Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

MrWendal

At no point has "Gun Control" been brought up here that I have seen and I have yet to see much misrepresentation or misleading of Obama's statements.

You are wrong. Gun control has been brought up by me, because I believe it is an issue. I am sure you have read all of the posts on this thread, but prefer to beg to ignorance as to the blatant misrepresentations and assumptions against Obama. which you yourself participate in.

And you KNOW this how? Because that is what he said?

Exactly!

So a politician has never said one thing and then done another?

Has Obama done the opposite of what he intends to seek to do? He hasn't even taken office yet...still, it does not dissuade you from assuming he will when he does, and through that declared assumption, you are indeed misrepresenting his statements...(I refer you to your ignorance in the first quote).

...is that really the goal or is that what you are being told to move you closer to another agenda?

I take the man at his word, as I would any other until they gave me reason to think elsewise. I know that "government is a necessary evil...", and it is up to me (and you) to be ever watchful to whatever enterprise it validates itself to, and resist it accordingly through our intellectual power and civil protest. I will not seek to pre-empt a supposed goal from the one he actually states, but will judge him on his actions, and not remain fixated upon his words alone.

a country that finds that it has no need to a 'right to bear arms'.

Really???...

It seems it is not only Obama you like to quote and assume out of context, but also posters to this thread. Why have you not quoted my statement within its qualifying wholeness? Why have you not included elements of the paragraph following the one from which you take the quote? I refer other readers to my post on page 11, for qualification and edification.

I am sure an unarmed nation who may need to take on it's corrupt Government would also have no need for firearms. They could easily take on a military force armed to the teeth with rocks and bottles.

I once again refer the reader to my post on page 11. You may not agree with what I wrote, but at least you can read it against MrWendal's surreptitious extemporisations.

Best wishes

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
We would have a coup d'etat and/or civil war before that ever happened.

Once President elect Obama is in office he'll see that the office of the President is not as powerful as people think it is. He will have to deal with bureaucrats who have worked in various agencies and departments from the last 40 to 30 years.

This is especially true of the military where you have senior brass who have served in the military since the late 1960s.

No civilian national security force will ever equal the power that military and the military industries wield.

I am sure that our military, the intelligence agencies and even the Secret Service would ensure there would be no dictatorship by anyone in the office of President.



[edit on 10/11/08 by MikeboydUS]

I take it that you aren't up to speed on any government conspiracy theories? History has proven that what the OP's post is suggesting can happen, HAS happened, and will inevitably happen again in the future. Throw away all of your preconcieved notions about Obama and the government for the next four years, this is being planned by more people behind the scenes that our puny ATS selves can possibly fathom. Would anyone here deem to say that they understand everything that is going on here?

reply to post by elysiumfire


Am I wrong? My claim was the gun control was not an issue in this thread. You claim it was when you brought it up. Hmmmm... so you are saying until you brought it up it was not an issue, correct? That would make me right.

Now you you openly admit that you have NOTHING to back your opinions other than what you have been told from Obama's own words, and until you see something to the contrary there is no reason to not believe him? Well let's just look at what Obama has said vs what he has done...

Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Yes as we can see, you are 100% and completely correct. Obama has NEVER said one thing and then done another. Flip Flopping is something only Republicans do /sarcasm

As you can clearly see, I am assuming nothing. His record speaks for itself. The history of our Presidential Candidates speaks for itself. History has shown us that Candidates say one thing to get into office, and do another when they get there. Only the truly ignorant would turn a blind eye to history and experience.

I love how you claim I misrepresent what you have posted...let's take a closer look at that statement shall we?

From your original post...

