Obama's plan to force kids into paramilitary domestic army exposed!!!

QueEx · Nov 13, 2008

<center>

Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia says that "Obama
wants to set up a civilian national security force
that was similar to the "Gestapo" or the Nazi Brownshirts"

</center>

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>

Cruise · Nov 13, 2008

Re: Obama Creating a Gestapo Force ???

I'm glad people are suspicious and cynical of the government.

When people compare the Federal government to the Gestapo, Fascism, Communism, or a Police State, it may indicate people will hold government representatives accountable for their actions.

Partial_Mathers · Nov 13, 2008

Re: Obama Creating a Gestapo Force ???

yea, it's true.

They doctored the original website phrase on change.gov to make it appear as if it won't be mandatory. This truly is the rise of the 4th reich and people seem to be cheering on their coming slavery. He is hiring the same trash from the Clinton administration, the people Americans voted in Bush for to escape from! And that IDF Zionist terrorist Rahm Immanuel being named Chief of Staff is a TOTAL conflict of national security interest. Really hurts me to see a black man used like this. I thought he would be a truly independent mind, but he's turning out to already be a puppet and has the same masters as Bush the Elder and Younger, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ and plans on continuing the status quo...except the FEMA death camps, gun control tightening, forced carbon taxes. But I guess he's down for it. Aldous Huxley subtly told us in Brave New World, and then warned bluntly in Brave New World Revisited there would be masters that would make masses love their forced servitude...and here we are.

check it: best part starts at 4:00 and 5:20
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uo29Oa-e61I&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uo29Oa-e61I&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Bottom line: We're all fucked

FlatbushNicca · Nov 13, 2008

Re: Obama Creating a Gestapo Force ???

WTF!!!

is wrong with these people!!!

Wasn't bush tapping everyones phone calls??? Yet Obama wants to reverse all the fucked up shit Bush did??

but still yet........Obama is gonna hunt this fool down and set NWO upon us?

:confused:

Panameno718 · Mar 21, 2009

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new "volunteer corps" and consider whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed.

The legislation also refers to "uniforms" that would be worn by the "volunteers" and the "need" for a "public service academy, a 4-year institution" to "focus on training" future "public sector leaders." The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses."

The vote yesterday came on H.R. 1388, which reauthorizes through 2014 the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, acts that originally, among other programs, funded the AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps.

It not only reauthorizes the programs, but also includes "new programs and studies" and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 "volunteers," is the beginning of what President Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.

WND reported when a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288

actinanass · Mar 21, 2009

...where's the obama supporters?

QueEx · Mar 21, 2009

actinanass said:
...where's the obama supporters?

You know, there are a lot of posters on this board who look at politics, etc., as a bit more than just cheering for your favorite team.

QueEx

Partial_Mathers · Mar 21, 2009

fascism on the march, witness America descend into a communist dirt pit

thanks for the info

Lamarr · Mar 21, 2009

actinanass said:
...where's the obama supporters?

better chill out AAA!

Lamarr · Mar 21, 2009

UPDATE 1-Obama to Mobilize Supporters In Budget Push - Here they come!

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSN1653485620090316

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON, March 16 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's supporters will knock on doors this week to build public support for his record $3.55 trillion budget, in the first test of a grassroots group built from his army of campaign volunteers.

In an e-mail message on Monday, a former Obama campaign official asked volunteers to gather signatures from neighbors who support the budget and to tell their congressional representatives to pass it.

Read the rest here

QueEx · Apr 5, 2009

Panameno718 said:
The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new "volunteer corps" and consider whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed.

The legislation also refers to "uniforms" that would be worn by the "volunteers" and the "need" for a "public service academy, a 4-year institution" to "focus on training" future "public sector leaders." The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses."

Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 "volunteers," is the beginning of what President Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.

WND reported . . .

