Obama takes direct aim at anti-government rhetoric

....and shows that he is not a marksman by any means.

source

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — President Barack Obama took aim Saturday at the angry rhetoric of those who denigrate government as "inherently bad" and said their off-base line of attack ignores the fact that in a democracy, "government is us."

First of all, I would expect a constitutional lawyer to know the difference between a democracy and democratically elected republic.

Second, the advice of listening to opposing views. "Do as I say and not as I do" ring a bell here? The reason that your popularity is tanking is because you do not consider opposing views. When the people said "no", you figuratively said "go screw yourselves."

Third, does he even realize why so many in Michigan are "anti-government"? Crime, corruption, economy are the easy topics to address. Yet the government does not address them. Reading opposing views is not a solution. Overburdening the people with intrusive legislature and taxes to pay for it all is not the solution.

When the government realizes that they are not supposed to be leaders, but representatives instead, then the people will get a government that they will stand behind. Until then, the best the government can accomplish is a wink and a nod by throwing out a bone of appeasement from time to time. The problem is that one day, Old Mother Hubbard found the cupboard was bare.

I linked the full poem for good reason. Appeasement never works. The dog is the rascals that take advantage of the system that tries to quiet their dissent without addressing the situation.

I have no say in this government. So it is not "US" .

My voting rights were denied.

The candidate my vote was going for was thrown in the trash.

They said exactly "All votes for Ron Paul go in the garbage, won't even be counted".

Well how am I being represented??

"Heil mein Führer"?

I have no voice so Im not on the 'us' group.


This guy is a nutcase illegal who needs to be run out of office and thrown in the same cell Bush gets.

I applaude this......by all means ban anti american rhetoric. That means we won't have to watch any more of Obamas speeches, congress won't have a voice, Nancy Pelosi will finally have to shut the hell up, as will Harry. The illegals with all of their protests can now shut the hell up, so can most of the MSM. Great idea, let's get rid of the rhetoric, hello pot, meet kettle.

well first we heard

The conspiracy theories will stop

then we heard

opposition is terrorism and extremism

then we heard

government is us

why do I get the feeling
I am a political prisoner ????

We were promised change,
however we didn't expect that change
to be for the worse. Less, the voices
strengthen.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Ron Paul wasn't running. You can't vote for somebody who's not running.


You could have voted for Ralph Nader, though

Yep to op, you would think alot of obama says would not come from someone who claims to be educated, lol.

What makes me laugh is when has it become a crime to speak about the government. We all know is his campaign no one could speak about obama, and no one could ask him questions. What sort of fixed election was that.

As long as he damages america who really cares what he thinks of people like us talking about the bad issues of government corruption.

This is a preemptive strike and distraction meant to prevent people from realizing that a judge is about to (hopefully) toss out on bail the Huratee Militants.

The Federal Prosecutors are trying to argue intent, while a judge is saying there is no solid plan, no imminent intent to do anything, just talk, therefore....no evidence.

I think this is just a scare tactic to prevent people from uprising. Especially people that want to, but are afraid of getting in legal trouble, will become more brazen if they see others, such as the Huratee group, walk away.

Feds Say Judge Misreading Militia Case

Federal prosecutors trying to keep nine militia members in jail said Thursday that they don't need to show there was imminent danger when they charged them with plotting war against the government.
...
Roberts [judge] challenged prosecutors on Wednesday to show how the group was launching an "imminent lawless action," a key condition under a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on seditious conspiracy.

Link: www.clickondetroit.com...

If Obama were truly a man worthy of President, he should/would say:

"I applaud those that speak out about the government. I commend those that are dissatisfied with the status quo. There's nothing I like to see more than our First Amendment Rights in action."

Lastly, WE all know what the government is supposed to be -- it's the politicians that seem to have forgotten along the way.

Are we sure this speech wasn't merely given to Congress?

Doesn't he have a lot of nerve saying any of this coming off the heels of complaining about Iran trying to silence protesters? And he wasn't just referring to those "beaten"....

reply to post by Kaytagg


on second thought....delete. sorry...

[edit on 1-5-2010 by lpowell0627]

Have any of you even read the article that was posted? There was absolutely nothing in it at all about making anti-government speech illegal! There are some members of ATS that have become so bloody partisan and anarcho-libertarian that they believe ALL governments to be bad.

President Obama might as well have been addressing this board directly when he said, "At its worst, it [anti-government propaganda] can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

Take off your blinders and tone down the hatred already, you're making mockeries of yourselves on here, and should be quite ashamed.

Edit: As for your "votes not counting" where did this happen, I'm having trouble finding source on that and it could be an interesting story?

[edit on 1-5-2010 by ProjectJimmy]

You should be ashamed of yourself.


Go read some of the papers published by those in power, then talk to me about being shamed. You and politicians are the ones that should be shameful.

Originally posted by Goethe
You should be ashamed of yourself.


Go read some of the papers published by those in power, then talk to me about being shamed. You and politicians are the ones that should be shameful.

Yep that's about what I expected on this one, I chide you for not reading what your president said, and you take one line and not address any of my actual points.

Well done mate, good job proving President Obama right about the nature of political debate in America.

