It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama is rapidly turning this country into a totalitarian regime

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Obama is rapidly turning this country into a totalitarian regime


canadafreepress.com

Just this week I was talking to a high level contact who had just talked with a member of the Homeland Security Dept. They revealed to him that Obama is planning to nationalize every security force that currently guards any military structure and all 800,000 Government buildings. Currently these buildings and facilities have been guarded by private security companies…..not when Obama is through.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
According to this article, Obama, and his administration plan to Nationalize even every security force that currently guards any military installation, and government buildings, which will put many tens of thousands of people out of their jobs.

It also states that Obama wants a national police and security force, and after doing this will try to take our Second Amendment right, or take our guns away, which is a dream that most, if not all Democrats, and even some Republicans in power have. At least those in power.

We have seen GM nationalized, the president, and his administration also wants to nationalize healthcare, as well as most Americans who stand in favour of the Second Amendment, who are returning vets, question certain international, and national issues by the current administration, anyone who fears Tolitarianism or a Global governmtn, and anyone who fears Communism, as "possible terrorists" according to a DHS report, and according to Janet Napolitano.

All of this, and everything that has been happening seems to point to the claims made in this article to be very possible.

canadafreepress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
BTW this reminds me of the following.


Obama's 'civilian national security force'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives weve set. Weve got to have a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

www.wnd.com...

I had to take out the apostrophes from that large excerpt, otherwise the size wouldn't change.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
My friend that article is disturbing, but we all knew it was coming.

Before the liberals hit this up let me do it for them. You are just scared of a Black man being president....


Aside from the sarcasm, what will it take before people stop seeing through the partisan goggles and realize what is happening to us right before our eyes?


[edit on 24-7-2009 by Doom and Gloom]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Just to try and play Devil's Advocate for a moment, what about this:

A national police force, similar to what ALOT of other countries have. Up in Canada we have RCMP, which actually makes sense, they can pursue any criminal across any Province. This means no more stopping at the state line when the criminal crosses. No more having to get all kinds of warrants and other jurisdictional crap just to pursue someone.

As far as the buildings go, wouldn't it make sense that government buildings are guarded by government security? You guys always complain about the government trying to stick their nose in your business, well isn't having civilian security companies guarding government interests just the opposite? These people are not loyal to what they are protecting, they are loyal to their employer, not exactly what I would call the best security options.


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The only thing Barack Hussein Obama is rapidly on his way to is impeachent and the door.

Even now if you look at the MSM headlines of the day the stage is being set for a racial divide to exploit over his rush to judge the Cambridge Police Department in their arrest of a black long time friend and supporter of Obama who is a Harvard Professor no less.

It reeks of a staged event to be exploited by the Mainstream Media to start reentrenching and enflaming Obama's core Black Power Base to see him as a champion of them.

Yet the Cambridge Police Department an old and very established one, representing a community that is not only old and very established but home to the nations most preminent Universities and Institutions is not an entity likely to trifled by or cowed by the mud being hurled at it for it's reasonable due dillegence in ascertaining just why a man was reported breaking in to his own home and beligerent and insulting to the police from the moment they arrived to secure the property and do their jobs.

The Birth Certificate Issue won't go away, his Health Care Reform is going nowhere fast, Iraq has announced American Soldiers are basically prisoners now on their own bases, Afghanistan has seen the bloodiest month of U.S. casualties in 8 long years of war, the Credit Markets remain frozen, Unemployment continues to rise, and inflation continues to slowly creep up as the Democratic Congress and White House seek to pass one socialist law and policy after another in as rapid a fashion and order as they can all the while his poll numbers continue to drop save for his core black constituancy and die hard social democrats and soon all he will have left is an emotional appeal to his black core constituancy to defend him against a mounting tide of criticism.

This Presidency will never go the course one way or the other, it will be impeachment or revolution and for Americans to decide what comes first the Nation and the Constitution or the love of one man based on a carefully crafted cult of personality that has now been exposed to be so many lies and falsehoods that they are so numerous and too numerous to count.

Truth and justice will eventually carry the day, it is the American way and there are still enough Americans not afraid of improperly applied words like bigot, racist, republican.


