It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Regular & Ready Reserve Corps in HC bill

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by indigothefish

Yes you are right, passing the bill was not the hardest part, the hardest part is when the actually bill with all the crap that is worst of what is been promised to the people gets to be "enforced" meaning "forced" to the tax payers.

That is when the crap will hit the fan.

Then remember that the budget committee will start working in the lowering the deficit in April.

Yes, talking about taxes to help support the HCR, keep the private insurance making their record profits and gouging the tax payer.

Money has to come from somewhere, and while Obama promised to gouge the 250K and up for it, people should not hold their breath, by now everybody should know that the ones been hit with the burden of the debt in America to keep the rich richer is us the working class.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by Subjective Truth

Careful with the History lessons. Some people around here refuse learn from the past.

Excellent points nonetheless.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by jibeho
I have to wonder why it would be the President who is charged to appoint commissioned officers.

(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.

Appointment orders for military commissioned officers always read that they are appointed to that position by the President and military officers verbal and written orders to the troops are as good as a direct order for the President of the United States.

Army Regulation 601–100, Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant Officers in the Regular Army

2–3. Commissioned officer confirmation date
a. The confirmation date is the date the United States Senate confirms the President’s nomination of the applicants
for appointment as commissioned officers in the Regular Army.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by smoke screen]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:52 AM

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Subjective Truth

Careful with the History lessons. Some people around here refuse learn from the past.

Excellent points nonetheless.

Some refuse to look and some want it changed. I worry more about the one's who want it changed. I am just wondering who will be the scape coat in this if it happens? The Jews in Germany fit the part perfect who fits the part in America? I have to wonder if the very people helping make it happen by voting and fund raising will feel histories irony when this is done.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by smoke screen

Perhaps that is what is implied with this new bill. Personally, I liken the current appointment of commissioned officers by the president to the president of a University approving a graduation and "signing" a diploma. Just a formality.

I suspect something a little deeper here. Who knows?

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

I can't take credit for ferreting this out. I found a mention of it on one of my FB pages and followed thru with it to see what it was. Apparently a blogger DFX found it as I couldn't trace back any further than that except to go to the bill and read what it said for myself.

We already have the National Guard for the "reserves" that we need for cases like this. Red Cross also has complete ties with the Feds for extreme cases. It is also as plain as the nose on my face that these are to be used for ANY national emergency whether it's health related or not. Only once was it mentioned that health was involved.

The reason for my own alarm? First, Obama knows our armed forces do not approve of him and are losing respect by the tons. When Obama gave a speech, he stated how he wanted his own civilian army...

After a quick google (thru Yahoo
) here's a link from the American Thinker that quotes what he says and goes into a lot more detail on what he wants.

For quick reference, here's his 7/2008 comment:

"We cannot continue to rely 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."

This is exactly how Hitler got started, thus the references to the Nazis. A little history search will give you all you need to learn Hitler's story. Here's a quote:

"Hitler still did not confront the army but skillfully started to build up the SS. He desperately needed the SS because above all Hitler was a political man; to him war was the last resort. His aim was to convince people, to obtain their loyalty, particularly the younger generation. He knew that the establishment-minded brass [in re to Germany's current army at the time] would oppose him at every turn...The young felt the SS was the only armed force which represented their own ideas." [From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1982-83 (Vol. 3, No. 4). This essay by Leon Degrelle (1906-1994), the man that Hitler said he would like his [theoritical] son to be like Leon.]

Though I don't believe (and truly hope) that Obama is Hitler, I hope you can see the similarity there and why people are referring, correctly might I say, to the Nazis.

Nothing is as it seems in this world, especially when it comes to Obama's admin.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe

page 1312
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 ‘‘(2) other factors, as the Secretary determines
2 appropriate.
4 purposes of carrying out this section, there are authorized
5 to be appropriated $50,000,000 for the fiscal year 2010 and
6 such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years
7 2011 through 2014.’’.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by willow1d

You have brought it to my attention and I thank you!!!
Don't sell yourself short.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:06 PM

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by jibeho

The part that saddens me most is the fact that our government is constantly being changed and realigned with complete disregard for what the American people want. Laws and new bills are being passed continually that for the most part the American people have no say in whatsoever. By the time my children are grown this will be a completely different country. It is not just this administration it is the façade of a Government that we have been seeing for years now.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by willow1d

Thank you for the in depth response, I appreciate it.

While I can understand your analogy Obama Hitler, I must say I disagree with it, and the Nazi remarks are nothing more than expected political response. (I used to bleat out the same things in regards to Bush back when I was less educated, now I realize all politicians are the same and further the same agenda, so arent they all Nazis?).
Anyway all of this looks like business as usual. How many pages of the Patriot Act have most of us read (or most of our elected leaders?) How many pages of most bills do these clowns read then pontificate upon and then vote on? Most of them. Does it make this Germany, our leader Hitler, and their cronies Nazis?


