About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Sunday, November 2, 2008 - 4:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was just about to put this up myself. I agree, it's the single most frightening thing I've seen concerning the possibility of an Obama presidency. Everyone must vote McCain-Palin to keep Obama out. Anything else is just ... stupid.

Post 1

Monday, November 3, 2008 - 3:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Unbelievable!

Post 2

Monday, November 3, 2008 - 3:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gee, does anyone suppose he's refering to the militia? :)

Post 3

Monday, November 3, 2008 - 4:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It crossed my mind, Steven, but no!

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Friday, November 7, 2008 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's the latest frightening thing:
Lost amid all of the jubilation of the Obama victory was the announcement by the Obama transition team that it had set up a separate transition program beyond the one that is paid for by the American taxpayer. Called the "Obama/Biden Transition Project," it is a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, with no limits on the contributions it can receive and no requirements to divulge the names of individuals or organizations that give it money.
From Obama Draws the Curtain of Secrecy and Skulduggery.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Friday, November 7, 2008 - 7:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How about if everyone (waits a week, then) writes into their local newspaper's letter-to-the-editor and asks :

"What is this tax exempt "Obama/Biden Transition Project?" Sound to me like a private presidential 'political action committee'. Doesn't Obama already have a day job? Why should the president have a hand in a confidentially financed political group?

jt

Post 6

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's point # 22 of the 25-point Nazi Party (NSDAP) Platform of 1920:

22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.
Peikoff warned in Ominous Parellels that we're becoming just like the Weimar Republic was like, back then. And you know what they say about when the student (or servant) is ready, the master will appear ...

Ed


Post 7

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 8:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Considering Obama changes positions every three seconds take what I'm posting here with a grain of salt.

I believe he has clarified the National Civilian Force to mean a team of lawyers, administrators, civil engineers etc to be called upon in time of war to essential "nation build" a foreign country after its been defeated by our military, such as for Afghanistan and Iraq. In those cases the military could only provide security while those nations rebuild, but were not good at acting as temporary administrators, lawyers, civil engineers, etc.

Post 8

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 1:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm certainly sympathetic to the Ominous Parallels theory, Ed, but since Obama is not calling for the end of "the mercenary army," what do you think the parallel is here? (I'm still unclear on what Obama "means" by a civilian defense force...so far, it sounds like a domestic "Peace Corps." He's not suggesting that we ARM these kids and senior citizens...um, right?



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 3:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is the transcribed text from the Obama speech: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
  • What are the 'nation security objectives' he refers to?
  • What is meant by 'powerful' and 'strong' - is this in terms of weaponry?
  • 'Just as well funded'? - that means an enormous amount of money - the annual military budget is 1 trillion dollars.
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits any member of the military, including the National Guard from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States (the Coast Guard is exempted, and the National Guard is exempted but only when under control of a state's governor, and as of 10/1/08 Homeland Security can command the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team in response to natural or man-made emergencies, disasters or terrorist attacks). Would these 'national security objectives' be pursued inside of the country? Would this organization have legal powers of search, seizure, or arrest?
-----------
Wikipedia states: Obama then went on to explain his vision of a national service program similar to the one he outlined in the MTV/MySpace forum, saying he would make federal assistance to schools contingent to school districts establishing service programs, with a goal of 50 hours of service per year for middle school and high school students, and 100 hours of service per year for college students. On September 11 2008, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama addressed this further, saying, "But itís also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thatís not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think itís important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some."

This is the official page and it appears to be a giant, do-good, social program that would have both domestic and international components and no military or law enforcement aspects and would be voluntary. But note that it is called a "National Service" organization, not a "National Security" organization. That speech seems to have several 'militant' components not present in any other remarks or web sites.



(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 11/16, 3:21pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John:

In post #7 you bring a new light to the interpretation of Obama's speech. Do you have a source for the new interpretation? If he is actually trying to make a case for rebuilding devastated nations with civilian forces I'd be willing to entertain that as being non-threatening.

But it doesn't say much for his communication skills, does it?

Sam


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
With regard to this quote of BOs, as well as many - no most - of his other statements: He has mastered the political art of making ambiguous proclamations such as this, which have keywords that push emotional buttons in people without actually saying anything specific which can be effectively attacked, while at the same time, do not commit him to any particular course of action. What is so scary is not that he makes these statements, but that so many people respond to them so uncritically, as if they are utterances of substance (i.e., as revealed wisdom) that clearly point towards a brighter future. A good politician is like a good horoscope; no matter what actions they take in the future, there will be some interpretation of some past statement that can be used to support their argument that this is exactly what they promised and were charged by the electorate to accomplish.

Regards,
--
Jeff

(Fixed a typographical error)


(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 11/16, 9:27pm)


Post 12

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam here's an AP article:

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

Excerpt,

...spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure ó an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.


But again, who knows what is the truth. You are right in that he's either not good in communicating his ideas, or he keeps changing them, or trying to hide what his ideas truly are. I don't really know if he's just incredibly naive or if has sinister motives. Since he changes or alters the meaning of what he says at the drop of a hat, I have hard time believing in anything he says.

Post 13

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeffrey: "He has mastered the political art of making ambiguous proclamations such as this, which have keywords that push emotional buttons in people without actually saying anything specific which can be effectively attacked, while at the same time, do not commit him to any particular course of action."

Exactly, it's like fighting a ghost; you think you see something, but you can't put your finger on in, and you can't quite prove your argument directly...



Post 14

Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff said, "He has mastered the political art of making ambiguous proclamations such as this, which have keywords that push emotional buttons in people without actually saying anything specific which can be effectively attacked, while at the same time, do not commit him to any particular course of action."

That is so true. And it is why I'm waiting (and watching) because when he takes office he will have to be specific, at least more specific. At that point he won't be able to hide behind vague, emotional buzzwords.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.