These attacks upon Obama arise from his controversial thoughts on gun control, and just like a bunch of Iagos, those that do not want gun control are obsfucating, misrepresenting and misleading the statements Obama has made. I have already said it once, but it is worth stating again...Obama is not out to create a civilian army for enforcing law. He wants to create a civilian social infrastructure based on service to others. In other words, everybody helping each other out, and in this manner, bringing the nation back to a strength and cohesiveness based on community, all throughout the land. He does not want to train people to fight but to serve each other in various and diverse social fields. This plan of his, its noble aims, are being misrepresented by paranoid gun owners who are too scared to embrace a better and more community-based country, a country that finds that it has no need to a 'right to bear arms'.

Now let us see how I commented and twisted your words as I quoted the following statements..

In other words, everybody helping each other out, and in this manner, bringing the nation back to a strength and cohesiveness based on community, all throughout the land. He does not want to train people to fight but to serve each other in various and diverse social fields. This plan of his, its noble aims, are being misrepresented by paranoid gun owners who are too scared to embrace a better and more community-based country,

Of course I already commented on this so there is no need to do it again... then I made the following quote,

a country that finds that it has no need to a 'right to bear arms'.

So that is how I quoted you...now let's look at your claim

It seems it is not only Obama you like to quote and assume out of context, but also posters to this thread. Why have you not quoted my statement within its qualifying wholeness? Why have you not included elements of the paragraph following the one from which you take the quote? I refer other readers to my post on page 11, for qualification and edification.

Now if you see how I quoted you...I did include what you said before you claimed there was no need for a right to bear arms. The entire section prior to that statement is included and commented on separately, but it is included. The only one doing any twisting and distorting here is you. Those are tactics done by the desperate when they realize their argument lacks any real substance. So twist away...the more you do it, the more you are showing your ignorance in how you blindly follow the words of man.

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

Obama is Not creating a new force. Obama is Not creating something new and naming it anything. Obama is Not creating a new organization and naming it "Civilian National Security Force"!

The only reason it sounds this way is because you guys are watching the 20 second version. Instead of the 20 minute speech. For instance, even after I posted the full speech, Jenna posts the 20 second version and says "SEE!". If you take it out of context it will sound like he is talking about creating a new organization, some kind of militia. Hence the problem with taking it out of context.

Obama is Not creating something and naming it "Civilian National Security Force". Or anything for that matter.

If you watch the actual speech you will see clearly that the "civilian national security force" was a collective way of saying what he had been describing throughout his speech. e.g AmeriCorps, PeaceCorps, etc, etc. He is talking about increasing the funding and support for these already existing agencies. He is not creating a new one and naming it "Civilian National Security Force". He did mention the idea of creating an Energy Corps. Sorry no CNSF guys ...

Watch the full speech. I posted it on an earlier page.

Peace out.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

I could not agree with you more.

The original post is LAUGHABLE in the shadow of the bush administration with the patriot act and the amber alert.

Peace


[edit on 11-11-2008 by HIFIGUY]

Zbigniew Brzezinski will be the current president in a covert position. Obama will do as he is told just like Bush, SR. Clinton and Bush Jr. as they were all playing a role to set up the US to enter the world dictatorshp after we become the North American Union. This is a fact. Obama is just another puppet or he will be assassinated and they will settle with a race war jusifying the upcoming president; Biden, Immanuel, whoever to declare a national disaster [John Warner National Defense Authorization Act October 2006 overriding the Posse Comitatus Act] and then martial law. These are the facts as ugly as it sounds.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

I need to quote you in regards to this post below.

Originally posted by tgambill
Zbigniew Brzezinski will be the current president in a covert position.

I dont know whether to laugh or cry at the ingorance and paranoia of a people.

Peace

Since 1990, Bush Jr. Clinton, and Bush Jr. has put the final touches to the socialization and facist government controls for this generation since they were being build during the tenure of FDR. Evidence is from his own words.........

