Congressman warns of an Obama dictatorship

This is from Fox News and I am absolutely delighed to read it. A congressman from Georgia, by the name of Paul Broun has said what we on the blogosphere have been saying for a long time. We are disturbed by the combination of gun bans and a civilian force, we find it to be reminiscent of Stalin or Hitler. Throw in a cult of personality and you got the perfect combination. I can only imagine how much heat this is going to generate, I hope Rep. Broun stands strong. I am going to send him an email encouraging him to continue the fight. Email: Paul@PaulBroun.com

Here is the story:

"WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist 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 about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy.""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."Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. 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."Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks."

Comments :

19 comments to “Congressman warns of an Obama dictatorship”
Casey said...
on 

Valerie Jarrett, a co-chair of Barack Obama's transition team, told Tom Brokaw that Obama "is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Nlq80DVpo

We all need to remain vigilant. I want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not going to be deceived.

Critical Thinker said...
on 

It's as little early to say that Obama is going to be a dictator. We are starting to sound like the Left did with President Bush. We need to be much more pragmatic and attack when we have verifiable truth, not assumption. And if the new President-elect is doing a good job, we need to give him cred. Right now all we can do is take a wait and see attitude and stay vigilant.

Blueskyboris said...
on 

Please read this link:

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/11/11/paul_broun_expresses_regret_fo.html

Alien Patriot said...
on 

I think there is legitimate concern, but the verbiage is way out of control. People have a tendency to say socialism, communism very lightly and refer to Stalin and Hitler without seeming to know much of the context.
Yes it is true that both in Russia and Germany people were devastated and were looking for liberation (for a messiah) if you wish and a charismatic person was able to motivate them and to believe in something, even if it was total BS.
I don't think America is hurting enough to go that route, but time will tell.
Paul Broun doesn't help the conservative movement. And the conservative movement needs help.

Btw. Boris just that you are not getting too overexcited here. The Dems need some help too. Both parties are way out of line.

TAP

Angela said...
on 

The first rule of debate is whoever mentions Hitler first has lost.

While Obama is disturbing, I think we do need to be careful of overheated rhetoric. It's early - he hasn't even been sworn in.

If he gets in office and gets outrageous, then it may call for stronger speech. Otherwise, it just makes conservatives look a little loony at the moment. (Possibly totally correct, but it looks bad, right now.)

Blueskyboris said...
on 

"Btw. Boris just that you are not getting too overexcited here. The Dems need some help too. Both parties are way out of line"

I never get too excited. I've done this for long enough to simply churn out exactly what I mean, but I am interested to know what you mean by "both parties are way out of line"? Are you saying that we are at the edge a of fundamental change?

Blueskyboris said...
on 

"If he gets in office and gets outrageous, then it may call for stronger speech. Otherwise, it just makes conservatives look a little loony at the moment. (Possibly totally correct, but it looks bad, right now.)"

I has always made you look like loonies. The only real argument you have is that Hitler arose from an initially socialist party. Everything else is absurd. The party that Hitler eventually took the reins of was far right, nationalist, pro-capitalist but only for the benefit of the nation, and militaristic. They were anti-working class, anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, and anti-pluralistic. They may have lipped the good lip in terms of unions and benefits for Germanic workers, but they were clearly right-wing in their hatred of capitalism, their need to militarize the nation to attack other nations (a classic theme of pre-capitalist nationalism CONQUEST!), and of course their emphasis on race at the central causal factor of history.

Alien Patriot said...
on 

boris, unfortunately I don't see a fundamental change. I see a GOP, which is ok with big spending, big government etc. and I see the donkey party promoting even bigger spending, bigger government. I don't see much change in the near future, because the beltway mob web is so tight that nobody really can do anything new. It will take a while to see changes.

I mean I hear B Franks today saying that people, who shouldn't have gotten loans in the first place (his words) should receive helped now that they are facing foreclosures. And he got re-elected by a big margin. He's got the mob emblem on his forehead.

And then maybe Franken wins in Minnesota, which makes it possible for SNL guys to run next time or clowns. I'm pretty stunned about people's voting habits.

TAP

Blueskyboris said...
on 

.

Blueskyboris said...
on 

"boris, unfortunately I don't see a fundamental change. I see a GOP, which is ok with big spending, big government etc. and I see the donkey party promoting even bigger spending, bigger government. I don't see much change in the near future, because the beltway mob web is so tight that nobody really can do anything new. It will take a while to see changes."

The Democratic party supports a different kind of big government, which is an important point.

"I mean I hear B Franks today saying that people, who shouldn't have gotten loans in the first place (his words) should receive helped now that they are facing foreclosures. And he got re-elected by a big margin. He's got the mob emblem on his forehead."

