As you may recall, I predicted the stock market would tank big time even after the election, if Senator Obama were to be elected.
As you can see, it has been tanking almost constantly, having lost more than 16% of the market's entire value just since the election.
To put this in perspective, this is the first time ever in the history of the stock market (about 200 years) that it went down after a presidential election. An election - regardless of who wins - usually creates an upsurge, as investors determine and can guess the likely future, now that they know who will lead.
Apparently, that is not the case this time. No one - particularly investors - know, or can predict what Obama and a Democrat congress might do. The people are worried about that. And investors do not invest when they have no way of predicting the possible future. They are investors, not mindless gamblers.
And so the economy follows suit, and continues to tank.
Just remember - you heard it here first - as far back as last summer, when this blog predicted this.
We also predicted Obama would fill positions with left-wing partisans and Washington Insiders, instead of the "change" he promised. To date, 75% of his appointments are Clintonites, Washington insiders and Chicago politicians. So much for "change". The only change seems to be back to old worn-out retreads of the 90's.
Now for the bad news - we predicted a McCain win would result in a hard, but not-so-long recession, but an Obama win would predicate a destructive depression.
This is one time I hope I am wrong...but don't bank on it!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The REAL Reason McCain Lost
Many wonder how a war hero with a sound record of "working across the aisle" lost so handily and completely to an unknown with no record, and very suspicious radical ties.
Some say it was because of the economy. Some, because he belonged to the same party as Bush. And some say it was because America has taken an abrupt left turn.
All of them are wrong.
Of course, the economy and the Bush legacy damaged McCain, and would have damaged any Republican to some degree. But McCain allowed those things to hurt him far more than was necessary. And America, by all polls, is still right of center. So, just why DID McCain lose so badly?
He lost because he betrayed the conservative base that is the strength of the GOP. He tried so hard to encompass moderates, and the so-called "Reagan Democrats" that he lost the support of many Republicans.
I have heard from thousands of Republicans who chose not to vote for McCain because they were still angry that he tried so hard - and sneakily - to betray conservative values concerning immigration. And throughout the campaign, they waited with baited breath to hear him say, "I was wrong - that was not the answer." But he never did recant his position.
And they waited, and hoped he would finally admit that his "McCain-Feingold" bill was a huge mistake. But in spite of being handicapped because of it, he stood by it.
And they waited for McCain to get angry about the debacle in the financial sector. They waited to hear him say he would find the responsible parties and hold them accountable - jail, not bail. But he remained silent, and even contributed to passing the hated bail-out bill.
Well, Senator McCain, if you kick your supporters often enough just to try and win a few "moderate" votes that there is little chance of winning, you will lose. And you did lose. You lost the country for the same reason you lost Pennsylvania - you invested too much into trying to win votes that you just could not win. By courting moderate Democrats, you lost Republicans - and still did not get the Democrats. You tried to win 50,000 Pennsylvania Democrats - and it cost you 50,000 Republicans, and you still did not get those Democrats. So, you lost.
And so did many other so-called Republicans who also lost their way. And the GOP will continue to lose until they wake up, and return to their roots, because that is where their stength is.
The GOP has to remember one simple tenet of business - you trade nickles for dimes, not vice versa. If you are going to dump 50,000 Republican votes, you had damned well better be certain you are getting more than that from the other side. And in politics, that simply is not possible.
As of now, there are precious few Republicans capable of rebuilding the party - Palin, Steele, Gingrich, Jundal, DeMint. That's about it.
And as of now, the "elitist" members of the GOP who have ruined the party these last 10 years are fighting hard to hold on, and working to destroy the very Republicans who can save the party.
Unless the PEOPLE of the GOP stand up and demand change, the liberal socialists will continue to rule.
/
Some say it was because of the economy. Some, because he belonged to the same party as Bush. And some say it was because America has taken an abrupt left turn.
All of them are wrong.
Of course, the economy and the Bush legacy damaged McCain, and would have damaged any Republican to some degree. But McCain allowed those things to hurt him far more than was necessary. And America, by all polls, is still right of center. So, just why DID McCain lose so badly?
He lost because he betrayed the conservative base that is the strength of the GOP. He tried so hard to encompass moderates, and the so-called "Reagan Democrats" that he lost the support of many Republicans.
