Is Obama Introducing National Socialism to the United States?

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
I fully support the idea of national health care, its less expensive and more efficent than what we have now if operated properly. I would rather see some degree of socialism then a feudal society controlled by the rich which is where we seem to be heading. What I want to see is a larger middle class in the USA.
Joe Biden says the middle class has been buried for the last 4 years (during Obama's reign).
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Not that Obama is a favorite of mine,

But mindless and contrived arguments to slander has always got my goat and my back up.

One should attack with concrete examples and compare with the politics of those who attack, rather than lambaste on generalised mish mash!
Sir, I must live with Obama, you don't. Whatever it takes to get rid of him.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Sensationalist crap. No presidential executive order will fly until everyone's on board. The Romney campaign is doing its best shooting themselves in the foot. Obama is winning this election on the back of republicans stupidity. He does not even need to try.
You must not understand what an. E.O. is.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Obama's 'Writ' Unleashed War Criminals | CNSNews.com
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they made it clear that the only time the president would have the authority to use military force without prior authorization from Congress was when, as James Madison recorded in his notes from the Constitutional Convention, it was necessary to "repel sudden attacks."

It was thus fittingly symbolic that when Barack Obama announced he had ordered the U.S. military to intervene in Libya's civil war, he did not do so from the Oval Office or the well of the U.S. House of Representatives, but from the capital city of Brazil.

In that speech, delivered March 19, 2011, Obama repeatedly used the first-person pronoun, I, in explaining who had decided America would intervene in Libya.

"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," Obama said.

"I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice, and it's not a choice that I make lightly," said Obama.

On what authority had I, Barack Obama, taken America into war?

"In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people," Obama said from Brazil.

"Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced," he said. "That is the cause of this coalition."

The U.N. Security Council's permanent members include not only the United States, France and Great Britain, but also Russia and the People's Republic of China, which, according to Obama's State Department, is still governed by communists. In 2011, the Security Council also included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Columbia and Gabon, Nigeria and Lebanon, Portugal and South Africa, and the government of Brazil, which hosted Obama's war announcement.

Obama's case was plain: The governments of these nations — not the constitutionally elected representatives of the American people — had given him authority to decide whether America would go to war in Libya, and he had decided America would go to war in Libya.

In a speech delivered from the White House a day before his speech from Brazil, Obama spoke of Libya's revolutionaries as if they shared the perspective of America's Founding Fathers.

"Last month, protesters took to the streets across the country to demand their universal rights and a government that is accountable to them and responsive to their aspirations," he said.

But what did Obama know about the revolutionary forces in Libya, the so-called "thuwar," before he ordered the U.S. military to take up their cause? What sort of prudential analysis had he done about the potential aftermath of this intervention? What consideration had he given to who would restore order and security in Libya and how they would do it? Why did he believe a truly representative government in Libya was likely, let alone possible?

Obama was either so mindlessly confident in Libya's post-intervention outcome or so worried about the potential political costs of putting "boots on the ground" that he vowed from the start that no U.S. ground forces would ever be needed or deployed there.

Thus, I, Barack Obama, made another proclamation. "I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing," he said in his March 18, 2011 speech from the White House. "The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya."

"As I said yesterday," he repeated in Brazil, "we will not — I repeat — we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground."

Thanks to the same United Nations whose "writ" Obama said he was defending in Libya, we now know that the revolutionary forces in Libya started committing war crimes even before Obama ordered the U.S. military to intervene on their behalf.

On March 2, the U.N. International Commission of Inquiry on Libya published its report on human rights violations there. "The Commission received reports of executions by the thuwar," said the report. "Over a dozen Qadhafi soldiers were reportedly shot in the back of the head by thuwar around 22-23 February 2011 in a village between Al Bayda and Darnah."

According to the U.N., the crimes of the revolutionaries mounted during the revolution and continued after it was over.

"The Commission has also concluded that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by thuwar and that breaches of international human rights law continue to occur in a climate of impunity," said the U.N. report. "The Commission found acts of extra-judicial executions, torture, enforced disappearance, indiscriminate attacks and pillage.

