Obama is rapidly turning this country into a totalitarian regime, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 22 times
Topic started on 24-7-2009 @ 11:17 AM by ElectricUniverse

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)


reply posted on 24-7-2009 @ 11:54 AM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
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.


reply posted on 24-7-2009 @ 12:10 PM by ElectricUniverse
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]



reply posted on 24-7-2009 @ 01:10 PM by marg6043
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]


reply posted on 24-7-2009 @ 01:26 PM by xmaddness
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.


reply posted on 24-7-2009 @ 01:30 PM by marg6043
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.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 3 days ago with 81 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 15 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 3 days ago with 48 member flags
Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 10 days ago with 37 member flags