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288

Partial_Mathers said:
fascism on the march, witness America descend into a communist dirt pit

thanks for the info

`

<div class="article_date">March 31, 2009
</div>
<div><table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td width="5%" align="left" valign="top" nowrap><div style="font-size: 40px; color: #cccccc; padding: 6px 8px 2px 2px;">Q:</div></td><td width="95%" align="left" valign="top"><div class="article_subheader">

Is Congress creating a mandatory public service system? Are participants not allowed to go to church?</div><div class="article_section">

Really needing an article from you guys on this new proposed legislation H.R. 1388 (GIVE Act). I have been getting all kinds of e-mails from people claiming that bill calls for mandatory service and in violation of our 13th amendment , and that I should call my congressman and tell them that this bill is modern day slavery. I have also received e-mails saying that service would still be voluntary and that the bill is just expanding current volunteer opportunities. I have read portions of the bill that I could find and am unable to tell exactly what the bill is calling for (mandatory vs. volunteer service?). There is a lot of confusion out there right now regarding this very important legislation and was hoping you guys could shed some light. 

 </div></td></tr>

<tr><td width="5%" align="left" valign="top" nowrap><div style="font-size: 40px; color: #cccccc; padding: 6px 8px 2px 2px;">A:</div></td><td width="95%" align="left" valign="top"><div class="article_subheader">The national service bill does not mandate that youth must participate nor does it forbid anyone who does participate from going to church.</div><div class="article_section"> 

We have received several inquiries about this bill, which has passed both the House and Senate with significant bipartisan support. Some e-mails and <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288">conservative Web sites</a> <a href="http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=862">say</a> it requires the government to draw up plans for a “mandatory service requirement for all able young people.” <a href="http://www.jonasclark.com/blog/christian-culture/obama-youth-brigade-church-attendance-forbidden/">Others</a> <a href="http://www.dailypaul.com/node/87473">say</a> the bill forbids participants from attending church. 

These claims are false. Neither the <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388eh.txt.pdf">House-passed bill</a> nor the <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388eas.txt.pdf">Senate-passed version</a> says these things.


H.R. 1388 was introduced in the House on March 9. It passed the House a week later by a vote of <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll140.xml">321 - 1</a><a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll140.xml">05</a>, with nearly all Democrats and 70 Republicans supporting it. It passed the Senate on March 26, <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00115">79 - 19</a>. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, a cosponsor of the Senate legislation, <a href="http://www.americorps.org/about/newsroom/releases_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=1279">called it</a> "probably the most bipartisan bill we will see on the Senate floor this year." For the record, 22 Republicans voted yes, and 19 – the only senators who opposed the bill – voted no.

House Republicans who approved of the bill said in <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111gre9Q&refer=&r_n=hr037.111&item=&sel=TOC_1144640&">the House committee report</a>: "[W]e applaud the inclusion of reforms that Committee Republicans have long championed to ensure that recipients of taxpayer funds are held accountable for results. We are pleased to join with the Majority in supporting bipartisan efforts to strengthen the national service laws and improve service delivery throughout the country."

Called the <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388eh.txt.pdf">GIVE Act</a> ("Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act&quot

in the House and the "<a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388eas.txt.pdf">Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act</a>" in the Senate, the legislation reauthorizes and expands established national service programs including VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) and the National Civilian Community Corps, both of which are AmeriCorps programs. The House bill sets a goal of having 250,000 yearly participants in such programs by 2014; the Senate bill says there should be that many national service positions by 2017. About 75,000 adults participate in AmeriCorps each year now; there are 4 million people total in various national community service programs, <a href="http://www.americorps.org/about/newsroom/releases_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=1279">according to AmeriCorps</a>. 

The act also aims to increase volunteer and public service opportunities, including opportunities for retirees and the Baby Boom generation, and to "support institutions of higher education that engage students in community service activities." It calls for giving students who complete an approved full-time national service job an "educational award having a value equal to the maximum amount of a Federal Pell Grant." AmeriCorps <a href="http://www.americorps.org/about/newsroom/releases_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=1279">says</a> this would increase the amount its members receive upon completion of service from $4,725 to $5,350, which they can use to pay for school or pay back student loans. 

<div style="text-align: center;"> Forced Public Service
</div>
Some Internet postings claim the bill says the government must come up with plans for a “mandatory service requirement for all able young people,” but that phrase is nowhere to be found in either the House-passed bill or the Senate version.