"No investigations," said the U.N. report, "have been carried out into any violations committed by the thuwar."

Had Obama followed the U.S. Constitution and sought congressional authorization for his use of force in Libya, the members of Congress who voted for such an authorization would have shared the responsibility for what that intervention helped bring about.

As it is, the responsibility for exceeding his constitutional authority and intervening in a civil war he did not understand lies solely and deservedly with Obama himself.
 
Last edited:

blank_quest

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Messages
2,119
Likes
926
Country flag
Read Trade and Development Report 2012.UNCTAD. It says since last 4 years there is a fall of 4% employment rate in America. The dark side is that people have flawed the keynesian economics.They are not spending even after getting bailouts and loans. They are increasing the savings. so GDP will fall further..
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
48,599
Country flag
I fully support the idea of national health care, its less expensive and more efficent than what we have now if operated properly. I would rather see some degree of socialism then a feudal society controlled by the rich which is where we seem to be heading. What I want to see is a larger middle class in the USA.
The middle class has been cut in half by the double whammy of the stock market
and the real estate collapse. As Romney said 47% of the people do not matter
because they do not pay taxes with a number like that the middle class has been
cut in half.
 

devil510

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
78
Likes
13
I fully support the idea of national health care, its less expensive and more efficent than what we have now if operated properly. I would rather see some degree of socialism then a feudal society controlled by the rich which is where we seem to be heading. What I want to see is a larger middle class in the USA.
on name of healthcare hide all your problems annd mistakes for next million years i don't think that topic is going away soon old voters can't think of future but past and present
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,526
Likes
6,586
Country flag
Obama is heading the same way that countries like India have. Only Americans are more efficient and will be able to manifest it fully. It'll result in things like highly regulated economy, more circumvention of the legislative bodies through executive orders, imposition of laws which snatch or gnaw away civil liberties of people, robbing from the middle class and giving it to the undeserving poor who are too lazy to work etc. Obama will usher in the new Socialist America, pretty much along the lines of Socialist India.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Obama is heading the same way that countries like India have. Only Americans are more efficient and will be able to manifest it fully. It'll result in things like highly regulated economy, more circumvention of the legislative bodies through executive orders, imposition of laws which snatch or gnaw away civil liberties of people, robbing from the middle class and giving it to the undeserving poor who are too lazy to work etc. Obama will usher in the new Socialist America, pretty much along the lines of Socialist India.

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts
The latest executive order (EO) emanating from the White House October 9 now claims the power to freeze all bank accounts and stop any related financial transactions that a "sanctioned person" may own or try to perform — all in the name of "Iran Sanctions."

Titled an "Executive Order from the President regarding Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions"¦" the order says that if an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a "sanctioned person," he (or she) will be unable to obtain access to his accounts, will be unable to process any loans (or make them), or move them to any other financial institution inside or outside the United States. In other words, his financial resources will have successfully been completely frozen. The EO expands its authority by making him unable to use any third party such as "a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, subgroup or other organization" that might wish to help him or allow him to obtain access to his funds.

And if the individual so "sanctioned" decides that the ruling is unfair, he isn't allowed to sue. In two words, the individual has successfully been robbed blind.

But it's all very legal. The EO says the president has his "vested authority" to issue it, and then references endless previous EOs, including one dating back to 1995 which declared a "state of emergency" (which hasn't been lifted): Executive Order 12957.

EO 12957 was issued by President Bill Clinton on March 15, 1995, which was also obliquely related to the Iran "problem":

I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of the Government of Iran to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Clinton's EO further delegated such powers as were necessary to enforce the EO to the secretaries of the treasury and state "to employ all powers "¦ as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government."

Such EOs are the perfect embodiment of what the Founders feared the most: the combining of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions into one body. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says: "All legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." As Thomas Eddlem, writing for The New American, expressed it, "then it stands to reason [that] none is left for the president."
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top