John Podesta, one of Barack Obama's key 2008 campaign advisers, has laid the "D" card on the table.No, not "depression". We've already got that.
I'm talking about a de facto "dictatorship". Bypassing the will of the people -- as if that hasn't happened enough in the last two years -- through a set of unconstitutional Czars and the administrative state.
And armed force, if necessary, according to Podesta.
Oh, Doug -- that's so controversial.
Fine. If it's not a dictatorship, please tell me what you would call the form of government that Podesta calls for?
Because it's certainly not a representative republic nor Constitutional in any way.
The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy... The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through these powers [including executive orders and armed forces] should not be underestimated [in] continuing to make progress.
In March of 2009, at the dedication ceremony of the National Defense University's Abraham Lincoln Hall, President Obama expressed his need for a civilian national security force (MP3, 74:00 mark; DOD press release, transcript):
America must balance and integrate all elements of our national power. We can not continue to push the burden onto our military alone, or leave dormant any aspect of the arsenal of American capability. That's why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power and developing our civilian national security capabilities.
"Our civilian national security capabilities?"
In July of 2008, Jim Lindren noted a couple of peculiar sentences in a Barack Obama speech.In Barack Obama’s July 2, 2008 speech calling America to national service, Obama proposed “a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military... This has prompted some in the blogosphere to raise the specter of a huge new domestic paramilitary organization...
[Obama said] "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Curiously, the official transcript of the speech omitted those last two sentences.
After the last two years, can there be any real doubt as to what Obama meant?
And what
The Left used to enjoy calling Bush a fascist, but the closest thing we've ever had to a dictator -- from the iconography to the vicious language to the unconstitutional power-grabs -- is Barack Obama.
Hat tips: The Blaze and Gateway Pundit.
It's like every fevered nightmare I've ever had about our country is being made into reality by the Obama administration.
ReplyDeleteDo you think there is anyone in our elected officials with the guts to call him out on any of his multiple acts of betrayal against the United States and get him out of office? Like NOW? I'm not talking about impeachment, Obama has committed crimes against America and needs to be made to answer for treason.
I wonder if Podesta is playing a game here to elicit a strong reaction from the right.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Podesta's call for the "Armed Forces" look at pages 10-11 of the source PDF:
- “Generate solar energy on U.S. Air Force hangar roofs”
- “Enlist the participation of the Department of Energy in a joint “clean energy task force” with the Department of Defense to build successful models”
And a few more green-energy examples.
Is it possible Podesta/CAP deliberately planned for this to be mis-characterized with provocative headlines? To evoke a specific response from the right? Interesting tactic to give a semi-nefarious impression in the intro & summary and then have an innocuous explanation in the body of text. Even the “Foreign policy and national security actions” aren’t too provocative.
I say, proceed with caution. I don't want to fall for his trap.
Keep the powder dry ... poke poke poke. They need a reaction from the right to put down. Remember Clinton chased the militia all over the TV.
ReplyDeleteIf you look back to FDR, he used the union riots and violence to get his real damage done.
It's safe to assume, armed people don't do dictatorship ... arms brings boldness to the mind, courage to the soul, question with boldness.
Non-violence is the answer.
Not all violence is physical.
ReplyDeleteThe Left has been doing violence to America for decades now. And like an individual in an abused relationship, she keeps coming back for more hoping he will finally "change" if she "improves herself".