March 4, 1939 - Quote from a report of the secret committee by President Roosevelt,;

“I am making no concessions to business, or for relief. I have a military machine sufficient to stop any organized revolt. I am putting MY PEOPLE ahead of all instruments. I’ll have had a full understanding with Chamberlain, and we will destroy this unemployed condition with a WAR, and a WAR only. To Hell with the American people, as far as a Democracy is concerned. It does not exist. It never did, and we will never let it happen that way. I am going to crush business, infest America with all the aliens possible, and in the last analysis, declare Martial Law, and confiscate everything I need for a true and forceful Dictatorship. My New Deal is a failure, and I know it, but no one else will tell me that I must discontinue my present activities, and program.” From the Secret Audience with the Military Appropriation Committee; The Ways and Means Committee; The Special War Finance Committee; and this copy was presented to me by mail through Senator Lundeen.” “The Red Fog Over America” by William Guy Carr, 1955.

In 1841 Clinton Roosevelt published in America “The Science of Government Founded on Natural Laws”, This was nothing more than a plagiarized version of the teachings of Professor Adam Weishaupt of Frankfort University, Germany, the renegade Jesuit priest who arranged for the agenteur of the Illuminati to infiltrate into French Freemasonary in 1776 so “The Secret Power” which directed the World Revolutionary Movement, and the Conspiracy of Satan, at that time could use Freemasonsary to further their secret plans and ambitious and at the same time cloak their diabolitical purpose.

The fact that FDR’s New Deal, his NRA, and other political policies and economic devices fitted perfectly into the “Long Range Plans”, of the Illuminati proved the continuity of the conspiracy from 1841 to 1945. It has been explained that Roosevelt made known his secret plans to establish a dictatorship in American in March 1939 when he gave a secret audience to some of his governments special committee. It has also been mentioned that Roosevelt was kept a virtual prisoner from after Yalta until his death presumably to prevent him telling the truth in the event his conscience troubled him when he realized that he was about to meet his maker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Obama will do what Zbigniew Brzezinski will tell him to do to put the final plan into play..........soon.


reply to post by HIFIGUY

Obama's mentors were unrepentant terrorists, communists, hate preachers, etc. God help us.

reply to post by PinealGlandThoth


I'm fairly up to speed on conspiracy theories, but even more importantly I served in the military seven years and still serve in the national guard.

The military is very conservative and the military-industrial complex is very powerful. It has been that way since the end of WW2 and will not change anytime in the future.

Honestly I think military rule in this country is much more probable than any socialist dictatorship, especially if there are more 9-11 scale terror attacks.

We also have the Secret Service which serves in a capacity like the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome who would remove Roman emperors when they got out of hand.

We have a number of lines of defense against a dictatorship in this country. In addition to that is our vast size and the power of the governors. One of the things that worries me the most if military rule comes to the US is if the states secede en masse like the states of the Soviet Union after the Coup of August 1991.

So I will reiterate my view that a coup or civil war would take place, maybe both before we have a dictatorship in the US. Only by force will a leader become dictator in this country and right now that force is controlled by the most powerful military in the history of the earth. No one is going to take over the country with Black Panthers and followers of the Nation of Islam.

If people are stupid enough to try that, they'll find themselves in GITMO style camps here in the US awaiting trial by military tribunals wondering why the country is under martial law.

Get to know him....he was instrumental in forming the Trilateral Commission. All this is fact and it gets worse.

World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and - as their architects would like to believe - controlled. The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism. It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet, the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments. This, says Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, will lead to nation states being incorporated into a new world order, controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power. As a means of intimidation for the unenlightened reader who happens upon this frightening plan - the plan of the CFR - Brzezinski offers the alternative of a world in chaos unless the U.S. controls the planet by whatever means are necessary and likely to succeed.

This position is corroborated by Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. a former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner. On November 6, he told FTW, "The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."

