All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Monday, November 03, 2008
What Does Obama Mean By This?
Just as powerful? Just as strong? Just as well-funded?
An army of thought and speech police, able to challenge and then detain anyone who says anything against the New Order of America.
It is nonsense, yes, but threatening nonsense that we must stop NOW. The One already has spoken out against the Constitution of the U.S., and it's negativ rights (WTH?), so what I conclude is that Obama will citizen-militarily detain and try anyone who acts, or speaks against the state.
China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, anyone?
(Thank you for visiting my blog; I'd love to add your fine site to my blogroll, please)
I have to wonder if he does have such a thing in mind. But then, he does say this additional security force is for the purpose of serving our "national security objectives."
But, why do we need another force? He doesn't say, and no one is asking him.
Why is no one asking? This is a huge proposal he is making, is it not?
The only secure way to challenge the current literal interpretation of the US Constitution is through enforcement by an internal force with "national security objectives" = mandatory basic training in socialist/communist/marxist values
6 comments:
Consider this, as what The One means:
An army of thought and speech police, able to challenge and then detain anyone who says anything against the New Order of America.
It is nonsense, yes, but threatening nonsense that we must stop NOW. The One already has spoken out against the Constitution of the U.S., and it's negativ rights (WTH?), so what I conclude is that Obama will citizen-militarily detain and try anyone who acts, or speaks against the state.
China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, anyone?
(Thank you for visiting my blog; I'd love to add your fine site to my blogroll, please)
Local Malcontent,
I have to wonder if he does have such a thing in mind. But then, he does say this additional security force is for the purpose of serving our "national security objectives."
But, why do we need another force? He doesn't say, and no one is asking him.
Why is no one asking? This is a huge proposal he is making, is it not?
By the way, if I am not mistaken, he repeated this call in the most recent debate.
The only secure way to challenge the current literal interpretation of the US Constitution is through enforcement by an internal force with "national security objectives" = mandatory basic training in socialist/communist/marxist values
Yes. That's true. Why does he talk about it achieving "national security objectives"?
What does he mean by that?
Break-away red states?
Post a Comment