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Unfortunately for Obama and his delusional group of intelligentsia, already in place is a counter to his "civilian force."

It's every able-bodied adult who are armed and number in the tens of millions. Our militia.

The US militia is a greater force than most of the world's entire militaries. And just for good measure, it contains millions of former military veterans.

Obama's an idiot.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 


A national security force that is loyal to only Obama and his administration is not a good idea nomatter how much you want to play Devil's advocate.

The United States is not, and should never try to imitate other countries, even if such a country is Canada.

Anyway, dictators have actually done the same thing Obama has not only done, but is trying to do with this "national police/military made out of children and Obama supporters".

Not to mention the indoctrination of American children as well as their professors that has been made into a law by the Obama administration, under H.R. 1388, which would further brainwash our future generations to never question the Obama, or Left policies.

Even Chavez has stated that president Obama is more to the left than him and Castro himself.


What will the Obama administration try to do next? Get rid of the maximum terms that a president can be in office?

[edit on 24-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
he certainly intends to turn this country into a totalitarian regime. every move he has made demonstrates it. he is at war with small and medium business, trying to cut them off at the pass every time. he told us at that press conference on wed that he saves us from disaster, the crisis is past only jobs are lagging. so if jobs are continuing to be cut and businesses continue to fail, who is it that's recovering?

I downloaded a copy of the investigative report on the criminal activities of ACORN. This is an example of the national force Obama likes to be part of.

anger at the broken promises is starting to erupt from followers. i just don't understand why so many still believe in him blindly. he hasn't given the slightest indication that he cares about the people of this country. even when he's playing the race card, it's more to prove his ideology than out of a desire to solve a problem. i guess the ones who support him do so because they will be on the receiving of his largess.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Well what did everyone expect?

The puppet only does what the puppet master expects of it.




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545
Just to try and play Devil's Advocate for a moment, what about this:

A national police force, similar to what ALOT of other countries have. Up in Canada we have RCMP, which actually makes sense, they can pursue any criminal across any Province. This means no more stopping at the state line when the criminal crosses. No more having to get all kinds of warrants and other jurisdictional crap just to pursue someone.


That's what the FBI does in the states....a federal agency that works with local officials without really having it's own "force" so to speak, it just works in cooperation with state investigative services and locals to solve crimes across state lines. That's why it was invented


[edit on 24-7-2009 by yellowcard]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Actually the article is not disturbing people tend to have short timememories.

Remember that up to Bush regime and Rumsfeld privatization of the military, everything was run by the government.

So don't get so surprise the only way that Obama is going to finance its mammoth health care bill is cutting on private government contracting while bringing back the government jobs taken away by contracting and turn the military bases from private workers to military ones.

That is what he is doing to my husband job, either eliminate it or coverted to government job

After all what he is going to do with all the thousands of soldiers that are to be coming back from the middle east if the bases are all full of civilians.

I was a military wife for 22 years I remember when the bases in the US were run by the military no civilians, when the national guard was to protect domestically in case of national need no to serve in front lines in Iraq.

The only reason we have so much privatization of everything and fraud and waste was due to Bush and Rumsfeld corporate merry go around.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by Rook1545
Just to try and play Devil's Advocate for a moment, what about this:

A national police force, similar to what ALOT of other countries have. Up in Canada we have RCMP, which actually makes sense, they can pursue any criminal across any Province. This means no more stopping at the state line when the criminal crosses. No more having to get all kinds of warrants and other jurisdictional crap just to pursue someone.


That's what the FBI does in the states....a federal agency that works with local officials without really having it's own "force" so to speak, it just works in cooperation with state investigative services and locals to solve crimes across state lines. That's why it was invented


[edit on 24-7-2009 by yellowcard]


Also, US marshals have this same ability. In some regards, I think Marshalls less limitations than the FBI.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Yep, the Bush administration baked the cake.

The Obama administration is the icing thats going on the cake.


When the PTB start cutting the cake, only certain people will be at the party.





[edit on 24-7-2009 by Zeus2573]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
This is not Obama's fault

it's the American People's fault

again they voted for the most popular
and they voted for a facade
they voted for buzzwords with no substance
they voted for change that no one could define

it's mostly the people's fault i'm sorry!