I have heard from thousands of Republicans who chose not to vote for McCain because they were still angry that he tried so hard - and sneakily - to betray conservative values concerning immigration. And throughout the campaign, they waited with baited breath to hear him say, "I was wrong - that was not the answer." But he never did recant his position.
And they waited, and hoped he would finally admit that his "McCain-Feingold" bill was a huge mistake. But in spite of being handicapped because of it, he stood by it.
And they waited for McCain to get angry about the debacle in the financial sector. They waited to hear him say he would find the responsible parties and hold them accountable - jail, not bail. But he remained silent, and even contributed to passing the hated bail-out bill.
Well, Senator McCain, if you kick your supporters often enough just to try and win a few "moderate" votes that there is little chance of winning, you will lose. And you did lose. You lost the country for the same reason you lost Pennsylvania - you invested too much into trying to win votes that you just could not win. By courting moderate Democrats, you lost Republicans - and still did not get the Democrats. You tried to win 50,000 Pennsylvania Democrats - and it cost you 50,000 Republicans, and you still did not get those Democrats. So, you lost.
And so did many other so-called Republicans who also lost their way. And the GOP will continue to lose until they wake up, and return to their roots, because that is where their stength is.
The GOP has to remember one simple tenet of business - you trade nickles for dimes, not vice versa. If you are going to dump 50,000 Republican votes, you had damned well better be certain you are getting more than that from the other side. And in politics, that simply is not possible.
As of now, there are precious few Republicans capable of rebuilding the party - Palin, Steele, Gingrich, Jundal, DeMint. That's about it.
And as of now, the "elitist" members of the GOP who have ruined the party these last 10 years are fighting hard to hold on, and working to destroy the very Republicans who can save the party.
Unless the PEOPLE of the GOP stand up and demand change, the liberal socialists will continue to rule.
/
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Say That Again?
Associated Press - "A thick brown cloud of soot, particles and chemicals stretching from the Persian Gulf to Asia threatens health and food supplies in the world, the U.N. reported Thursday, citing what it called the newest threat from global warming."
Well, now, if that don't take the cake. The UN, in its preponderance of stupidity claims that a cloud of soot and chemicals, obviously caused by human activity, is "a threat from global warming." Wow! The cloud is caused "from global warming", instead of vice versa.
So, according to the bright folks at the UN, if we stop global warming, that will prevent any further countries from polluting the atmosphere.
I think they have it backward. As usual!
Here's a thought for that prestigious bunch of international jokers - the cloud is obviously originating from the same countries that, according to the Kyoto treaty they want us to sign onto, would be exempt. So, even with Kyoto, those countries will still be creating those clouds, and global warming. So, what's the point of Kyoto?
The point, for those of you who may have missed the fine print, is not to fight global warming. Rather, it is to punish countries that are already industrialized, and have already taken vast measures to have clean air, while the polluters are left to go on polluting. America, the cleanest of the industrial nations, would be forced to shut down much manufacturing in order to comply. The manufacturing, which must still occur somewhere, will be done in these uinrestricted countries, resulting in even greater pollution.
America would lose jobs. America would be forced to spend billions. And China and India can take over as the industrial leaders of the world, polluting as they go, and raking in all the money.
If just a few short years, it will be China and India who will be the world leaders, and America would be reduced to third world status. America will have been hog-tied.
With Obama as president, and a democrat congress, you can count on them signing onto the Kyoto treaty, which will - I repeat, WILL be the downfall of America.
Well, now, if that don't take the cake. The UN, in its preponderance of stupidity claims that a cloud of soot and chemicals, obviously caused by human activity, is "a threat from global warming." Wow! The cloud is caused "from global warming", instead of vice versa.
So, according to the bright folks at the UN, if we stop global warming, that will prevent any further countries from polluting the atmosphere.
I think they have it backward. As usual!
Here's a thought for that prestigious bunch of international jokers - the cloud is obviously originating from the same countries that, according to the Kyoto treaty they want us to sign onto, would be exempt. So, even with Kyoto, those countries will still be creating those clouds, and global warming. So, what's the point of Kyoto?