<a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388ih.txt.pdf">The bill as introduced in the House,</a> however, did call for examining whether this would be a good idea. It called for a congressional commission to "address and analyze" several topics, including "issues that deter volunteerism" and how they can be overcome, how expanding international public service might affect diplomacy and foreign relations, and "[w]hether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation." The commission would also investigate "[t]he need for a public service academy, a 4-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders."

All of that language is now gone. To be clear, the original bill didn't call for a mandatory public service program, but called for the exploration of whether one could be established. But the entire section on creating a "Congressional Commission on Civic Service" was stripped from the bill.

It is part of a separate piece of legislation, <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1444">introduced on March 11</a> (two days after H.R. 1388 was introduced) by Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott. <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1444ih.txt.pdf">H.R. 1444</a> was referred to a House committee. No other action has been taken on the bill. McDermott introduced a similar bill in <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1819">2007</a> and it died, never making it out of a subcommittee.

Furthermore, Hatch, a Republican cosponsor of the Senate's national service bill, <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S3596&position=all">said on the floor of the Senate</a> that nothing in the legislation called for mandatory service: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">Hatch, March 23: Consistent with our All-Volunteer Army and volunteer opportunities and individuals' choice in communities, nothing in this legislation is mandatory. This bill simply provides more Americans more choices and opportunities to give back to their neighborhoods and their country all through the means which they freely choose.

</div>
<div>The only mention of anything being mandatory in either of the bills passed by the House or Senate is in the definition for "youth engagement zone program." Such a program is eligible for funding under the bill, and it is defined in the House bill as one that provides school-based or community-based "service learning opportunities" in which "(A) not less than 90 percent of the students participate in service-learning activities as part of the program; or (B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency." That's not a call for making public service mandatory, but rather an explanation of one type of program that can get money under the bill. The Senate bill does not include the word "mandatory," saying instead that "service-learning is a part of the curriculum."</div>

<div style="text-align: center;">Thou Shalt Not Attend Church</div>

Even though it would be an incredibly draconian law – and a clear violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, upon which this country was founded – Internet postings still claim that under this bill "church attendance [is] forbidden."

The postings, which repeat commentary by the Jonas Clark Ministries, point to section 125, which lists "prohibited activities and ineligible organizations." The section says that those working in national service positions can't engage in partisan politics, union activities or religious instruction. And the language mirrors what AmeriCorps and Senior Corps tell their members about what they can't do while working for those programs.

Specifically, the bill says those in national service positions can't: attempt to "influence legislation"; organize "protests, petitions, boycotts or strikes"; promote "union organizing; engage in "partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office"; and engage in "religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization." That's the House's language, and the wording in the Senate version is nearly identical. The Senate is perhaps more clear in saying "[a]n approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for" all of these activities. In other words, public service activities can't include anything overtly religious or political. And this is nothing new.

The current <a href="http://www.americorps.gov/pdf/ac_member_guide.pdf">AmeriCorps handbook</a> tells volunteers much the same thing:


<div style="margin-left: 40px;">AmeriCorps handbook: There are certain activities, including lobbying, political, or advocacy activities, that you may not perform as an AmeriCorps member. Generally, you may not engage in any conduct that would associate the national service program or the Corporation for National and Community Service with any prohibited activity.
 
As an AmeriCorps member, you may not:
</div>
<ul>
<li>engage in any effort to influence legislation, including state or local ballot initiatives or lobbying for your AmeriCorps program; for example, you may not organize a letter-writing campaign to Congress; 
</li>
<li>engage in partisan political activities or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office; 
</li>
<li>organize or take part in political demonstrations or rallies; 
</li>
<li>organize or participate in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; ... 
</li>
<li> engage in religious instruction; conduct worship services; provide instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship; construct or operate facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship; maintain facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship; or engage in any form of religious proselytization; or 
</li>
<li> provide a direct benefit to a for-profit entity, a labor union, a partisan political organization, or, in general, an organization engaged in the religious activities described in the preceding bullet. 
</li>
</ul>
<div> Senior Corps' RSVP (Retired and Senior Volunteer Program) Operations Handbook <a href="http://www.seniorcorps.gov/pdf/rsvp_handbook.pdf">includes similar language</a>. It prohibits members from using their positions to engage in partisan political activities and stipulates that "volunteers and project staff funded by the Corporation [for National and Community Service] may not give religious instruction, conduct worship services, or engage in any form of proselytization as part of their duties." Organizations that offer religious instruction can continue to do so, but not with government funds. "If an organization conducts such activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded under RSVP," the handbook says.

