The chubby ignorant Obama kids at the end may look ridiculous-- they likely wouldn't survive any training with the military --and the initial recruitment for Obama's private army will only be 6,000, but this is just the beginning. Who can say how large this 'force' will grow in 10 years? Why does Obama feel the need for a private presidential army? Especially one that the constitution does not allow the executive branch to possess.
Was Limbaugh right in calling this president's administration a 'Regime'? Akin perhaps to that of Idi Amin Dada?
[ What follows is hyperbole but it has to be asked: What will this armed private army be authorized to do to citizens who do not want to sign up for healthcare? Will they be 'necklaced' like the ANC did against apartheid traitors? Like Winnie Mandela was proudly quoted as stating, in support of this cruel and barbaric form of killing, "with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country." ]
Creepier still is the vid at the end of Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore chanting I pledge to be a servant to our president...
It is this American's belief that fascism is a growing menace in our government, and only a strong showing on November 2nd can hope to push back the tide. The election this fall is the most important election in my lifetime.
Do we want Obama to have a private army, for whatever purpose? For that matter, do we want ANY president in possession of a private army? Watch the video and judge for yourself. You will anyway.
UPDATE: April 9, 9:15am
Questions of 'wtf?' and readings from the bill in the comment section prompts me to again ask, 'why does Obama need a private army?'
Now, let me clarify that. We've been treated to links and explanations from a few commenters with honest objections to my characterization of this 6,000 member 'Health Force' provision which was slid into the healthcare bill, which is now law.
For all that I respect Geoff and Jim's objections, I don't believe they view this the same way many in Washington are beginning to question this. Geoffrey's smart, but I think when it comes to constitutionality and understanding legalese, the Judge has a much better grasp of the intricacies of this language. If he sees it as dangerously vague, with suspect constitutionality, I'll defer to his opinion until his opinion is proven to be balderdash rolled up into folderol.
Here's another clip of Judge Napolitano with Sheppard Smith (a Liberal, I might add) discussing the problems with this provision in the new healthcare law...
If it turns out that is an innocent attempt by the Left and Obama to provide for additional healthcare "troops" in times of epidemiological crises, all well and good. But Napolitano raises some serious concerns... is it constitutional, and why train them with the military? Why this provision when the government can hire any amount of doctors it needs at any time?
Why should we think this will do any good when it took FEMA, what, 5 days to get water into New Orleans? What makes anyone think Obama's guys will perform any better than any other government agency in times of crisis? It's not about who's in charge, it's about the efficiency of government... which is a different topic altogether.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
21 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
God forbid we should ever get hit by a biological warfare attack, an outbreak of cholera requiring a large number of trained medical personnel capable of deploying in rapid order.
ReplyDeleteImagine being prepared for something that is foreseeable.
I'll tell you what I think. It has to do with the tea party movement and a concerted effort to silence the American people.
ReplyDeleteHistory repeats itself.
Remember the original tea party? Remember where it took place?
Shortly thereafter the spark ignited that launched America's war of independence, didn't it? The Boston massacre. Where did that take place?
Here's what I think:
Obama is attempting to organize his own SS unit, designed to put the rebellion down before it starts.
And, as in Boston, if his soldiers fire on tea partiers, America may easily be plunged into the 2nd American revolution.
Don't think it can't happen.
Unless I'm mistaken, and unless the language is ameliorated, why does Obama's private army need guns?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it only takes an executive order, or a convenient crisis for this private army's orientation toward 'healthcare' to change to something more troubling.
For my money, Obama, has ceased any pretense of being a mainstream American. He is a radical, and his only focus is on tearing down the house so he can reshape the foundation. His father was a radical, his mother was a radical, as were her parents. His friend/mentor in Hawaii was a radical and communist. When he went to college he deliberately sought out Marxist professors and radicalized, disaffected youths. When he "became" a Christian, he joined the very radical church of Jeremiah Wright. He taught Alinsky while a professor at a Chicago law school. When he ran for office he joined another radical Bill Ayers at his home for a fundraiser. He's worked with radicals (including Ayers). And our radical leftist media deliberately whitewashed (no pun intended) his past because no man, no matter the color of his skin, would have survived the primaries were his TRUE radical foundations revealed to the American public.
For better or worse he is our president. But 'because he is president' is not excuse enough to accept whatever he does as acceptable for America. The Left did not blindly accept everything Bush did. In fact, Pelosi said it was the highest form of patriotism to disagree with... protest against... the president.
We, as conservatives and constitutionalists, adopt this same philosophy. Barack Hussein Obama may be president, but his policies are dangerous to America corporately, and Americans individually. His intent is to destroy so that he may rebuild America in a different image... a reflection of his own radical upbringing.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteAs the judge indicated, we already have health providers ready to deal with disasters. To have an "army" of any kind directly under the president is unconscionable and totally outside his perogative.
Far better ideas for preparing for the type of attacks you suggested would include the following:
--Shit-can this bill so that those considering a career in the medical field don't second guess their choice.
--Attack the actual causes of the rise in health care costs so that our system can accomodate more people and doctors aren't overburdened with red tape and unnecessary procedures taken to prevent malpractice suits when things go south.
--Say "April Fools!" regarding this stupid talk about when we will or won't use nukes, and the equally stupid talk about reducing our arms and reducing our research into developing newer and more sophisticated arms.
--Reverse the pathetic habit of insulting our friends in favor of butt-kissing our enemies.
--Re-instate the "Bring it on!" attitude real leaders have always held, a tradition proudly held and maintained by G W Bush.
Anyone who thinks the prez having a domestic army is a good idea has no idea of what this country is all about or what it was meant to be. Such people aren't fit to be Americans and need to go back to History class.