The point, for those of you who may have missed the fine print, is not to fight global warming. Rather, it is to punish countries that are already industrialized, and have already taken vast measures to have clean air, while the polluters are left to go on polluting. America, the cleanest of the industrial nations, would be forced to shut down much manufacturing in order to comply. The manufacturing, which must still occur somewhere, will be done in these uinrestricted countries, resulting in even greater pollution.
America would lose jobs. America would be forced to spend billions. And China and India can take over as the industrial leaders of the world, polluting as they go, and raking in all the money.
If just a few short years, it will be China and India who will be the world leaders, and America would be reduced to third world status. America will have been hog-tied.
With Obama as president, and a democrat congress, you can count on them signing onto the Kyoto treaty, which will - I repeat, WILL be the downfall of America.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
"Winning" The Hard Way
Well, here we go again!
In the Senate race in Minnesota, the Republican, Coleman, beat Democrat challenger Al Franken. However, because it was close, there must be an automatic recount.
Suddenly, hundreds of "new" ballots are popping up out of thin air - all favoring Franken. One ballot counter (a Democrat, by the way), suddenly found a bunch of absentee ballots in the trunk of her car - all were mysteriously for Franken. And what, pray tell, were they even doing in her trunk? And the town of Mountain Iron suddenly recorded an extra 100 votes, all for Franken, AFTER the election. Since these are taped in that municipality, they were asked to produce the tape for verification. And guess what? The tape was dated November 2nd - so it was created even before election day, though the 100 new votes appeared on Nov. 6th.
So far, there have been numerous instances of ballots mysteriously coming to light, all favoring Franken. How can that be? Frankly, it CANNOT be.
And now it comes to light that the guy in charge of the recount - another Democrat - is affiliated with the group ACORN, which has already been shown to be involved in voter fraud.
It is high time that we, the people stood up and demand that voting be cleaned up, once and for all. Get ACORN out of this entirely. Prohibit anything that even so much as provides an opportunity for fraud. Force each municipality, county and state to be accountable for accuracy in voter regfistration, and control of ballots. If the chain of evidence is broken, as in the case of those ballots found in a trunk, the ballot does not get counted. Period.
As for the "motor voter" law the Democrats and ACORN pushed through in many states, it should be outlawed for several reasons. First, it encourages fraud when a person can register and vote at the same time, so the registration cannot be verified as legitimate. And it does not allow for new information coming to light in the late stages of the campaign - if a person votes in September, and it comes to light in October that the candidate is a criminal, it is too late. The ballot cannot be changed.
I believe we should all have one week in which to vote (except legitimate absentees, who may vote earlier), and registration must be at least 3 months prior to an election. In this manner, illegal registrations can be ferreted out before fraud can be committed. Voter fraud cannot occur without voter registration fraud.
ACORN says such measures would keep the poor from voting. I fail to see how. If the poor can show up to register in September, they can show up to register in July. If they can show up to vote in September, they can show up to vote in November. The ONLY reason ACORN and the DNC wants the motor-voter laws to stand is so they can intimidate poor people into registering AND voting all at once, to insure that they do, indeed, vote. And to provide a fertile ground for fraud - a registration filled out today cannot possibly be verified today. So allowing registration and voting simultaneously does nothing except promote fraud.
The point is clear, and this joke of an election in Minnesota proves it out - we need to take strong measures to insure honesty, integrity and legitimacy of the voting process, or we will no longer have a democracy.
I do not doubt Franken can, and probably will "win" in Minnesota, since ballots in his favor are popping up everywhere. I may even have some in my glove compartment. But if he does "win", understand that Franken, originally a comic on Saturday Night Live, will be a part of making a comedy of the entire Senate, and of our election process. How can there be any respect for anything the Senate does if it is done by people who were not democratically elected?
And the entire nation should be thoroughly ashamed of Minnesota - first, for giving a convicted tax cheat and liar more than a half dozen votes, and second for allowing the democrats to so blatantly steal the election. I do not know of a single person who believes that all of those "sudden" and "mysterious" ballots for Franken that are showing up only after the election are actually legitimate.
Franken is an un-funny comic. But the comedy of the Minnesota election process is even less funny!
/
In the Senate race in Minnesota, the Republican, Coleman, beat Democrat challenger Al Franken. However, because it was close, there must be an automatic recount.
