UPDATE 4/30/2013: I don't think Obama was only thinking about AmeriCorps: GAO Now Investigating DHS Ammo Purchases - Washington Whispers (usnews.com).
A self-styled conservative, "rlayson1986," at the website, "Real Politics," blogged, "Republican Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship" based upon what he says is an article by the Associated Press (AP) that mentioned a clip from an interview Monday, November 10, 2008, with the AP wherein U.S. Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia expressed concern that Barack Obama may have some degree of authoritarian leanings a la Marxism.
As most readers will probably be aware, Marx advocated violent revolution to attain a dictatorship by the proletariat (industrial workers). It was never achieved, as Lenin used violence but did not cede power to the workers. Stalin too did not cede power. In fact, the workers have never come to control a nation-state anywhere of which I'm aware in a way envisioned by Marx by violent or non-violent means.
That aside, the Congressman was referring to the words of a Barack Obama speech of July 2, 2008, given in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in which Obama said the following:
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national-security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national-security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. - Barack Obama July, 2008
Apparently, the AP article in question failed to place the quote in full context and did not give any other background concerning other issues it raised. It is difficult to reconstruct all of this, because the AP has by now written a number of articles on the subject (the subject as become somewhat of a "hot" topic.)
Based upon rlayson1986's blog post, I wrote in the first post of this miniseries a bit about how terrible the idea is. What I didn't do contrary to my custom was qualify my words by saying something such as "if the report is correct" or the like. Well, then "QuakerDave," of the website "Quaker Agitator," left a comment rebuking me for not placing the quote in the context of the full speech (taking it out of context). I check for the quote online, and found it in context. When read in context, it still comes across as a very poor choice of words at best and possibly indicative of something beyond the most benign interpretation but upon which Barack Obama did not elaborate. In fact, then "P Alfonso," of the website, "Read What I See," informed us that QuakerDave too left the story out of its fuller context. It appears that the words of Obama quoted above were scrubbed all over the news. I had read this back in July, but had forgotten about it.
Congressman Broun and/or someone who had his ear had remembered the scrubbed quote, although the Congressman may not have raised the scrubbing aspect on November 10, 2008.
Here is what Politico had to say about it:
November 11, 2008
Georgia congressman calls Obama Marxist, warns of dictatorship
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) puts his foot firmly in his mouth, as he compares President-elect Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Karl Marx in an interview with the Associated Press.
From the AP:
A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist 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."
By Josh Kraushaar 08:29 AM
SCRUBBING THE NEWS
However, the text of the supposed whole speech at The Rocky Mountain News (part of the Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group) does not contain the quote from Obama about the civilian national-security force. "Text of Obama's speech" on The Rocky Mountain News, July 2, 2008.
Now that scrubbing is the issue. QuakerDave left it out on this site if he knew about it, which he's free to deny here. I'll take him at his word on it if he does.
It's the issue. Scrubbing words from the media of a public campaign speech made by the leading presidential candidate touching on such a huge issue is extremely important. How are people to make informed decisions about how to vote when campaigns have so much power that they can rewrite history in such blatant ways and not be called to account for it? This scrubbing in this way on such a level already indicates that there is an element of despotism. Of course, this type of activity occurs on both ends of the false spectrum.
It is awful that Barack Obama didn't immediately explain what he had meant by those words and without putting any afterthought spin on them. He didn't do that. Instead, he chose to censor them. His handlers (mainstream-news, corporate controllers; plutocrats; Bilderberg) are so powerful that they made it happen. His words were made to vanish into the memory hole (almost).
This is no small matter, because it is indicative of much that is wrong with society on both ends.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER: CIA/DIA INVOLVEMENT
Now, to flesh out this article a bit more with some of the background I added to the previous posts on this subject, let me say that even if Obama means what QuakerDave is wishing and hoping he means, the fact remains that many U.S. government sponsored efforts while doing good also have acted as and continue to act as fronts for the CIA for purely evil imperialist reasons.
