So, I'm reading the news on MSNBC.com. I see an article in their Political section entitled: Congressmen: Obama wants Gestapo-like force. I'm intrigued. I mean, I don't talk about who I voted for and I tend to try to look at both sides of an issue before I jump the gun. Try to, at least. I'll post some of my old blogs from MySpace here about my opinions on the elections a little later (you can also find them at myspace.com/selenameeka).
Onto the article! I'm reading it, giggling because these things are funny. It doesn't matter what side you're on, when someone makes a claim like this it's usually just someone really upset and wants to mudsling. Anyway, the Congressman, Republican Paul Broun from Georgia, claims that Obama "will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship." (according to the MSNBC.com article) Apparently, Congressman Broun was citing some speech Obama made in July referencing an idea from the Bush Administration calling for a "civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure."
The article sites a small sentence from the speech:
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Broun believes that if Obama has this "civilian national security" enacted that they will answer only to him, he'll ban gun laws, and it'll turn out like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.
Really? Seriously? Doesn't the military answer only to him? The office of the President is our Commander-in-Chief. According to the Constitution: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...Now, he cannot declare war or make treaties without the Senate, but he still controls the military. His word is final when it comes to what happens during war.
Also, ban gun laws? It's against the Constitution. Now, I'm not saying he won't. Lord knows that some people are stupid enough to vote "yes" or "no" to a law just because their party endorses or rejects it without the person actually reading the notion and deciding for themselves what will actually help the nation. But, so far Obama has been more for banning the stupidity that comes with everyone and their mother having guns than banning the law. To quote an interview from the 2008 PA primary in April, Obama said:
"I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets."
He also stated that:
"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."
Now, any logical-minded person would agree at least in partial terms with his statements. Who, in their right mind, would want a paranoid schizophrenic who has anger problems and a history of violence (not that they all do, but a very small percent have the capability--though this is another issue) to be able to buy and own a gun? Any Psychologist, any Police Officer, any Public Defender can see the potential harm this situation can do. One wrong thought mixed with a bad day and a lack of proper medical care (or lack of taking pills) and BOOM. A media event of the century happens.
And, Congressman Broun's last thought: We will end up like Nazi Germany or whathaveyou. Honestly. If the Bush Administration endorses (and came up with the idea of) a "civilian national security" unit, and also endorses the "Patriot Act" and President Bush himself feels that he need not let Congress know when the FBI abuses it (he signed the bill into law and added an amendment to the law himself that stated he didn't feel obligated to inform Congress if the FBI overstepped their bounds-according to an article in the Boston Globe called "Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement"), as well as trying to appeal a ruling by the federal court in Oregon which banned the central core of the Patriot Act by stating it gave too much power to the government when it came to them snooping into our private lives (according to Wired Blog Network's article "Bush Administration Appeals Patriot Act Ruling") then doesn't it seem more like Bush is trying to do it (or was, as he only has a few more months left in his second term)?
It seems to me like this Congressman from Georgia is a bit scared in having a Democrat in office with a Democratic cabinet. I mean, I love how he related Obama to Karl Marx's views by saying: "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
And then by saying "We can't be lulled into complacency. You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."
Right, your not comparing him to Hitler, your comparing him to Stalin. If you are reading this, then mentally see me rolling my eyes.
We don't know yet how good or bad of a President Obama will be. We cannot make a final judgement on him yet until he has served at least part of his term in office. All we know is where Obama came from and where we've come with Bush. The people of the United States of America voted Obama in with the belief that he represents change. If he ends up sucking, well just don't vote him in for a second term. Or revolt. We have that option too, thanks to the Constitution.
Remember, the president's ultimate job is to protect our rights and freedoms. It's in his oath when he swears into office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If he breaks the oath, well..........that's like a breach of contract. So, figure out yourself what we can do.
Disclaimer: I am NOT slamming Republicans, Democrats, or any other political party. I do NOT write my opinions to endorse one party over another. I simply enjoy pointing out stupidity in politics and politicians, media figure heads, and anyone else who says or does something that's really...well...stupid. That's all.
I DO endorse free speech, free thinking, and encourage people to know both sides of an issue before they react. No matter what your political affiliation is, it's important to shun those who simply seek to cause waves by mudslinging. That's free speech that's not worth listening to!
Broun believes that if Obama has this "civilian national security" enacted that they will answer only to him, he'll ban gun laws, and it'll turn out like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.
Really? Seriously? Doesn't the military answer only to him? The office of the President is our Commander-in-Chief. According to the Constitution: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...Now, he cannot declare war or make treaties without the Senate, but he still controls the military. His word is final when it comes to what happens during war.
Also, ban gun laws? It's against the Constitution. Now, I'm not saying he won't. Lord knows that some people are stupid enough to vote "yes" or "no" to a law just because their party endorses or rejects it without the person actually reading the notion and deciding for themselves what will actually help the nation. But, so far Obama has been more for banning the stupidity that comes with everyone and their mother having guns than banning the law. To quote an interview from the 2008 PA primary in April, Obama said:
"I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets."
He also stated that:
"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."
Now, any logical-minded person would agree at least in partial terms with his statements. Who, in their right mind, would want a paranoid schizophrenic who has anger problems and a history of violence (not that they all do, but a very small percent have the capability--though this is another issue) to be able to buy and own a gun? Any Psychologist, any Police Officer, any Public Defender can see the potential harm this situation can do. One wrong thought mixed with a bad day and a lack of proper medical care (or lack of taking pills) and BOOM. A media event of the century happens.
And, Congressman Broun's last thought: We will end up like Nazi Germany or whathaveyou. Honestly. If the Bush Administration endorses (and came up with the idea of) a "civilian national security" unit, and also endorses the "Patriot Act" and President Bush himself feels that he need not let Congress know when the FBI abuses it (he signed the bill into law and added an amendment to the law himself that stated he didn't feel obligated to inform Congress if the FBI overstepped their bounds-according to an article in the Boston Globe called "Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement"), as well as trying to appeal a ruling by the federal court in Oregon which banned the central core of the Patriot Act by stating it gave too much power to the government when it came to them snooping into our private lives (according to Wired Blog Network's article "Bush Administration Appeals Patriot Act Ruling") then doesn't it seem more like Bush is trying to do it (or was, as he only has a few more months left in his second term)?
It seems to me like this Congressman from Georgia is a bit scared in having a Democrat in office with a Democratic cabinet. I mean, I love how he related Obama to Karl Marx's views by saying: "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
And then by saying "We can't be lulled into complacency. You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."
Right, your not comparing him to Hitler, your comparing him to Stalin. If you are reading this, then mentally see me rolling my eyes.
We don't know yet how good or bad of a President Obama will be. We cannot make a final judgement on him yet until he has served at least part of his term in office. All we know is where Obama came from and where we've come with Bush. The people of the United States of America voted Obama in with the belief that he represents change. If he ends up sucking, well just don't vote him in for a second term. Or revolt. We have that option too, thanks to the Constitution.
Remember, the president's ultimate job is to protect our rights and freedoms. It's in his oath when he swears into office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If he breaks the oath, well..........that's like a breach of contract. So, figure out yourself what we can do.
Disclaimer: I am NOT slamming Republicans, Democrats, or any other political party. I do NOT write my opinions to endorse one party over another. I simply enjoy pointing out stupidity in politics and politicians, media figure heads, and anyone else who says or does something that's really...well...stupid. That's all.
I DO endorse free speech, free thinking, and encourage people to know both sides of an issue before they react. No matter what your political affiliation is, it's important to shun those who simply seek to cause waves by mudslinging. That's free speech that's not worth listening to!
No comments:
Post a Comment