The Republican party supports big business and the petty bourgeosie. It is against meddling in the economy. When 4 million people lose their jobs it has nothing to tell them. No plans. That's ultimately why the GOP lost. They are a party without a plan for the economy.

"And then maybe Franken wins in Minnesota, which makes it possible for SNL guys to run next time or clowns. I'm pretty stunned about people's voting habits."

Slippery slope reasoning. Besides, you guys started it: The Governor.

I'm not stunned by people's voting habits at all. People are tired of the same old lawyer/businessman telling them one thing and doing another. It has gotten old. People know that they can not be free unless they are first economically free. That's what the last 28 years has been about. 28 years of wealthy men with good jobs arguing about unimportant political issues. As we can see from this election, when 4 million people lose their jobs, wages are on the decline, and unskilled foreigners are being let into the country in droves by their own government to drive down their living standards the people looked to Democrats to change their own mistakes.

Alien Patriot said...
on 

Boris, don't be in denial about Dems also being for "supports big business and the petty bourgeosie"
The poor are always the poor and the rich are always the rich - no matter where you look in this world.
I come from a social democratic country and it's the same there too.
The difference of America to any other country I lived in is that people can live outside the box, can really follow their dreams if they want to.
I think no unemployment and national health care are noble causes, but it lames that possibility (see GDP's in Europe for the last 30 years) and drives the average standard of living down. Again Europe is a great example for that.
So it is choosing between a darwinistic survival of the fittest (unfortunate development of the GOP), which obviously doesn't take care of the disadvantaged and a "socialistic" government (as we will probably see it now) that supposedly takes care of everybody - but actually doesn't. For people to thrive in a nation like that they have to be motivated. Big government does unfortunately do the opposite. I makes people lazy - because they get paid no matter what (talking in extremes here, just to make the point)
Europe is again a great example.
I don't think that government can replace compassion and the will to help each other.
That's why it would be good to return to conservative principles - because one of the principles is to help each other.

Btw. I was not a conservative European when Reagan was in power - I was actually more a left wing activist - but realized years after that that freedom to heavily demonstrate against the US was partially given to me by the work of Reagan - surprisingly many of us at the time saw more danger from the US than from Russia - given the Geography and the attitude of the SU a pretty weird thought.

TAP

Blueskyboris said...
on 

"Boris, don't be in denial about Dems also being for "supports big business and the petty bourgeosie""

True, but they come from the FDR tradition, and as long as that tradition is alive, I'll support the Democrats partially.

"The poor are always the poor and the rich are always the rich - no matter where you look in this world."

Not really. Those definitions have changed considerably since the New Deal in both North America and in Europe. It is only so for those who are cynical about long-term human behavior.

"I come from a social democratic country and it's the same there too."

Dude, your alien status is irrelvant to me.

"The difference of America to any other country I lived in is that people can live outside the box,"

People can live outside the box anywhere and do such has nothing to do with social services or even big government.

"can really follow their dreams if they want to."

Again, they can follow their dreams in Europe as well.


"I think no unemployment"

I am not for no unemployment. I am for high wages through union action and the raising up of the average wage as a result.

"and national health care are noble causes,"

And it is the nobles who are opposed to these causes, so we shouldn't use "noble" to describe them.

"but it lames that possibility (see GDP's in Europe for the last 30 years)"

It does reduce the GDP, but that is not a concern for people, but capitalists. Uninnovative people should not have to work a ridiculous amount of hours just to satisfy the profit motive of a CEO.

"and drives the average standard of living down."

How do you figure? Wages are high. There is a social safety net, healthcare. In places like Scandinavia it means the standard of living is higher than in the US.

"Again Europe is a great example for that."

Europe is an example of a maximized economy. You have failed to point out that the United States has a lot of oppurtunity for numerous reasons, including its natural resources, cheap land, and high wages a result. It is not simply Europe's "big government" that has led to its slightly less GDP compared to the US.
"So it is choosing between a darwinistic survival of the fittest (unfortunate development of the GOP), which obviously doesn't take care of the disadvantaged and a "socialistic" government (as we will probably see it now) that supposedly takes care of everybody - but actually doesn't."

Again, wrong. Those who have the drive to innovate, innovate. Europe is not the barren wasteland of innovation that you paint it as.

"For people to thrive in a nation like that they have to be motivated. Big government does unfortunately do the opposite. I makes people lazy - because they get paid no matter what (talking in extremes here, just to make the point)"

I had the change to be on the dole on numerous occasions, but I declined. I also worked at many factories and saw dole workers first hand. Many of them should be on the dole.

"Europe is again a great example.
I don't think that government can replace compassion and the will to help each other."

