I am at a loss of understanding whether i need to provide specific evidence of what our president is doing wrong or not.
Earlier today you put this question for me on the internet.
Later today, you withdrew your question. Kindly, Clarify your stands. Do you still need me to explain to you what i meant, or have you figured it out on your own?
...History WILL repeat itself.
SO, lets analyze the historical economic path that socialist countries have taken and what exactly had led them to economic disaster all over the world.
October 1917, the Russian Revolution began. The very first declaration by the government was to nationalize by declaring ownership of industrial factories, agricultural lands, and small businesses. I believe that the Russian government did this under the assumption that it would be better able to run the economy and businesses including the private sector better than individual businesses, private enterprises, and entrepreneurs. Today, all of the latest actions and decisions made by the white house are clear evidence and indications of the same approach and belief that the Russian government exercised from 1917 to June 1987.
After the revolution, the Russian government seized all news publications and completely silenced the opposition. The country became a one party system, or simply, a dictatorial regime that really wasn't any different from Nazi Germany which started from the same idealistic social democratic ideas. Today in America, the white house has already made attempts to silence talk radio when it attempted to silence conservative host Rush Limbaugh.
Pretty much in every socialist, communist, and fascist country, the opposition was vilified and columniated. They were then called dissidents. Most of them were either sentenced to 25 years to life of hard labor in camps, and many were executed simply for voicing a different opinion. But nevertheless, it started with simple vilification of these people. Today in America, people disagreeing with the white house's policies are called unamerican, angry mobs, tea baggers, brown shirts, nazis, and racists.
I wonder how long it will be before they are being prosecuted?
The first amendment the liberals used to fight for, is already being challenged by no other than liberals themeselves.
Lets not forget June 1989, when hundreds of dissidents, or could we call them tea baggers, were leveled into the pavement by chinese tanks on Tainanmen Square.
Once upon a time, this country used to have a legislative process in which politicians used to represent people to the government. There was an electoral process, where people of this country, had elected these representatives into the senate and the house of congress, and therefore, the people, of this country, had vested power in these representatives.
Today we have 33 czars, never elected, never scrutinized. They can not be questioned by the people, they cannot be questioned by the senate, and they cannot be questioned by the congress. They only answer to the new president of the United States. From this example, we may conclude that slowly but surely, our new president is seizing power!
This process, in an awfully similar manner, has been used in EVERY country known to to us as a country with a dictatorial regime.
In communist China, Mao Zedong created a new movement of civilian security forces, the hunweibins.
In Nazi Germany, we had brownshirts and Hitler youth forces.
In Russia, they started with C.K. later known as NKVD, later the KGB.
-all of these groups were used as civilian security forces or secret police, and were specifically used to control the political views of the population.
Our President mentioned several times that this country needs civilian security forces just as big, as powerful, and as well finded as an american army. considering historical examples of every country under dictatorial regimes in the world today and in the past in which civilian security forces were always used strictly to control political views and subjugate citizens, i cant find an answer as to what use civilian security forces would have in the country by the people and for the people.
Democracy and civilian security forces dont really go together because the second will cancel the first.
all of these countries driven by noble ideas, politicized education in schools. And students had to pledge to be loyal servants of the leading party and the leader. Wasnt that quite literally the same the part removed from President Obama's address to the students recently. The white house made a request to the board of education to impliment a "suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama...For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare and ask as questions for students to prepare such as 'How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?'" Obama went so far as to request that a pledge of service to him to be made by all students. Later, the white house removed this request because of critics responces.
We can go on and on, the amount of evidence indicating the shift from democracy to dictatorship is overwhelming.
Its a convenient game of obfuscation when true intentions are hidden behind beautiful words, ideas, and ostensibly philanthropic intentions.
But in the end, its ALWAYS a dictatorship, no matter what you call it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Bailouts, loans to banks, and other drastic actions taken by the Obama administration in response to the economic crisis were actions taken to preserve capitalism in this country, not eliminate it. The institutions that were bailed out were too big to fail, and had the government let them fail it would have been a disaster for the economy. The Obama admin. has been fairly evenly praised on its response to the recession, and while unemployment is still high and consumer spending still low, many economists agree that we are in the midst of a recovery.
“They were then called dissidents. Most of them were either sentenced to 25 years to life of hard labor in camps, and many were executed simply for voicing a different opinion. But nevertheless, it started with simple vilification of these people. Today in America, people disagreeing with the white house's policies are called unamerican, angry mobs, tea baggers, brown shirts, nazis, and racists.