Considering that this whole effort Obama is suggesting, according to his words, is to be centered on lifting some of the national-security responsibility from the military and considering the fact that Obama has called for expanding the military and attacks within other countries with which the U.S. is not at war and against the wishes of those countries, one would be a fool not to consider the degree to which Obama plans to have the new civilian efforts interact with military efforts and just how much of a front the organizations will be. Will any of them become also fronts for the DIA special operatives? Are any already acting in that capacity?
According to an article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (a Cox newspaper), "," by Julia Malone. November 13, 2008.
The U.S. State Department has what is called the Civilian Response Corps. That Corps works to relieve the military of the responsibility for governing in occupied areas. The article says the following in part:
The civilian corps is now recruiting engineers, law enforcement personnel, health officers, city administrators and other specialists who could be sent overseas to help re-establish local governmental controls after a crisis.
Now that effort by the Bush administration's State Department is tiny compared with what Obama envisions. Bush and Rice are spending some $250 million. Of course, one would need to add in the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, etc., to get a proper comparative number, but Obama was talking about a budget the size of the Pentagon's. It won't happen the way Barack saw it, because the financial crash won't allow it. In fact, the Pentagon budget obviously needs to be slashed, which is great news!
Here's the issue with this though. Even if Obama does a tenth of this civilian national-security force he spoke of, how would it be used? There is no doubt that the Democrats are vastly better than are the Republicans at masking imperialism. They are much better at couching coercive takeover and control under the guise of compassion. For the most part, as Republicans will no doubt admit, the Democrats do have more members who do, in fact, lean to the bleeding-heart side of affairs. There's nothing wrong with that until it becomes mixed up with the dark side and the crusade turns dictatorial, which is an always present danger as history attests (American so-called exceptionalism notwithstanding).
So, I've come nearly full circle on this issue. While Obama did not intend to tip his cards for a domestic national-security force, he certainly took great pains to have his words erased concerning a civilian national-security force. There is no doubt also that any such force could be turn inwardly (domestically) for good or evil. There is nothing wrong with vigilance on these matters. It seems that Congressman Broun wants people to be dwelling on the possible domestic applications.
...how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. (Matthew 12:29)
How do dictatorships arise that sneak up on the people and takeover even while the people still believe themselves to be free? How are the people bound so that their houses may be ransacked? What has the debt speculation been and now the Crash of 2008? They are tricked into accepting the restraints. They are continually tricked into believing that the leaders are not behind events but that events are occurring beyond the leaders' control. This is made easier by the fact that there are things the highest leadership (plutocrats) can't always keep from beginning but they can and do grab control of those beginnings to make events turn to their personal, private, special privilege and advantage.
Fools fall for the "just trust me" line on huge issues which lines come from those who are unproven or unknown. Barack Obama is both unproven and an unknown in many respects. He has been playing poker. He's been being careful not to develop any tells that the general public will discern.
George W. Bush did not do that very well at all. In fact, George W. Bush wasn't, and still isn't, particularly concerned with how he is perceived now or will be in history. He believes that the self-centeredness of the masses will eventually vindicate him. He believes that things will happen where people will say he was right. He has built up the imperial presidency that Barack Obama is inheriting but must dismantle at least on the surface somewhat to assuage public concern. He will not entirely undo it however. His stated intentions clearly indicate that he will attempt to retain vast powers over and above what would constitute a co-equal branch of government. With Democrats controlling all three elected branches, they won't do much publicly to fight each other over more power returning to the Congress.
DON'T LOOK ONLY AT ONE SIDE
What lesson must be taken from this whole story line? Congressman Paul Broun, no doubt, doesn't shine the same spotlight on the George W. Bush administration. It has been Bush who undermined domestic privacy by use of telecom, dragnet spying. Bush destroyed Habeas corpus somewhat and completely for some people. His administration authorized and used torture. He covered up events surrounding 9/11 under the false justification of national security. He used extraordinary renditions. He lied about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and so much more. His team outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. A million may have been killed (murdered) as a result of all of his actions and inactions. Millions more are refugees. His team presided over the global financial meltdown. His party was caught in the lobbying scandals and influence peddling of Jack Abramoff, et al. His buddies went down with Enron in all the corporation scandals. It was Bush who cheated to get elected. It was his party that used illegal means to takeover the Congress by taking over Texas with gerrymandering under Tom Delay. The list of scandals under the Bush-43 administration is the longest in American history. That doesn't mean that other administrations were clean. Many were cleaner, but they were also more adept at concealing what dirt there was.