And when there is no compassion? This was a major problem with the dregs of society before the New Deal. There wasn't enough compassion-money to go around.

"That's why it would be good to return to conservative principles - because one of the principles is to help each other."

I whole-heartedly disagree. The ability of a person to help another is limited. The Church was well-meaning for hundreds of years, but that good will never eliminated real poverty. Social programs HAVE eliminated real poverty. This is irrefutable. The trick is, as you have said, is to have a social safety net in place that doesn't make people lazy/dependent on the dole. For example, when I was working at a battery factory there were two seasonal employees there working to get back on the dole. One was a middle aged woman who couldn't remember one moment to the next. She SHOULD be on the dole. The other was a middle aged car mechanic who didnt have enough business all throughout the year to stay in the region. He was pulling in his average wage for that line of work, which is pretty high. He shouldn't be on the dole. You see, the problem with you is that you see everything black-and-white (big government is bad!) when everything is actually gray and can only be judged on a case-by-case basis.

"Btw. I was not a conservative European when Reagan was in power - I was actually more a left wing activist - "

LOL, knew you'd say that. I think its pretty safe to say you were closer to a liberal than left-wing. Those on the left are actually educated about the issues.

"but realized years after that that freedom to heavily demonstrate against the US was partially given to me by the work of Reagan - surprisingly many of us at the time saw more danger from the US than from Russia - given the Geography and the attitude of the SU a pretty weird thought."

Ah, so you are going to stop with the simplifications. Yes, at the time there was a lot of anti-Reganism in Europe, probably the result of liberal democratic ideology. However, your assertion is wrong. Reagan and conservatism were not the primary causes protecting Europe. That goes back to FDR and his successors, and probably Patton. Even at that time Stalin was viewed as a dictator by a majority of American leftwingers.

Alien Patriot said...
on 

I am willing to consider what you say about America, but unfortunately you don't seem to know much about Europe - what you read or hear in the news does not really reflect what I and many around me have experienced. I'm not sure what your sources are, but whatever they are they might not be accurate. I respect your opinion, but I have a feeling that you sometimes overestimate your insights. Reading might not be the same as experiencing.

TAP

Blueskyboris said...
on 

I'm sorry, but the United Kingdom, France, and Germany are not wastelands of innovation. They may be fully developed in the sense that all the land is owned and many of the resources have been used, but that doesn't mean they are innovativeless. The United States has been one of the most innovative countries on the planet for the last 60 years, all years which the welfare state, big business state, and military industrial complex have been in full swing. If your argument made any sense, these would have been the most innovativeless years. Instead, they were quite the opposite. Why? Because people are/were making livable wages that allow them to save capital to develop the unused resources and land on the American continent.

Alien Patriot said...
on 

In contrast to America, there is less innovation possible in Europe. Here's a few facts for you. European countries are a lot smaller than America, hence there is a smaller market to compete in. Only those who actually break into the whole of Europe have a chance of making big bucks, but given to country loyalty in terms of products and services, language barriers this is not as easy as you might think. Even though the EU is a big market the individual countries are not unbiased. That's a big difference in the US. I have seen many people think outside the box and I believe I was one of them, but in many sectors of business, the only way you can live out your dream is as a hobby.

Here is a simple example: A musician might have a record deal in Austria. 25,000 copies and you got a gold record. It's extremely rare that somebody sells more than 50,000 copies. Let's say you have a good deal and you make 2% a copy at a sales price of $20. That's 40 cents. Brings you up to a total of $20,000. All the work that you put in, a fast market and most people don't even sell that much - makes this not even an eligible money maker. So you work full time and are a part time musician.

Compare that to America, where you can create a single informercial product and get rich with it - the market is much bigger, investors are more willing to take risks, people are more open to buy new stuff.

Yes in Europe you have national health care - although I don't think much longer anymore as health care is pretty much bankrupt - so it's comfortable, but you are pretty much in a box.

There are exceptions, but the attitude overall is hesistant, passiv, making fun of those who try to be innovative etc.

America gives you open invitation to be innovative and you will usually find some support in your immediate environment to follow through.

That's why it's called the American Dream.

Europe has created wonderful innovations, but those innovators would have done a lot better if they would have lived in America (not just financially)

TAP

Blueskyboris said...
on 

I'm a pretty lazy person, TAP. I won't argue a point unless I have to. We were arguing about the effects of social services on the population. Why are you now pointing out other, non-social service reasons why the European economies are not as innovative/restrict innovation? You seem to understand that Europe's emphasis on cultural diversity (i.e. the France factor), their long-standing rivalries, their millenium old class-based societies, their cacophony of languages, all coupled with their small national economies creates unfriendly environments for innovation? Okay, but that has nothing to do with social services. And I hope that you are still going to point out to me how social services make people lazy...