There was opposition to Bush as well, and those people were vilified by the right, called hippies, radical leftists, etc.
“I wonder how long it will be before they are being prosecuted?
The first amendment the liberals used to fight for, is already being challenged by no other than liberals themeselves.”
No one is challenging the first amendment. That is paranoia.
“Today we have 33 czars, never elected, never scrutinized... From this example, we may conclude that slowly but surely, our new president is seizing power!”
They are policy advisors, they don’t have power like cabinet secretaries do. I don’t understand the hysteria over the “czars.” Reagan had czars, as did H.W. Bush.
As to your claims of Obama creating a civilian national security force to silence opposition, here’s factcheck.org. Remember them? They were the people behind UnSpun.
Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?
“This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.”
Source
There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama changed his speech to schoolchildren at all in response to critics. If you review the text of the speech here , there was nothing political or controversial about it, it was motivational, and had a “stay in school” message.
These are all conspiracy theories that are not backed up by the facts. I think you’ve been watching too much Glenn Beck, bro.
Obama doesn't plan to slam down on private insurance companies and replace them with a government-run system.
A communist would put down businesses and replace them with government agencies.
To say that we're going to end up like the USSR, the third reich, or China is quite inaccurate. We're going to end up more like Canada in terms of health care.
I'm surprised no one brings up this comparison for education. When the government started compulsory education and the public school system, did they put private schools out of business? Did that turn the US into a socialist country?
Oh come on, don't treat Obama as if he was the first to silence critics. Silencing critics happened as early as the second presidency under the constitution. Do you remember the Aliens and Seditions Act?
That censorship was far more extreme that what Obama is trying to do. Under the act, one would be put in jail or deported for speaking out against the government.
On a similar note, Bush unsettled people when he wiretapped into their conversations.
Even though there have been attempts to subvert the first amendment, they never succeeded in turning this country into a dictatorship, did they? Obama's attempts to silence critics is a drop in a bucket compared to what happened in the past.
"Today we have 33 czars, never elected, never scrutinized."
I really hope you aren't talking about the presidents in that comment.
"Today in America, people disagreeing with the white house's policies are called unamerican, angry mobs, tea baggers, brown shirts, nazis, and racists."
This is quite true with most presidencies, not just Obama's.
I wouldn't say that people who oppose Obama will be persecuted. There's an uproar over health care, and half the country seems to be in open revolt over it. It would be completely, politically suicidal for Obama to persecute such a large portion of the country. He wouldn't want to have that stain on the honor of being first black president.
"The white house made a request to the board of education to impliment a "suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama."
This also includes criticisms. Those kids are at the liberty tell the president that what he is doing is wrong, and how he should really be running the presidency. If the kids were well versed in politics, they can easily insert conservative opinions if they wished. They are limited to just supporting what Obama is currently doing.
"'How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?'"
You know what a conservative can say? "Obama's follies in reforming health care inspired us not to do the same thing again. He challenged us, conservatives, by making us face both a Democrat-controlled congress and a democrat-controlled white house."
The conservatives are limiting their own potential answers to those questions by thinking that Obama is trying to indoctrinate the kids.
Before:
"We can go on and on, the amount of evidence indicating the shift from democracy to dictatorship is overwhelming."
Fixed:
"We can go on and on, the amount of evidence indicating the shift from democracy to dictatorship is not absolutely conclusive."
Overall, you are scrutinizing every nooks and crannies of Obama's administration for evidence of a totalitarian conspiracy, inquisitor-witch hunter, Sukhovitsky.
"They are limited to just supporting what Obama is currently doing. "
Correction:
They are NOT limited to just supporting what Obama is currently doing.
"Those kids are at the liberty..."
Correction:
Those kids are at the liberty TO..."
"suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama 'How will he inspire us? " Personally, I see nothing wrong with allowing kids to pursue what they want to be when they grow up. If President Obama is an inspiration in that he achieved what people originally never though possible, then by all means let children be inspired. In fact a direct speech from the president addressing the youth shows that hes actually taking us into account.
Also, as partial to the media as I already am, I don't believe that everything stated in the news are in fact true and could be tampered with.
As for school kids writing about how they can "help the president", allowing kids to become involved with the affairs of what these children will eventually have to deal with is a good thing! Sure this statement could be taken as a commercial way to get these kids to support the president. I don't believe that Obama has no done anything that has benefited him for that matter. Most of what he proposes is to help those in need. Honestly, I think that the conservatives were just going over the top.
I agree with Jack & Kevin on the whole matter of a dictatorship vs our society now.
Post a Comment