The main lesson here is that it takes digging to get at what both sides of the false spectrum seek to hide. It takes effort to pierce through the propaganda on both sides. Each side will focus on the evils of the other while ignoring the evils or clear leanings toward evils that are rightly a concern to decent-hearted people.
Let me also add here that when I said in my post, "CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: WE MUST STAND UP AGAINST BARACK OBAMA'S PLANNED POLICE STATE NOW" that "Whenever I've given "conservatives" the benefit of the doubt, I've been burned," I meant that I was never given the full story. The same applies to the so-called liberals (who aren't true liberals). The reason is selfishness. Each side is operating from a selfish standpoint. They are not truly trying to do what is best for one and all. Anyone trying to do what is truly best will definitely work to address everything of concern to be sure that selfishness is not guiding. I'm using the term "selfishness" here as meaning self apart from the whole good.
SELFISHNESS IS THE PROBLEM
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. (Matthew 12:33)
If the whole is good, then all of its parts are acting together to produce good results. If any part goes off selfishly, the result of that part becomes bad. The whole will be lessened until that bad part is removed from the whole or is healed (if it will be; is willing and able). The bad can spread and infect the rest, eventually killing it.
The only way to know what is best for the whole is to know the whole. One cannot know what is going on with the whole to discern what parts to correct from selfish behavior while turning a blind eye to selfishness or while being tricked by it either.
There are parts that will correct, and there are parts that might refuse no matter what. You don't let the whole tree die when you can easily remove a permanently diseased branch. If the root is bad at its core, then you dig it up.
This is what the conflation and separation are about. We are to come together in righteousness for its sake. We are to separate from evil even while we are working directly with souls to call them to be corrected with us. We don't force them but rather allow God's way to prune. God's way prunes within each of us and prunes the species as well.
PART 1: CORRECTION / CLARIFICATION: WE MUST STAND UP AGAINST BARACK OBAMA'S PLANNED POLICE STATE NOW
PART 2: MEA CULPA IS RIGHT
What's Barack Obama's position on this: "Local police stockpile high-tech, combat-ready gear | America's War Within"
[tags]9/11, Adolf Hitler, ajc.com, al Qaeda, American exceptionalism, AmeriCorps, AP, Associated Press, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, authoritarian, Barack Obama, benefit of the doubt, Bilderberg, bleeding heart, Bush administration, Bush-43, CIA, civilian corps, civilian national-security force, Civilian Response Corps, coercive, Colorado, Colorado Springs, come together, compassion, conflation, conservative, conservatives, context, corporate, cover-up, Cox, Crash of 2008, culture, current affairs, current events, dark side, debt speculation, democracy, Democratic, Democrats, despotism, DIA, dictatorial, dictatorship, domestic spying, dragnet, Enron, extraordinary rendition, false spectrum, financial crash, George W. Bush, Georgia, gerrymandering, Gestapo, global financial meltdown, God, Habeas corpus, Hitler, imperial presidency, imperialism, imperialist, industrial workers, influence peddling, informed decisions, Jack Abramoff, Jesus, Josh Kraushaar, Julia Malone, Karl Marx, Lenin, liberal, lobbying scandals, mainstream news, Marx, Marxism, Matthew 12:29, Matthew 12:33, media, memory hole, military, national security, Nazi Germany, news, Obama, P Alfonso, Paul Broun, Peace Corps, Pentagon, Pentagon budget, philosophy, plutocrats, poker, police state, Politico, politics, President-elect, proletariat, propaganda, prune, Quaker Agitator, QuakerDave, Read What I See, Real Politics, refugees, religion, Republican, Republicans, righteousness, rlayson1986, Rocky Mountain News, rockymountainnews.com, Saddam Hussein, scandals, Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group, scrubbed, selfishness, separate, separation, socialism, society, Soviet Union, special operatives, spirituality, Stalin, State Department, telecom, Texas, theology, Tom Delay, Tom Usher, torture, Valerie Plame, vigilance, violent revolution[/tags]
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)