Suddenly, hundreds of "new" ballots are popping up out of thin air - all favoring Franken. One ballot counter (a Democrat, by the way), suddenly found a bunch of absentee ballots in the trunk of her car - all were mysteriously for Franken. And what, pray tell, were they even doing in her trunk? And the town of Mountain Iron suddenly recorded an extra 100 votes, all for Franken, AFTER the election. Since these are taped in that municipality, they were asked to produce the tape for verification. And guess what? The tape was dated November 2nd - so it was created even before election day, though the 100 new votes appeared on Nov. 6th.
So far, there have been numerous instances of ballots mysteriously coming to light, all favoring Franken. How can that be? Frankly, it CANNOT be.
And now it comes to light that the guy in charge of the recount - another Democrat - is affiliated with the group ACORN, which has already been shown to be involved in voter fraud.
It is high time that we, the people stood up and demand that voting be cleaned up, once and for all. Get ACORN out of this entirely. Prohibit anything that even so much as provides an opportunity for fraud. Force each municipality, county and state to be accountable for accuracy in voter regfistration, and control of ballots. If the chain of evidence is broken, as in the case of those ballots found in a trunk, the ballot does not get counted. Period.
As for the "motor voter" law the Democrats and ACORN pushed through in many states, it should be outlawed for several reasons. First, it encourages fraud when a person can register and vote at the same time, so the registration cannot be verified as legitimate. And it does not allow for new information coming to light in the late stages of the campaign - if a person votes in September, and it comes to light in October that the candidate is a criminal, it is too late. The ballot cannot be changed.
I believe we should all have one week in which to vote (except legitimate absentees, who may vote earlier), and registration must be at least 3 months prior to an election. In this manner, illegal registrations can be ferreted out before fraud can be committed. Voter fraud cannot occur without voter registration fraud.
ACORN says such measures would keep the poor from voting. I fail to see how. If the poor can show up to register in September, they can show up to register in July. If they can show up to vote in September, they can show up to vote in November. The ONLY reason ACORN and the DNC wants the motor-voter laws to stand is so they can intimidate poor people into registering AND voting all at once, to insure that they do, indeed, vote. And to provide a fertile ground for fraud - a registration filled out today cannot possibly be verified today. So allowing registration and voting simultaneously does nothing except promote fraud.
The point is clear, and this joke of an election in Minnesota proves it out - we need to take strong measures to insure honesty, integrity and legitimacy of the voting process, or we will no longer have a democracy.
I do not doubt Franken can, and probably will "win" in Minnesota, since ballots in his favor are popping up everywhere. I may even have some in my glove compartment. But if he does "win", understand that Franken, originally a comic on Saturday Night Live, will be a part of making a comedy of the entire Senate, and of our election process. How can there be any respect for anything the Senate does if it is done by people who were not democratically elected?
And the entire nation should be thoroughly ashamed of Minnesota - first, for giving a convicted tax cheat and liar more than a half dozen votes, and second for allowing the democrats to so blatantly steal the election. I do not know of a single person who believes that all of those "sudden" and "mysterious" ballots for Franken that are showing up only after the election are actually legitimate.
Franken is an un-funny comic. But the comedy of the Minnesota election process is even less funny!
/
Absurdity?
In Washington DC a "humanist" group (atheists) have spent $40,000 placing ads on metro buses and elsewhere that simply say, "Why Believe In A God". They purposely chose to do this in the Christmas season, in a blatant attempt to attack Christianity once again. And the onslaught continues...
Let me start by saying I really do not care if someone chooses to be an atheist. I see that as being their problem, not mine. They are free to choose their own direction, which, as you may recall, is also the same position I have on the gay lifestyle. To each his own, and more power to them. We will all answer for our choices someday.
But I do object when anyone - gays, atheists, agnostics, democrats, liberals - anyone - chooses to belittle, insult, denigrate or otherwise complain about MY choice of direction. They need to give me the same courtesy and respect that I give them.
To reply to that humanist group's question, I would simply say this: if I were an atheist, and it turns out there is a God, I would lose BIG time! And if there is NO god, I would not gain a thing. So, as an atheist, I simply could not win, and I would have zero chance at a bright eternity. On the other hand, if I believe in God, and it turns out there IS a God, I WIN - big time. And if there is no God, I have not lost a thing. So, as a believer, I simply cannot lose.