The national service legislation now goes to a Senate-House conference committee to agree upon the language of the final bill.

Update, March 31: The House <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll169.xml">has approved</a> the Senate version of the bill, and it now will go to President Obama for his signature.

– Lori Robertson
</div></div></td></tr></table></div><div class="article_section_header">

Sources

</div><div class="article_section">111th Congress, 1st session. <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388eh.txt.pdf">H.R. 1388, as passed by the House</a>.

111th Congress, 1st session. <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388ih.txt.pdf">H.R. 1388, as introduced in the House</a>.

111th Congress, 1st session. <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1388eas.txt.pdf">H.R. 1388, as passed by the Senate</a>.<
AmeriCorps. “<a href="http://www.americorps.org/about/newsroom/releases_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=1279">Senate Passes Historic Bipartisan Expansion of National Service</a>,” press release, 26 March 2009.

111th Congress, 1st session. <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111gre9Q&refer=&r_n=hr037.111&item=&sel=TOC_1144640&">H.R. 1388 House Report 111-037</a>.

111th Congress, 1st session. <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1444ih.txt.pdf">H.R. 1444</a>.

111th Congress, 1st session. Congressional Record. <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S3596&position=all">S3596</a>, 23 March 2009.

AmeriCorps. “<a href="http://www.americorps.gov/pdf/ac_member_guide.pdf">A Guide for AmeriCorps Members</a>.”

Corporation for National & Community Service. “<a href="http://www.seniorcorps.gov/pdf/rsvp_handbook.pdf ">RSVP: Lead with Experience</a>” Operations Handbook, June 2008. 
 </div>
 

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_congress_creating_a_mandatory_public_service.html

Lamarr · Apr 5, 2009

thank God for Factcheck.org, nothin to be alarmed about

thoughtone · Apr 5, 2009

WorldNetDaily. Always consider the source!

VegasGuy · Apr 5, 2009

Could haved us some time by preceding the post with the link.

Then you know instantly it's written by people who believe torture and fraternity hazing is the same thing.

-VG

Lamarr · Apr 5, 2009

Anyone care to explain what is expected of the Civilian National Security Force?

I'm sorry, I didn't read WND, I watched an interview from R. Emmanuel

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HtDSwyCPEsQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HtDSwyCPEsQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Deuterion · Apr 5, 2009

Lamarr said:
Anyone care to explain what is expected of the Civilian National Security Force?

I'm sorry, I didn't read WND, I watched an interview from R. Emmanuel

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HtDSwyCPEsQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HtDSwyCPEsQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is from 2006.

thoughtone · Apr 5, 2009

Lamarr said:
Anyone care to explain what is expected of the Civilian National Security Force?

I'm sorry, I didn't read WND, I watched an interview from R. Emmanuel

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HtDSwyCPEsQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HtDSwyCPEsQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You would site cspan junkie as a valid information source. And you wonder why the right is fading.

<iframe src="http://cspanjunkie.org/" width=720 height=1000></iframe>

Lamarr · Apr 5, 2009

thoughtone said:
You would site cspan junkie as a valid information source. And you wonder why the right is fading.

No, what I'm citing is "Wall Street Emmanuel". Is he not the chief of Staff? Second, I could care less about the 'right'. I'd like for you and everyone else to recognize the truth when "these people", (right or left), open their mouths.

This is from 2006.

So! it's the agenda that should be questioned!

QueEx · Apr 5, 2009

Lamarr said:
No, what I'm citing is "Wall Street Emmanuel". Is he not the chief of Staff? Second, I could care less about the 'right'. I'd like for you and everyone else to recognize the truth when "these people", (right or left), open their mouths.