Brzezinski's own words - laid against the current official line that the United States is waging a war to end terrorism - are self-incriminating. In an ongoing series of articles, FTW has consistently established that the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the World Trade Center attacks and chose not to stop them because it needed to secure public approval for a war that is now in progress. It is a war, as described by Vice President Dick Cheney, "that may not end in our lifetimes." What that means is that it will not end until all armed groups, anywhere in the world, which possess the political, economic or military ability to resist the imposition of this dictatorship, have been destroyed.

www.fromthewilderness.com...


www.ynetnews.com...

Obama adviser worries Israel supporters
www.politico.com...

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
www.counterpunch.org...


YOUR NEW PRESIDENT, ZBIG BROTHER www.newswithviews.com...

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Wrong! Feel free to go back to page 4 or 5 where I brake down the entire speech just to prove to you that I actually did watch it.... twice.

The speech is about Community Service.... then he say the words, "Civilian Security Force"

No one is taken anything out of context, I have watched the video IN FULL TWICE in the last 24 hours. The only real ignorance in this thread is the way people blindly follow what they are told (cause as history has shown that has always worked out well) and the way you keep parroting the same point you made since page 3 all the while ignoring any points made to you about it.

So since you continue to parrot yourself, I will ask you the same 2 questions I asked you so many pages back that you have blatantly ignored....

Why would we have to create something that already exist?

Why would something Community Service related need to be funded and trained as well as the US Military?

reply to post by MrWendal


Again, you can't even tell us what this program you claim he is talking about will entail. You don't have a who, what, where, why, how, or when.

How can you honestly expect people to sit here and have an intelligent discussion about it?

reply to post by MrWendal


Try reading '___'eviant's response on page 10.
It explains what this whole civil security force stuff is about and why it needs to be well trained.

I'm all for conspiracies but you guys are really digging deep on this one.

Go Ron Paul!

Good observation and you are spot on.........darn good.



reply to post by The Revealer

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Has Obama given us the details yet?? Did I write his speech? Did I say the words?

The answer to the above questions is.... No. If I was apart of Obama's inner circle who would privy as to what he is speaking about would involve, then I would not be here debating this issue now, however once my Crystal Ball comes out of the shop, I will be sure to answer your questions in full detail.

/sarcasm

If Obama does not repudiate and reverse the constitution killing legislation and executive orders that Bush has seen through, then I believe the congressman is right to be concerned. Of course it would have a lot more meaning if he had objected when his party-mate president was actually doing the damage. That kool-aid is powerful stuff. My tyrant is ok. Yours, not so much.

reply to post by MrWendal


You are getting tied up in fruitless semantics my friend.

I am not ignoring your interpretation, I am discounting it.

It was a collective way of describing the culmination of what he was talking about throughout his speech, not him saying we need to create a new and separate agency. Quite clear. You are deciding because of the wording alone, and that he says they should be just as well funded, they he is ultimately hiding a malicious and alternative agenda. That's fine, this is a conspiracy site after all, but it has zero grounds other then your speculation that it is so. Whereas I am just basing it on the entirety of his speech and the very tangible things he is describing therein.

As for why these programs should be just as well funded?...

I don't know how to respond to this. I agree with it. I think these programs should be just as supported and funded and trained. I see much merit in the idea.

The OP is about the assertion that Obama was calling for a new agency called the CNSF and that it would be a militia.

reply to post by xEphon


I went back and read the post as you suggested, however I continue to disagree.

What '___'eviant posted described a "Civilian Assistance Corps"

Obama does not say this in his speech, what he says is "Civilian Security Force"

Again, I look at the language. Why the sudden name change? Security implies only one thing and it does not involve Community Service. I can not even recall the term "Civilian Assistance Corps" being used in that speech. If it is there, please show me where. I will gladly stand up and admit I was wrong or misunderstood, there is no shame in that, but I have yet to see anyone show me how I have.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


What you call "fruitless semantics" I consider very important. You can feel free to disregard the language, but the language is very important. The Language in Laws and Policies are carefully chosen and very specific for a reason. Do you have any idea how many pieces of legislation has went back and forth between all the branches over "fruitless semantics" such as language?