomplish anything of significance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKWrERzHMAU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FX1QscmUxk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8oUlIYXyv8&feature=player_embedded
John, and Robert - my experience thus far has been that its not so much that there is a vast silent majority who are hiding from anything. Its more that the vocal, radical set are in such a minute, irrelevant minority! If it were not for our press hamming it all up constantly, very few of us would even be aware of this minority (terrorist acts aside, I am talking about the mouthpieces here - those who commit acts of terror are in an infantesimally small minority - it would be a bit like being suspicious of all Irish or Scottish people and their decendants to be suspicious of all muslims in this way - unwarranted, unjustified, and rather daft).
The amount of press exposure a mentally ill person gets is zero, even if they are living and dying on the street, and ranting about things the rest of us cannot see with a can of superbrew clutched in thier hand. However, give them a beard and a robe, and then let them spout about some radical teachings that none of us have a clue about, and throw in a bit of wildness all about taking over the world with islam, and they are on every news channel, they are coming for us, lock the doors, have a TV debate, fear fear fear. Our society needs a bogey man to keep us in order it seems - as less folks are god-fearing these days, we need to have something to keep up the fear factor, band us together. The press get the kick back that it sells papers, has us all sucking breath through our teeth in anger, then buying more papers to fuel what we have begun to feel.
The Muslim people I know feel just as strongly about all of this as we do. In fact, I would go as far as to say if not stronger - whilst I have not personally suffered from a terrorist atrocity, they have been affected as our media was quick to hype up the 'they are all out to get us' after the atrocities of 9/11 and London. The thing is, where are their voices you are asking? And its a fair point. My only answer is do you think a reasonable, not contraversial, peaceful voice would sell newspapers and make good TV, or do you think a nutter spouting fire and brimstone, death and destruction to us all might be more newsworthy? There are nasty bastards in all walks of life, all religions, all businesses etc but thankfully they remain a minority - time to treat them as such. If you substitute the word terrorist, for murderer, which is what they are, then already some of the sting leaves it. lets get back to treating the bad guys as criminals, and not some supernatural evil forces that will over run the planet.
Please note this is an archived discussion.
If you would like to add a comment or question please follow this link:
Live discussion: MGB: Obama administration, Pentagon prepare for homeland military deployment