To have an "army" of any kind directly under the president is unconscionable and totally outside his perogative.
ReplyDeleteMarshall, what an idiotic, ignorant statement!
Article 2, Section 2 US 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
Why does he need any other kind of mysterious army? This is simply mind-numbing idiocy.
And you honestly think that is the same as what he's calling for now? (I've got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.) What need is there for any second force? We've already got cops on local, county and state levels. We've already got military on federal and state levels. We've already got cops on the federal level. I think we're covered. You're just a chump for Obama and will go along with anything he puts forth.
ReplyDeleteHere's why he needs (wants) an army: The US Military is barred from being deployed on US soil for the purpose of law enforcement... unless martial law is declared.
ReplyDeleteAs I said from the outset, the healthcare bill only establishes a 6,000 man force ostensibly to "enforce" healthcare. Again I ask, why? Tyrannies have begun with far fewer forces than this. And anyone who thinks the focus or scope of this force cannot or will not change, is an idiot-- well, perhaps that's a bit harsh... they're uneducated ignoramuses.
And the time may well come when his "Citizen Army" may fire upon a group of protesters, such as those attending a tea party event, or other similar gathering.
ReplyDeleteAnd that, as I said, could very well be the spark that ignites a second American revolution.
Obama's type of soft tyranny is the very thing which created the revolutionary movement in the 1700's.
If we want to avoid a civil war, we'd better vote these traitors out of office in November, 2010 and 2012.
Otherwise, conjecture can easily become reality.
This is utter LUNACY. You fear that Obama will somehow deploy a force of 6,000 medical personnel to do what? Come get your guns and bibles? Force you to get vaccinated?
ReplyDeleteYou think he's going to do that but he wouldn't use the US Military if he wanted because some parts of the constitution he'll abide by but not others?
ostensibly to "enforce" healthcare
A force of 6,000 medical personnel. That works out to 300 per state. Yep, they're going to take over the country and make you go to the doctor.
Napolitano is creating unnecessary paranoia for people easily made paranoid, like yourselves. Here he is with Shep Smith who asks some sane questions and points out why the corps might really be a good thing before remembering he's on FOX and needs keep letting "the judge" terrify you.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Why I should always use a calculator: 120 corpsmen per state. Even more to the point.
ReplyDeleteIs that "Core" men or "Corpse" men?
ReplyDeleteHere is the relevant section of the law, and I quote:
ReplyDeleteA Ready Reserve Corps within the Commissioned Corps is established for service in times of national emergency. Ready Reserve Corps members may be called to active duty may be called to respond to national emergencies and public health crises and to fill critical public health positions left vacant by members of the Regular Corps who have been called to duty elsewhere.
This is all it says. I have no idea what any of the rest of it is about.
Check this out. It's a pretty reasoned analysis by someone who is suspicious of the President.
ReplyDeleteIt is a reasoned analysis, Jim. But because it is 'reasoned' it by no means establishes it as authoritative. It's not that I believe Kevin Hayden to be wrong, I'm just not willing to accept his take simply because he's got a nifty website and, by all appearances, seems to agree with my ideological bent. How skilled is he in legalese? So, in response (and not as a tit for tat) I've updated the post with new questions and video.
ReplyDeleteThis ready reserve corps is merely an extension of things that already exist only this one is geared specifically at preparedness for large scale medical emergencies.
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't you train with the military to prepare for operations in severe physical and civil conditions like earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.? Who should they train with? The AMA?
Where does it say anything about carrying side arms in the legislation? And if they were deployed to an area of chaos, like say Haiti, shouldn't they?
I'm not giving Kevin any credit one way or another for his expertise. I'm simply saying he is an Obama skeptic who is not taking Napolitano's shit stirring at face value.
Napolitano is now not a judge; he's an entertainer just like Beck. He's on Fox because he can stir up paranoia and they can call him "judge" to give him some credibility.
Shep Smith is a liberal? OMG!
So questions of constitutionality don't bother you?
ReplyDeleteOf course they do like habeas corpus and 4th Amendment questions in the last administration.
ReplyDeleteI just don't see any clear constitutional issues here. Nobody has brought up constitutional "questions" about the current ready reserve corps or the Merchant Marine which is basically a ready reserve corps.
What the judge is attempting to do here is create constitutional "questions" where there really aren't any. A lot of legislation is written in such a way that it doesn't address every possibility or every fantasy dreamed up by a "judge" Napolitano. That doesn't make the legislation unconstitutional. Hell, there's a lot in the Constitution that is vague, and purposely so, some scholars would say.
On the other hand if someone used the vagueness to accomplish something that was unconstitutional, then there are judicial means by which THAT REAL question can be addressed and answered.
Napolitano the entertainer has taken something really quite innocuous and logical and fantasized to the extreme because he wants to entertain and stir up paranoia among people with a need to be entertained and a propensity to be paranoid.
He needs an army because the Confederacy is never quite dead.
ReplyDeleteDespite the obvious snark, I like your answer Feodor.
ReplyDeleteWhat's snarky about it? The Governor of Virginia proclaimed April as Confederate History month in the state... without one remark about the abhorrent side of Confederate arguments that ought to - and in a moral approach surely does - contextualize any act of raising to view Confederate history.
ReplyDeleteThis is deeply disturbing for the sheer moral blindness to history and to the present on the part of a state executive.
For reasons of the danger of moral blindness, all of Western Europe has standing legislation regarding anti-Semitism and Nazi history.
What's snarky about it?
Well, without the context of your most recent comment, your previous one sentence statement sounded snarky.
ReplyDelete