It occurs to me that it is much smarter to choose a position in which I cannot lose, as opposed to a position in which I cannot win. Not being a complete dunce, my choice is rather apparent.
No, that is not WHY I believe in God. But it does answer the question those humanist clowns posed - it simply makes more sense to believe than to not believe. As the story about that ad wore on, some folks supported their position of non-belief with the tired expanation that religion damages society, and religion has caused many atrocities. They simply do not understand that religion can "do" nothing. PEOPLE do things. Religions are not "bad" just because some people use and abuse them to serve their own agendas. That is not the fault of religion - it is the failing of Man.
They also fail to realize that, without religion, we are no better than animals. It is religion, alone, that provides society with boundaries of right and wrong, good and evil. It is those boundaries that determine the laws we live by. Without those boundaries, and devoid of laws, we would live as animals. There would be no knowledge of "right and wrong". That is what the Garden of Eden was all about. That was the point at which Man stopped being "just another animal" and "bit of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil". That is where we came to understand the difference between right and wrong. And that occured because - and only because - "Adam" and "Eve" knew God. Personally, it would appear. Note that they "talked" with God long before they ate the proverbial "apple". Religion already existed, and societal rules began.
Christmas time is upon us. And in a way, those humanists make a point, albeit in a backward fashion. Rather than asking ourselves "Why believe", we should ask ourselves, "Why Not?" And amid all the festivities and commercialism, we would do well to take some time to remember the reason for the season. And we should carry that reason with us throughout the year. If you celebrate Christmas only one day a year, you are missing a lot - and you are missing the whole point.
I feel sorry for those who do not believe in a greater power. After all, there are insects. And there is a greater power than them - the birds, animals etc. And there is a greater power than the birds and animals - Mankind. So it seems only reasonable that there is something even greater than ourselves. Remember the old adage, "No matter how big you are, there's always someone bigger?" For gunslingers, there was always "someone faster." I think the same is true with ourselves - there is something greater. Why wouldn't there be? The universe is incredibly vast, with wonders we cannot even comprehend. How can any person think that something as miniscule and imperfect as a human being is the greatest power in the universe? We can't even SEE the end of the universe, or understand it. So how can we possibly be the greatest power, or the most formidable intellect?
If you ask me, believing in Man's omnipotence in this universe is far more absurd than believing in a greater power. So, when an atheist says to me, "Believing in an invisible, all-powerful being is absurd", I point out the absurdity of believing there is not something far greater than we can imagine.
One such non-theist even threw that old riddle at me, to prove there was no God. "Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?" He went on with, "No matter what you answer, there is something your all-powerful God cannot do."
I smiled. And then I explained that he lived in a very small world where things are black and white. And I went on to say, "Yes, God can create a stone He cannot lift, because he can create anything. And THEN, after He creates such a stone, He can give himself the strength to lift it, anyway. Because He can do anything."
If the person reading this is an atheist, please understand that I am not trying to belittle your beliefs, nor am I disrespecting your choice. I am simply presenting my side of the debate, and I can only hope that you will not simply dismiss it summarily. Instead, give it some intelligent thought. Consider possibilities that reach beyond that which can be analyzed. There is far, far more to this thing we call "life" that cannot be seen by the eye (air, conscience), nor touched (happiness, or grief), nor even understood (black holes, the human brain).
If you can accept that, then you have already accepted the possibility of a greater power.
Happy Holidays, folks!
/
Let me start by saying I really do not care if someone chooses to be an atheist. I see that as being their problem, not mine. They are free to choose their own direction, which, as you may recall, is also the same position I have on the gay lifestyle. To each his own, and more power to them. We will all answer for our choices someday.
But I do object when anyone - gays, atheists, agnostics, democrats, liberals - anyone - chooses to belittle, insult, denigrate or otherwise complain about MY choice of direction. They need to give me the same courtesy and respect that I give them.
To reply to that humanist group's question, I would simply say this: if I were an atheist, and it turns out there is a God, I would lose BIG time! And if there is NO god, I would not gain a thing. So, as an atheist, I simply could not win, and I would have zero chance at a bright eternity. On the other hand, if I believe in God, and it turns out there IS a God, I WIN - big time. And if there is no God, I have not lost a thing. So, as a believer, I simply cannot lose.