What I'd like to see YOU recognize is that stringing unrelated and/or unconnected statements together in a video, or otherwise, doesn't necessary tell the truth; its just the "SLANT" the person responsible for the video puts on those statements and, "YOUR SLANT" if you're reppin the video.

I tried to get you to see that in that thread with the KRS One video. I wasn't successful so I decided to wait for another example, the vid you posted above, is it.

QueEx

Lamarr · Apr 5, 2009

QueEx said:
What I'd like to see YOU recognize is that stringing unrelated and/or unconnected statements together in a video, or otherwise, doesn't necessary tell the truth; its just the "SLANT" the person responsible for the video puts on those statements and, "YOUR SLANT" if you're reppin the video.

QueEx

Ok QueEx, you have my undivided attention: How is this not a precursor to a draft or quite possibly, a tattle-tale squad? While the rhetoric is filled with good intentions, I only see it as another revenue-generating scheme by "you know who".

QueEx · Apr 5, 2009

Please read and understand what I said. I'm not trying to be mean spirited, smart, etc. You just shouldn't connect unrelated or unconnected or out-of-context statements; string them together; and say --

Whallah!

Thats it !!! LOL.

Your credibility drops everytime you do that; and it makes it look like you're simply trying to find something, anything, to discredit the President with. If thats the case, just stop with the poorly laid attempts at objectivity and just come on down and say: I don't like that mofo -- and stop trying act like, it ain't personal.

QueEx

Lamarr · Apr 5, 2009

QueEx said:
Please read and understand what I said. I'm not trying to be mean spirited, smart, etc. You just shouldn't connect unrelated or unconnected or out-of-context statements; string them together; and say --

Whallah!

Thats it !!! LOL.

QueEx

For the record, I don't take this stuff personal

, however, shouldn't you question the intentions of our elected officials? After the Patriot Act, the Banker Takeover bill, etc, it is their credibility that should be scrutinized.

In a lot of the posts I read, the Pro-Obama people are quick to attack a poster's credibility as opposed to give an honest opinion about the issue at hand. I'm proud a black man is in the seat too, but his positions on issues should hold up to criticism, just like anybody else, that's all! So are you of the opinion that the public shouldn't be concerned about this legislation?

thoughtone · Apr 5, 2009

QueEx said:
What I'd like to see YOU recognize is that stringing unrelated and/or unconnected statements together in a video, or otherwise, doesn't necessary tell the truth; its just the "SLANT" the person responsible for the video puts on those statements and, "YOUR SLANT" if you're reppin the video.

I tried to get you to see that in that thread with the KRS One video. I wasn't successful so I decided to wait for another example, the vid you posted above, is it.

QueEx

QueEx, it is feudal to argue with these types. They are numb to why their side is not in favor. Taking things out of context, applying false meaning to phrases. Its like they use the word socialism over and over again, hoping it will stick. They have no solutions, other than the same old policies that got us in to these messes. Well when we describe republican/right wing policies, we must attach fascism, which is what Mussolini called the big business /government alliance. I am critical of Obama at this early point in his administration, but the other side has no new ideas.

thoughtone · Apr 5, 2009

Lamarr said:
For the record, I don't take this stuff personal , however, shouldn't you question the intentions of our elected officials? After the Patriot Act, the Banker Takeover bill, etc, it is their credibility that should be scrutinized.

In a lot of the posts I read, the Pro-Obama people are quick to attack a poster's credibility as opposed to give an honest opinion about the issue at hand. I'm proud a black man is in the seat too, but his positions on issues should hold up to criticism, just like anybody else, that's all! So are you of the opinion that the public shouldn't be concerned about this legislation?

Being critical of any elected official is the DUTY of the public. Obama is not above reproach. But GW and the republicans have been far more of a threat to the liberty of Americans. From the politics in the justice department over federal prosecutors to the stacking of federal agencies that have led to the harm of our food. I don’t mind you not liking Obama, I was skeptical about him too, but I haven’t heard you being to critical of any republicans/right wingers.