It is the same political situation as always. Our corrupt and greedy government being clueless. I watched some of the debate leading up to the vote.

When I realized JESSE JACkSON JR was the one with the gavel, I couldnt watch any more. I mean what has become of our governemnt? They are clowns, it reminded me of JR High school. I told my son we should all get into politics these people do nothing but act like children and get paid to do so.

I am tired of playing the political game it remains the same no matter who is ramming bills down our throats.

This is also not the beginning of nazi land, this is just another swing of the political pendulum.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

The references to Hitler should be taken in a historical perspective. Hitler was masterful in the art of rebuilding a downtrodden nation that was hit hard by the Great Depression and civil unrest. He gave people hope, granted it was false hope.

Hitler's rise to power started as early as 1919 or 1920 and peaked in the early 1930's when he and his Nazi party took control and led that nation down a very dark road to ruin. Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933.

Hitler achieved absolute power when those who opposed him failed to strongly unite against his overwhelming authority.

If you read enough about him you will clearly see a growing number of parallels.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:16 PM
Party Issues aside the parallels of going from a free state to a controlled state are there .

READ about the history of the creation of dictatorships of Nazi USSR and others . There is a threads in common groups under the leaders control and picked by the leader answer only to the leader . Check ! Gun control , vilifying dissent if after reading you cant see any parallels over the last 10 -15 years we have already lost .

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by hotbakedtater
They just want you to think it is a pendulum.

More of the same, and it's not getting better.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:33 PM
I dont totaly get what the terms in the bill it that bad?
Regardless, as long as we have the right to vote, start voting those involved with things like this, out of office
and keep doing so till things turn in our/your favor.
I had an awesome idea last night..i think its fair, in communities, neighbors can get togther, and form their own requests and 'bills' to be handed to lcoal governements, and public in town voted on! wede dp a hell of a lot better than pelosi and the senate just voting on empty promises of hope for us all!

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:39 PM
Well, well, well.

Now we are beginning to see why so much of this "obamacare" bill had to be discussed behind closed doors and why congressmen had to be bribed to support it.

Maybe the dems in congress were just told not to worry about having to be re-elected.

And to think so many people ranted and raved about possibly losing their rights under the Bush administration.

Look around people, THIS (obama) administration is actually taking them away right now.

[edit on 3/25/2010 by centurion1211]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:35 PM
I am not looking at this through the eyes of paranoia, so maybe I'm missing something.

In the event of a widespread pandemic it seems to me wise to have a corps prepared to facilitate the delivery of treatment, the movement of large numbers of people to medical care units, calming of the panic that would probably ensue, etc. etc.

Because Obama does it, it must be totalitarian, according to many of you. Whatever you don't happen to like is by definition fascistic and the work of Nazis.

That kind of reasoning has a name in debate: reductio ad hitlerum.

For example:

Hitler liked dogs
Hitler was a fascist
President Obama likes dogs
Therefore, President Obama is a fascist.

It doesn't stand up in a formal debate.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by Sestias

You left out:

Hitler needed to have his own personal army of thugs to make people see things his way, so obama also needs his own personally appointed "Corps" - outside the normal civil service channels, too.

And you believe we actually need to spend the $billions to create this private "medical" army in case of a national medical disaster? The last time we actually had one of those was? And how often do they happen if they happen? All that really justifies the expense of creating this standing "corps" when money is so tight?

See why people are so skeptical of this "corps" true purpose, yet?

And I wonder if obama can even pronounce "corps" correctly yet - before he gets to appoint one?

[edit on 3/25/2010 by centurion1211]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by Sestias

To which pandemic are you referring? The one's as defined by the WHO as of last year... or a pandemic as it was defined scientifically?

The problem is that a pandemic used to mean a threat from a deadly and contagious disease, NOW it seems to mean nearly any contagious disease at all.

We had the so-called "deadly" swine flu "pandemic"... which by all reasoning did not qualify as a pandemic; but the WHO changed its 'definition' and the federal government 'adjusted' theirs to justify the wholesale distribution of a chemical remedy for which the people of the world paid billions.

It's not paranoia to recognize that a stage is being set.

But in all fairness, I am NOT among those who personify the problem in the person of a celebrity politician.

It's much more systemic and institutionalized than that. Which isn't to say a person, such as a president, couldn't make a difference... but most love their status more than their calling; and I believe Obama is as guilty of that as most other showbiz Democrats and Republicans.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in