I am not happy with everything this guy has done...

However I am happy he talks about this kind of stuff, acknowledging the anger and frustration of many.

I am really not sure about some of the anger myself, in that it seems anything can
made to appear egregious. When ALL you see are angering things, it might a reflection of self at that point... Is the anger switch stuck? or is it 100%, 24/7 evil?

So far Obama has not been far left in his governing cause, it seems he is busy trying to
fit you angry folks in as a consideration.

The HCR was not socialist juggernaut as many on the left wanted, it was a moderate conservative type approach that left the private system completely in tact. No doubt
We know Romneys' popularity in straw polls amongst conservative voters, but
the same voters fail to recognize Romney helped pioneer the concept Osama Obama
signed into law.

You guys don't seem to realize that Obama does seem to keep you guys in mind,
because a whole lot of us would have preferred the socialized option... Of course, against the back drop of healthcare induced terror he would have been slapping you in the face in doing so. HE didn't appear to be appeasing the left with that, I am just saying... the left at large was ready to get all Stalingrad with it, Obama was thinking about someone IMO.

Obama is stupid in that he seems to be more concerned about the people who did not and will never vote for him because they hate him regardless.







[edit on 1-5-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


you are quite right in the idea of avoiding righteous anger and revenge however to have a government official (in any country at war or actively supporting militias and anti government groups in other parts of the world) say that takes the bite right out of it. Violence is societies only answer. People protest, riot police get involved or in other cases the protesters themselves become violent (I am aware of agent provocateurs. There was a famous display of that in Quebec some years ago)

Politics uses sanctions and crippling policies of non-cooperation instead of reaching comprimises. There is no empathetic ear in government and they never take responsibility for their actions or their failure to act but expect us to sit quietly and politely taking it.

I cannot abide violence but I will NEVER abide injustice. This is a way to pigeon hole dissenters in my oppinion.

Cheers

After reading what Obama's remarks were all I can say is ain't that like the pot calling the kettle black? So far there has been no compromise, no reaching out, no trying to calm people down, rather all I have seen is just more rhetoric and division on his part when it comes to the country. A majority of the bills he has managed to get through has been only from the Democrats, the one person who has been visiting him the most is a Union leader.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
After reading what Obama's remarks were all I can say is ain't that like the pot calling the kettle black? So far there has been no compromise, no reaching out,

My friend did you not see the HCR???

It was not something a lefty would craft for the joy of all the lefties in the world.

I wanted a public option myself, why would he not do what his base wanted???

I think it was reaching out and compromise -

This has gone right over you head, if he would have gone with Socialized, you would be in the same state, saying the same things.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
After reading what Obama's remarks were all I can say is ain't that like the pot calling the kettle black? So far there has been no compromise, no reaching out, no trying to calm people down, rather all I have seen is just more rhetoric and division on his part when it comes to the country. A majority of the bills he has managed to get through has been only from the Democrats, the one person who has been visiting him the most is a Union leader.

Hey, that's how I see it too. They are running scared, you know, for talking like he did. Does his best men not read what is posted here and see what We the People really want? The question is, do they pay any attention? Read your history, Democracies do not last.

republic: "a form of government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

Websters Unabridged Dictionary

democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
U.S. Army Training Manual

(Read this page for a wealth of information.....)
www.w3f.com...

Never read more truer words. We Americans are supposed to have a Republic, a Confederation of States.

A REPUBLIC, If You Can Keep It
-- Benjamin Franklin, at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 --

The Articles were written during the early part of the American Revolution by a committee of the Second Continental Congress of the now independent thirteen sovereign states. The head of the committee, John Dickinson, who had refused to sign the Declaration of Independence, nevertheless adhering to the will of the majority of the members of the Continental Congress, presented a report on the proposed articles to the Congress on July 12, 1776, eight days after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Dickinson initially proposed a strong central government, with control over the western lands, equal representation for the states, and the power to levy taxes.

Because of their experience with Great Britain, the 13 states feared a powerful central government. Consequently, they changed Dickinson's proposed articles drastically before they sent them to all the states for ratification in November 1777. The Continental Congress had been careful to give the states as much independence as possible. The Articles deliberately established a confederation of sovereign states, carefully specifying the limited functions of the federal government. Despite these precautions, several years passed before all the states ratified the articles. The delay resulted from preoccupation with the revolution and from disagreements among the states. These disagreements included quarrels over boundary lines, conflicting decisions by state courts, differing tariff laws, and trade restrictions between states.

The small states wanted equal representation with the large states in Congress, and the large states were afraid they would have to pay an excessive amount of money to support the federal government. In addition, the states disagreed over control of the western territories. The states with no frontier borders wanted the government to control the sale of these territories so that all the states profited. On the other hand, the states bordering the frontier wanted to control as much land as they could.

Eventually the states agreed to give control of all western lands to the federal government, paving the way for final ratification of the articles on March 1, 1781, just seven and a half months before the surrender of Lord Cornwallis and his British Army at Yorktown, October 19, 1781, the victory ended fighting in the War of Independence and virtually assured success to the American cause. Almost the entire war for five long years had been prosecuted by the members of the Second Continental Congress as representatives of a loose federation of states with no constitution, acting at many times only on their own individual strengths, financial resources and reputations.

Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - 1777 -
Scroll down and read "The Forgotten Presidents of the Continental Congresses and the United States under the Articles of Confederation."

If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.... If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed. -- Thomas Jefferson to Col. Yancey, 1816

Undermining The Constitution

CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY THE KENTUCKY-VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS And Mr. Madison's Report of 1799Iacocca: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Jimmy, I see we disagree on most issues, but I must say, I have alot of fun chatted within threads where youre at man. You keep it interesting to say the least and its a pleasure to be among others with varying thoughts and opinions, even if I dont agree.



(and for the record... Obama is better about dialog with some things than most other leaders Ive ever seen)

I will give the man props when theyre due.

I just dont think theyre due in most cases lately.

Originally posted by Goethe
Jimmy, I see we disagree on most issues, but I must say, I have alot of fun chatted within threads where youre at man. You keep it interesting to say the least and its a pleasure to be among others with varying thoughts and opinions, even if I dont agree.



(and for the record... Obama is better about dialog with some things than most other leaders Ive ever seen)

I will give the man props when theyre due.

I just dont think theyre due in most cases lately.

Hey absolutely mate! You keep me on my toes quite well, and I never imagine that everyone will ever agree on anything, so absolutely nothing personal in any of it. It is forums like this that truly make me love freedom of speech!

Cheers oi!

There is a reason why the Founders set up a republic and not a democracy! And why the constitution does not mention the word democracy. Here is a good overview by the late great Aaron Russo:

www.youtube.com...

Also WE ARE NOT A "DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" we are a union of several state republics. The federal government was never meant to and does not have the vast authority it unlawfully assumes to regulate every aspect of our daily lives via some contrived democracy.

The Founding Fathers deplored democracy!

www.youtube.com...

As a people we are largely ignorant of our own history and floundering because of it!

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists the powers enumerated to the Federal government of which there are only 17. Most people realize now that those 17 have been far exceeded. What most people don't realize is most of those have nothing whatsoever to do with the people or the men and women themselves. For instance regulating commerce between the states had nothing to do with Joe blow selling something to John doe in another state. It only had to do with the state governments trading with other state governments.

Even if you disagree with that it is plain congress has no right to pass laws regarding what health care if any you choose to use or implement an national police force or regulate energy etc. etc.. If you want to see a Witch doctor for an aliment that is your business! Or whether you wear a set belt or grow a certain type plant in your yard etc. The basic foundation of the law is "oppress no one". As long as you are not oppressing, harming, or violating anyone's rights, there is no crime period!

Even most of the state organic Constitutions have something to the effect that all political power is inherent in the people. That is what so many Americans have forgotten or rather have no memory of. All the things like Health care and the bailouts and individual taxes etc, etc, are completely outside the scope of authority of Congress, the President, the Supreme court, and even the state governments. The Constitution in article 4 promises a republican form of government not a democracy.

What happened? How has this been erased from the collective memory of the American mindset? It started almost from the beginning however the turning point was the Buck Act in 1935. Where everything was flipped from the republic to a Federal Municipal Corporate Democracy and no one said no. Now for almost 50 years no one except a very few have said no and silence is considered acquiescence. If you as a group of people picked a delegate to represent lets say your district as a group and at the meeting and you were all there and your delegate stood up and spoke in favor of a measure totally against your collective will and all of you said or did nothing to stop your delegate from going against your will and the measure was passed would that not be tacit agreement? Well that is how socialist democracy has been approved of in this country. Not enough said no and everyone has accepted the benefits of the democracy in place of their sovereign rights. In short most of what congress does it has no authority to do at all and does not apply to the men and women themselves accept by your own tacit agreement. NO ONE IS SAYING; NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY. Everyone is running around saying oh we have to vote them out instead. Don't you just love democracy...?

Now we have several generations who seem to think congress and even their state legislatures has a right to vote on every aspect of their lives when they do not. And now everyone is running around trying to get 51% on their side so they can tell the other 49% what to do. Continuing to participate in the democracy perpetuates it and perpetuates the ever increasing misery it is causing. DEMOCRACY IS THE PROBLEM NOT THE ANSWER.

Now most informed people will agree with this premise in principle but then will turn around and say yeah but if we do not participate [ in the democracy] we will loose all control. What many don't realize is we have already lost all control and because of our participation in democracy and our leaving the republican form, that is why we seem to be in such an impossible situation. Sort of like being on a hamster wheel. We keep running on the wheel but getting nowhere except increasingly exhausted and frustrated but are afraid to get off because we see nowhere else to go and fear if the wheel stops turning we will have nothing left but the walls of the cage to look at.

So what is the solution. The solution is to repopulate the republic and began to operate as the men and women who built this nation once did. That is to assemble on our counties and judicial districts of tens of fifties, and hundreds. etc. this may seem foreign to many because as I said most have no memory of operating on the republics. So the answer is to learn how to do it peacefully and orderly and let the democracy die of attrition.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by hawkiye]