Alien Patriot said...
on 

ok I will try to explain this as simple as possible - not because I don't think you would not understand, but because it is a very complex issue.

Austria from where I originally come from is a social democratic country with a social welfare program. National Health care, affordable education, welfare in all kinds of aspects of life - rent, unemployment compensation, discounts on public transportation etc.

All these things are great, no doubt, but there are two reasons, why they seem to make people lazy.

Large government programs means large bureaucracies, which are usually neither flexible, nor up-to-date. Bureaucrats are usually not paid by performance, therefore not interested in much innovation, rather get over and done with their work, go home and do whatever they really like.

This makes it hard for innovators (who need many of the bureaucrats for approvals) to be successful with their projects.

On top of that the average European is more hesitant, passive and thinks in much smaller terms than the average Americans.

This is partly due to the history and the much more compact nature of European countries (compared to how much open space you still have in the US)

Social benefits are widely misused in European countries. I was doing it a lot myself. I studied on University for $12 a semester and did so for 7 years even though I could have basically finished it in 5 just to still get the benefits of child support, free public transportation etc.

People go to the doctor more often than needed, stay home from work if they don't feel like it (let's say you partied too long and have a major hangover) and work with a minimum effort, because you know that your career mainly depends on your education and not on the results you bring for a company.

Unemployment benefits are in some cases so good, that the person would have to be stupid to look for a job.

People are in general lazy (everywhere) - the path of least resistance is much easier to find in a big government nation than in a nation in which the market is mainly regulated by itself like America.

Of course there are many different agendas in different European countries (from social liberalism to centralized socialism, differences between protestant and catholic areas, different historical background etc.), but this is kind of the average thing you can expect in pretty much all of them.

I know it's a little bit generalized, but that's as good as I can say it.

There would be a lot more to say about this, but I don't want to bore you too much.

TAP

Blueskyboris said...
on 

"Large government programs means large bureaucracies, which are usually neither flexible, nor up-to-date. Bureaucrats are usually not paid by performance, therefore not interested in much innovation, rather get over and done with their work, go home and do whatever they really like.

This makes it hard for innovators (who need many of the bureaucrats for approvals) to be successful with their projects."

I think you need to look to Canada. We have one of the finest, sleekest, innovative public service in the world. If it can be done here publically, it can be done anywhere. I think Austria's problem has less to do with inherent problems with the government or social services, but more to do with cultural and historical baggage.

"Social benefits are widely misused in European countries. I was doing it a lot myself. I studied on University for $12 a semester and did so for 7 years even though I could have basically finished it in 5 just to still get the benefits of child support, free public transportation etc."

I only think the dole should be able to be used by those who are permanantly damaged in some way or by those who have lost their job recently. For example, that mechanic I told you about should have had about a year to find a new job. He shouldnt have been able to stay in the region getting dole checks just because he couldnt get enough business the entire year. I also believe that the government should subsidize university education, but only for a limited period of time. Say three years. Moreover, young people shouldn't be able to stay on the dole for very long, mainly because they are young.

One of the funny things about all this is that it is not against the values of the working class. One reason the republicans have been so successful over the last thirty years is their ability to see which economic issues, in terms of being within capitalist economy, matter to the working class. Parasitic use of the social safety nets is one of them. The Democrats have done a really shitty job of defining what a social SAFETY net should entail and have lost as a result and have allowed the free market evangelists an almost complete monopoly of its discourse.

"People go to the doctor more often than needed,"

Canada has recognized this and has implemented programs to reduce unneeded visits.

"stay home from work if they don't feel like it (let's say you partied too long and have a major hangover) and work with a minimum effort, because you know that your career mainly depends on your education and not on the results you bring for a company."

???? I am 100% for employee sick days, without a doctor's note. What this has to do with the social safety net I do not know...

"Unemployment benefits are in some cases so good, that the person would have to be stupid to look for a job."

Depends on how the system is managed and is thus not an inherent problem with the system.

Alien Patriot said...
on 

"The Democrats have done a really shitty job of defining what a social SAFETY net should entail "

Exactly the problem and without definition doesn't make it sound like there will be much of enforcement.

"Depends on how the system is managed"

Again BO has not said anything about that.

I don't know if Canada is really so sleek. Here is what was said today at star.com about seniors health care.

"Overmedication. At least $1 billion is spent annually on drugs seniors should not take, according to Dr. Michael Rachlis.

The World Health Organization estimates that 50 per cent of prescriptions are not needed and may be harmful – amounting to $8 billion a year of wasteful, possibly dangerous spending in Canada."

TAP