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.

 

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?


And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?


Interesting indeed that we see FDR and Hitler references here. This tends to roughly verify another thread I had posted about expanded presidential powers as a result of this spill.

No matter how you cut it, this administration is acquiring more and more frightening power.




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Tyranny?

I believe what you are talking about is called corporate fascism.
It is the people that are losing their rights while corporations are freed from laws and regulations. It is the common man who is charged with terrorism
for any action while corporations are free to do business with any country or group they choose. It is the common man who is limited in lawsuits while corporations winning lawsuits get fines and court costs.
Bankruptcy laws , recently changed, protect the banks not the common man, yet corporate america got bailed out at the expense of taxpayers
The Constitution and the Bill of rights say nothing about business or corporate rights yet the supreme court ruled that business and corporations have the same rights as a living person .
America has been on a slippery slope for almost a 100 years.
Americans are like the frog in a pot and corporations are the cook, slowly turning up the heat and dinner is almost ready folks.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Tyranny?

I believe what you are talking about is called corporate fascism.


While corporate fascism is indeed a problem it's not the point of this thread. This refers to the dangerously frightening power grab that this administration and congress is achieving. Be vigilant of corporate fascism but don't let it be your sole focus else you've taken your eye off the ball.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I hate to attack the source...but a bunch of filthy rich investors crying that we are on our way to tyranny because Obama has forced BP to clean up their own mess and take responsibility for their actions seems a bit odd...to say the least.

Maybe they should be more angry at BP for letting their stocks fall due to stupid decisions instaed of Obama for doing his job.


This is one of the biggest fear monger pieces I have seen in a long time...."OBAMA IS HITLER AND IS TAKING OVER THE USA WITH HIS CZARS (scary foreign word)".



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Sorry , I see little difference in the agenda or actions of any POTUS their administrations , congress or Supreme Court in the last 60 years, republican or democrat. Their all puppets and the wealthy pull the strings.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Sorry , I see little difference in the agenda or actions of any POTUS their administrations , congress or Supreme Court in the last 60 years, republican or democrat. Their all puppets and the wealthy pull the strings.


You last sentence I agree with and for the most part, the first. Although this particular administration is going for a power grab that is unprecedented in the last 60 years of POTUS administrations.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Maybe they should be more angry at BP for letting their stocks fall due to stupid decisions instaed of Obama for doing his job.


Where exactly in the president's job description does it specify that he/she can demand that a foreign private corporation set up an escrow account?

Following the Valdez disaster and act was written into law requiring corporations to apportion funds for such cleanup efforts. So it seems Obama is not making them do this anyway, just accepting the credit for it.

Also it seems as if your entire statement is based on wealth envy. As if those in command of some money have opinions that should be ignored on that basis alone.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Sorry , I see little difference in the agenda or actions of any POTUS their administrations , congress or Supreme Court in the last 60 years, republican or democrat. Their all puppets and the wealthy pull the strings.


You last sentence I agree with and for the most part, the first. Although this particular administration is going for a power grab that is unprecedented in the last 60 years of POTUS administrations.


Really? Did you miss the PATRIOT Act? Warrantless wiretapping? Selective suspension of habeas corpus?

Yeah, THIS is the biggest power grab in 60 years.



Hyperbole is not your friend when it's so easily disproven.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Where exactly in the president's job description does it specify that he/she can demand that a foreign private corporation set up an escrow account?

Following the Valdez disaster and act was written into law requiring corporations to apportion funds for such cleanup efforts. So it seems Obama is not making them do this anyway, just accepting the credit for it.


Let me get this straight:

1. Obama is making an unprecedented power grab.

2. Except that he isn't.

So, you admit that the article in the OP is ridiculous before we're even done with the first page of comments. Do you also retract your other posts?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Let me get this straight:

1. Obama is making an unprecedented power grab.

2. Except that he isn't.

So, you admit that the article in the OP is ridiculous before we're even done with the first page of comments. Do you also retract your other posts?


The escrow account is one aspect of this. This thread features some more detail about the other things going on. I linked it in the OP.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Really? Did you miss the PATRIOT Act? Warrantless wiretapping? Selective suspension of habeas corpus?

Yeah, THIS is the biggest power grab in 60 years.



Hyperbole is not your friend when it's so easily disproven.