Lamarr · Apr 5, 2009

thoughtone said:
QueEx, it is feudal to argue with these types. They are numb to why their side is not in favor. Taking things out of context, applying false meaning to phrases. Its like they use the word socialism over and over again, hoping it will stick. They have no solutions, other than the same old policies that got us in to these messes. Well when we describe republican/right wing policies, we must attach fascism, which is what Mussolini called the big business /government alliance. I am critical of Obama at this early point in his administration, but the other side has no new ideas.

"These types!!!" :roflmao:

QueEx, this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. I did a whole thread dedicated to solutions: http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=366085 and for the most part, it was constructive! And the name-callin, and fingerpointing didn't surface.....until the end. If ya'll want to talk issues, let's talk issues! I can take it just like I dish it out. All policies of our elected officials should hold up to scrutiny Repub or Dem! When I interject opinions, I'm not taking a side, Well, to put it better, I try to side with the Truth, pro-peace/pro-freedom!

Thoughtone, same question: So are you of the opinion that the public shouldn't be concerned about this legislation?

QueEx · Apr 5, 2009

Lamarr said:
For the record, I don't take this stuff personal , however, shouldn't you question the intentions of our elected officials? After the Patriot Act, the Banker Takeover bill, etc, it is their credibility that should be scrutinized.

Absolutely !

If that wasn't emphatic enough for you, please know that I agree with 100%. Nevertheless, I think it should be done based on the "facts" and not surmise, conjecture and personal agenda.

Lamarr said:
In a lot of the posts I read, the Pro-Obama people are quick to attack a poster's credibility as opposed to give an honest opinion about the issue at hand.

Perhaps, what you see, and should not deny, is that people on all sides of the issues, do that. I try hard in this forum to promote a bit of analysis based on the facts -- without the personal attacks. Now sometimes, credibility (or as I would call it "character") can be a legitimate issue. What I find ironic, however, is that many of those who yell "you're attacking me personally" -- have in fact started it by attacking the other person's character/credibility first.

Lamarr said:
I'm proud a black man is in the seat too, but his positions on issues should hold up to criticism, just like anybody else, that's all!

Again, I couldn't agree more. Just make sure thats what you do.

Lamarr said:
So are you of the opinion that the public shouldn't be concerned about this legislation?

We should be concerned over EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION introduced.

We should not, however, be ALARMIST before we know what the facts are and before we understand what the possible effects, might be.

QueEx

thoughtone · Apr 5, 2009

Lamarr said:
"These types!!!" QueEx, this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. I did a whole thread dedicated to solutions: http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=366085 and for the most part, it was constructive! And the name-callin, and fingerpointing didn't surface.....until the end. If ya'll want to talk issues, let's talk issues! I can take it just like I dish it out. All policies of our elected officials should hold up to scrutiny Repub or Dem! When I interject opinions, I'm not taking a side, Well, to put it better, I try to side with the Truth, pro-peace/pro-freedom!

Thoughtone, same question: So are you of the opinion that the public shouldn't be concerned about this legislation?

The public should be concerned about any and all legislation
BTW I was part of that thread., constructively, and I stand by my statements. Did you vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004?

Lamarr · Apr 5, 2009

thoughtone said:
I don’t mind you not liking Obama, I was skeptical about him too, but I haven’t heard you being to critical of any republicans/right wingers.

I spoke out against "W" quite often in regards to his foreign, domestic, and monetary policies. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama voted in favor of the policies I've identified, so while you may think I am being critical of Mr. Obama, I was really pointing the finger at both of them. Patriot Act, FISA, warrantless wiretaps, war funding, Banker bill etc.

And I'll say this: Obama can still bring about "real change"! I'm praying this can happen: Remember, I'm Pro-Peace, Pro-Freedom.

Lamarr · Apr 6, 2009

thoughtone said:
Did you vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004?

No and No

Bain316 · Apr 6, 2009

Lamarr Ive searched the forum for your opinions on Bush, GOPers, and their antics, so far Ive seen none.

It's ok to be objective about issues but be fair about it. Bush got a free ride and so far Obama has been criticized and scrutinized by far more than another other.