It occurs to me that it is much smarter to choose a position in which I cannot lose, as opposed to a position in which I cannot win. Not being a complete dunce, my choice is rather apparent.
No, that is not WHY I believe in God. But it does answer the question those humanist clowns posed - it simply makes more sense to believe than to not believe. As the story about that ad wore on, some folks supported their position of non-belief with the tired expanation that religion damages society, and religion has caused many atrocities. They simply do not understand that religion can "do" nothing. PEOPLE do things. Religions are not "bad" just because some people use and abuse them to serve their own agendas. That is not the fault of religion - it is the failing of Man.
They also fail to realize that, without religion, we are no better than animals. It is religion, alone, that provides society with boundaries of right and wrong, good and evil. It is those boundaries that determine the laws we live by. Without those boundaries, and devoid of laws, we would live as animals. There would be no knowledge of "right and wrong". That is what the Garden of Eden was all about. That was the point at which Man stopped being "just another animal" and "bit of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil". That is where we came to understand the difference between right and wrong. And that occured because - and only because - "Adam" and "Eve" knew God. Personally, it would appear. Note that they "talked" with God long before they ate the proverbial "apple". Religion already existed, and societal rules began.
Christmas time is upon us. And in a way, those humanists make a point, albeit in a backward fashion. Rather than asking ourselves "Why believe", we should ask ourselves, "Why Not?" And amid all the festivities and commercialism, we would do well to take some time to remember the reason for the season. And we should carry that reason with us throughout the year. If you celebrate Christmas only one day a year, you are missing a lot - and you are missing the whole point.
I feel sorry for those who do not believe in a greater power. After all, there are insects. And there is a greater power than them - the birds, animals etc. And there is a greater power than the birds and animals - Mankind. So it seems only reasonable that there is something even greater than ourselves. Remember the old adage, "No matter how big you are, there's always someone bigger?" For gunslingers, there was always "someone faster." I think the same is true with ourselves - there is something greater. Why wouldn't there be? The universe is incredibly vast, with wonders we cannot even comprehend. How can any person think that something as miniscule and imperfect as a human being is the greatest power in the universe? We can't even SEE the end of the universe, or understand it. So how can we possibly be the greatest power, or the most formidable intellect?
If you ask me, believing in Man's omnipotence in this universe is far more absurd than believing in a greater power. So, when an atheist says to me, "Believing in an invisible, all-powerful being is absurd", I point out the absurdity of believing there is not something far greater than we can imagine.
One such non-theist even threw that old riddle at me, to prove there was no God. "Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?" He went on with, "No matter what you answer, there is something your all-powerful God cannot do."
I smiled. And then I explained that he lived in a very small world where things are black and white. And I went on to say, "Yes, God can create a stone He cannot lift, because he can create anything. And THEN, after He creates such a stone, He can give himself the strength to lift it, anyway. Because He can do anything."
If the person reading this is an atheist, please understand that I am not trying to belittle your beliefs, nor am I disrespecting your choice. I am simply presenting my side of the debate, and I can only hope that you will not simply dismiss it summarily. Instead, give it some intelligent thought. Consider possibilities that reach beyond that which can be analyzed. There is far, far more to this thing we call "life" that cannot be seen by the eye (air, conscience), nor touched (happiness, or grief), nor even understood (black holes, the human brain).
If you can accept that, then you have already accepted the possibility of a greater power.
Happy Holidays, folks!
/
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
National Civilian Security Force
By BEN EVANS, AP
WASHINGTON (Nov. 11) - A congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "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."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.
"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 (as the military. Ed.)."
Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force. (Ed. Such a ban would be necessary if such a national security force is to be effective).
As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "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."
Ed. A poll was conducted among 40,000 Americans. 55% said Broun has a valid point.
WASHINGTON (Nov. 11) - A congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "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."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.
"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 (as the military. Ed.)."
Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force. (Ed. Such a ban would be necessary if such a national security force is to be effective).
As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "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."
Ed. A poll was conducted among 40,000 Americans. 55% said Broun has a valid point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)