Indeed, the Patriot Act was a huge power grab. And it's no so surprising that Obama, Mr. change-you-can-believe-in, signed an extension of it without reforms in February. And presumably, you haven't read any of the health care bill which details an unprecedented amount of government expansion of power. I guss you shouldn't need to as long as invoking George Bush works for you in any argument serving to defend the Obama administration.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
You assume too much my friend, there is the question of morals and ethics.There is no loyality in corporate america to their employees , share holders or even the company. There is no respect or concern to the public safety or health , the enviorment or the wild life.
Jealous of their wealth , again my friend you assume too much, you don't know me, and that argument is sooooo old.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Jealous of their wealth , again my friend you assume too much, you don't know me, and that argument is sooooo old.


I wasn't making that statement to you, it was in response to Outkast Searcher.

But whatever. Okay, corporate...BAD. Fair enough. You'd better watch what's happening in government also.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





This is one of the biggest fear monger pieces I have seen in a long time...."OBAMA IS HITLER AND IS TAKING OVER THE USA WITH HIS CZARS (scary foreign word)".




1. Main Entry: czar Variant(s): also tsar or tzar \ˈzär, ˈ(t)sär\ Function: noun Etymology: New Latin czar, from Russian tsar', from Old Russian tsĭsarĭ, from Gothic kaisar, from Greek or Latin; Greek, from Latin Caesar — more at caesar Date: 1555

1 : emperor; specifically : the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution

2 : one having great power or authority


www.merriam-webster.com...

Czar's in the American political landscape predate Obama by several years, and while we are told these so called "czar's" are more symbolic than actually holding any power, the definition of czar has not changed, and we the people should remain ever vigilant as to the use of such terminology and why it is being used. To dismiss the concern for this word as being merely xenophobic is naive.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Oh , I do watch the government, but many people are looking through rose colored glasses. I can't believe how blind and naive people still are.
House and senate commitee members have investements with the business they are suppose to regulate. Ever heard of a conflict of intrest? Look up the commitees the V.P. sat on before he became the V.P.( Banking for one).Do people have any idea how many ex-drug company employees work for the FDA ? Do people have any idea how many bank executives work for the Treasury Dept. And the Federal Reserve?Do people have any idea how many ex-oil executives work for the environmental protection agency and the bureau of land management?
Any idea how many judges including the supreme court have investments in drug companys, oil companys and military contractors, do you really think they are going to rule against their own investments ?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
House and senate commitee members have investements with the business they are suppose to regulate. Ever heard of a conflict of intrest? Look up the commitees the V.P. sat on before he became the V.P.( Banking for one).Do people have any idea how many ex-drug company employees work for the FDA ? Do people have any idea how many bank executives work for the Treasury Dept. And the Federal Reserve?Do people have any idea how many ex-oil executives work for the environmental protection agency and the bureau of land management?
Any idea how many judges including the supreme court have investments in drug companys, oil companys and military contractors, do you really think they are going to rule against their own investments ?


Indeed, these are abuses of government power. Thanks for listing them. We should do something about this.

Also, we need to watch out for emotionally charged distractions such as 911, the oil spill or the health care debates as excuses to enable government to achieve more power. The Obama administration has been operating in this mode since their first day.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Like so many others you only see the current administration as the problem and threat.When the problem has existed for decades. All presidents have been the scapegoat for the puppet master who rule from behind the curtain. Stop buying into the illusion of a two party system, it doesn't work !



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
what happened to freedom of speech? i guess that doesn't apply to one of our most decorated spec ops guys.....i don't blame him for quitting - i would have thrown my hands in the air and said "oh well, you deal with it..."



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Sorry , I see little difference in the agenda or actions of any POTUS their administrations , congress or Supreme Court in the last 60 years, republican or democrat. Their all puppets and the wealthy pull the strings.


So we should just ignore this one like all the others? That's what a lot of folks seem to insinuate. Even though he is doing the same things he is doing it on steroids?

I hear people constantly claming so what other presidents did the same thing it wasn't/isn't just obama... Well it needs to stop and because others did it and we and or our parents and grand parents did not stop it then is no excuse to let it continue today. Each president seems to escalate it. And yeah they are puppets but they are still the figurehead of tyranny so it is the place to start.

Want to send a message to TPTB? Stop paying to see their puppet show!

[edit on 23-6-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE

Like so many others you only see the current administration as the problem and threat.When the problem has existed for decades.


No, I saw Bush as a threat. Before that, Clinton. Before that, Bush. Before that, Reagan.


All presidents have been the scapegoat for the puppet master who rule from behind the curtain. Stop buying into the illusion of a two party system, it doesn't work !


As a life-long libertarian I've never championed the two party system ever. I'm not sure where you find that your rhetoric applies here. What I see is that we have an unapologetic statist in office who favors power of government and gropes for it whenever possible. It is our duty to scrutinize this administration.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join