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
This is not Obama's fault

it's the American People's fault

again they voted for the most popular
and they voted for a facade
they voted for buzzwords with no substance
they voted for change that no one could define

it's mostly the people's fault i'm sorry!


I have supreme skepticism regarding the assumption that Obama was "voted" into office. Considering the previous 2 presidential elections were dubious at best and fraudulent at worst. Electronic voting machines are responsible for the last 3 presidents. How much influence the actual voter had in the outcomes is speculative and untrustworthy!

Don't go blaming The People. Blame should be placed where it belongs. Squarely on the shoulders of our elected officials.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I can't really say that I disagree with having government employees running security at military bases or other federal buildings. Here on my base the security is a mix of military security forces and private security. I won't go into any specific detail about base security short comings, but I find that military security forces tend to think on their feet a little better. They're a little bit more reasonable about stupid stuff, and I trust them to protect me a lot more if things ever turn ugly.

The other reason I prefer military security forces over private contractors is that the private contractors don't have anything on the line besides their jobs really. At worst they can get fired. With military they're not only protecting the base's assets, a lot of them live on base and are therefore protecting their own families. I trust a man who's defending his family over a man who's only defending his paycheck.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by cyberdude78
 


I will go a littler farther on my experiences,

During the 22 years I was a military wife I never had any problems with the military police in any of the bases my husband was station.

Since the military turn their police to civilian In three months in my local military base I was harassed by one particular one on the gate every time I had to go in the base.

My husband that also works in the base and many other retire military personnel have raised complaints about how this wannabe goons are treating people on the gate.

They are on a power trip and no following military procedures.

Is a disgrace!!!!!!!!



[edit on 24-7-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Currently these buildings and facilities have been guarded by private security companies


Well, the way I see it is this.

1) Our government budget is getting out of hand, and there is no choice but to cut out fat and spending where ever possible.

2) I notice that private companies are guarding military installations.

3) Hrmm, hey I know! Why don't we have our military do it instead? We are already paying them to be there anyway!

So we can save countless millions if not more by no longer contracting out private companies, and giving our military, which can do the same job, the responsibility. I don't really see the problem there. Sure, the private companies will no longer have -that- contract, but there are plenty of other places in the world at this moment where they can find contracts.

Looking at this from a business perspective, it is the right move. It is going to cut more expenditure from the budget... period.


As far as the national security force is concerned, I am not a fan of the idea as it sounds coming from the OP. I would need to see the exact charter for what this security force would be responsible for before taking sides or even commenting on the validity or non validity of such a force. Past presidents have created special agencies during their terms, so until I see an exact charter, I cannot say it is a good thing or a bad thing.



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW this reminds me of the following.


Obama's 'civilian national security force'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives weve set. Weve got to have a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

www.wnd.com...

I had to take out the apostrophes from that large excerpt, otherwise the size wouldn't change.


Lets stop and pause for a moment and think about what this comment seems to be saying.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set"

Well, this makes perfect sense to me. Follow me here for a minute. Up to now, the "national defense" plan has been to go to other countries where we believe terrorists to be, and to bomb them to hell, among other things. Our military budget is around 515 Billion dollars. That is a LOT of money. We are spending this money because we are in two overseas "wars" (or whatever your party affiliation calls it).

Rather than spending all this money funding these wars overseas, why not spend the money securing our own borders? It has to be much cheaper to keep all of our military here at home protecting our own borders, rather than having tons of military all over the world. Not to mention it will be much safer for our own military here at home.

It seems that people tend to think the worst case scenario any time any of this kind of thinking is brought up. But honestly, many times there are valid reasons for some of this thinking.

As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, I'm not even going down that path. The 2nd Amendment is going no where any time soon, get over it and ignore the fear tactics surrounding it. For a president to even bring it up is instant political suicide. If Obama made a push for it, he would be signing his own political death certificate. I highly doubt he is going to do so. Rest easy people. Your guns (and mine, I happen to be a concealed weapons permit holder) are not going to be taken away. (unless you do something stupid)

The sky is not falling.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by xmaddness
 


Hey that is the way it used to be before Bush and Rumsfeld corporate merry go around of give away tax payer money.

People have short term memories.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join