Any non-white who is in the position of power will have to work twice as hard to gain respect Lamarr. you should know that.

thoughtone · Apr 7, 2009

Bain316 said:
Lamarr Ive searched the forum for your opinions on Bush, GOPers, and their antics, so far Ive seen none.

It's ok to be objective about issues but be fair about it. Bush got a free ride and so far Obama has been criticized and scrutinized by far more than another other.

Any non-white who is in the position of power will have to work twice as hard to gain respect Lamarr. you should know that.

He's objective. BTW, did you vote in 2000 and 2004?

Lamarr · Apr 7, 2009

Bain316 said:
Lamarr Ive searched the forum for your opinions on Bush, GOPers, and their antics, so far Ive seen none.

C'mon Bain316, In fairness, we better than that! Your only seeing half the picture. I say that because Obama supported the same Bush policies that, we the people, oppose. So yeah, I admit I criticize Obama's voting record in regards to FISA, the Re-Authorization of the Patriot Act, The Banker Takeover Bill, continued War funding etc. but the point in my argument is that these bills represent the foundation of Bush's foreign, domestic, and monetary policies. Obama voted for each of these

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=208741

idk, If it's what Dick said, Dick is a baffoon! He's using a dim-witted argument to justify W's doubling of the National Debt.

If you have read my posts, you know I'm Pro-Peace (End the Wars). That should be viewed as a direct repudiation of W's foreign policy!
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=351869

Post 7 http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=368921
I even took a swipe at Limbaugh:

Look, Limbaugh is an entertainer, the only reason he's getting attention is because ya'll keep listenin to him. Although that statement is funny as h*ll, stop listenin to his azz!

Bain316 said:
Any non-white who is in the position of power will have to work twice as hard to gain respect Lamarr. you should know that.

I know this!

actinanass · Apr 7, 2009

QueEx said:
You know, there are a lot of posters on this board who look at politics, etc., as a bit more than just cheering for your favorite team.

QueEx

Really? So tell me this....why does it seem like Obama can do NO wrong? I guess I'm imagining all this huh?

I guess I'm going to have to trust our SUPER MODERATOR because I really don't know whats going on.

BigUnc · Apr 8, 2009

Now that the Dem clown posse is in Charge it is amazing how those that once railed against the former GOP clown posse are now saying respect the new one. Don't criticize him etc. etc.

From what I've seen it's clear Pres. Obama whats mandatory service for youth. What form that takes is blurry at this point. He got as much passed as he could which is a first step to centralize all government sponsored voluntary organizations and to "study" improvements.

Time will tell

Panameno718 · Mar 29, 2010

National Security Force Provisions contained in Obamacare

First of all, I’m not a Constitutional expert here, so I can’t tell exactly what all this means, but it sure looks disturbing from the outset.

Remember the national security force Obama talked about last year, that needed to be as well equipped and trained as the army?

Well provisons and funding for it appear to be in this new healthcare bill. It is a tack on to the end of Title 5 Subtitle C and just before Subtitle D, both of which are mainly about getting and training more doctors, nurses, etc. But this clearly states it is for security officers and/or forces for emergencies.

The Bill itself can be found here, and is incredibly difficult to read so I put it in a more readable format below. You can find it on starting on page 1,312:

SEC. 5209. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON COMMISSIONED CORPS.
Section 202 of the Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102–394) is amended by striking ‘‘not to exceed 2,800’’.

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and 1313 HR 3590 EAS/PP compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

‘‘(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

‘‘(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

‘‘(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.

‘‘(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date 1314 HR 3590 EAS/PP of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

‘‘(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESEARCH.—

‘‘(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.

‘‘(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall—

‘‘(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

‘‘(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

‘‘(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and

‘‘(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved 1315 HR 3590 EAS/PP communities (as defined in section 799B) to improve access to health services.

‘‘(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for recruitment and training and $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for the Ready Reserve Corps.’’.

http://infidelsarecool.com/2010/03/26/national-security-force-provisions-contained-in-obamacare/

Obama's plan to force kids into paramilitary domestic army exposed!!!

Rising Star

Star

Star

Star

Potential Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Potential Star

Potential Star

Similar threads