Dr. Franken Delano Marxenstein
By omb on Mar 3, 2009 in Obeyme, Porkulus
He's ALIIIIVE!!!
As I’ve been watching this entire stimulus, bailout, pork fest reveal itself, I’ve been trying to come up with some sort of clever analogy that would, as succinctly as possible, best describe that which is transpiring. It’s been exceedingly difficult, as every time I sit down to scribe a few sentences on the subject, lo and behold, the plan changes, i.e. has gotten bigger.
The numbers are staggering, and I won’t address them here, because quite frankly, they’re just too damn big to have practical meaning to most folks- including me. However, I think we can draw some very clear conclusions about who this President and the Democrats are, in terms of their philosophy and where they intend to take this country.
When I look at this wealth transfer, it is as if Obama has stitched together bits of FDR and Marx ideologies(one in the same in my estimation),and is trying to breath life into these tired, putrid, and decayed ideas which have been proven to fail every time they are tried, at the expense of our children and grandchildren. Let’s get something straight; this spending spree has nothing to do with improving the economy or creating jobs. This is about permanently changing the Federal Bureaucracy into one that serves a Marxist agenda, and creates an even larger dependent class than we have right now, and cementing one party rule in Washington D.C. for a long time to come.
Obama knows that his so-called stimulus will not help the economy or create new jobs. He has even said that ‘things are likely to get worse, before getting better’. Well, it seems to me that if that is the best he can offer after spending $800B dollars, one can make a strong argument for doing nothing, as the result would likely be the same!
The funny, not to mention pathetic, thing is that this is exactly what he said he was going to do. If you listened during the campaign, he promised change. Well, this will be a change. You’ll only be allowed to achieve what our gracious and magnanimous leader says is ‘fair’. It’s pathetic because more than half of the people either didn’t want to believe the evident truth, that this sanctimonious know-it-all now residing in the White House, is an unapologetic, America-hating Marxist thug or, that they were just too damn ignorant understand that their liberty -their right to FAIL, was worth protecting.
He’s proposed more government spending commitments in one month than all of the spending in the history of the Republic. More than FDR’s economy killing and Great Depression prolonging, New Deal, more than LBJ’s family destroying ‘Great Society’.
He has openly stated that he seeks the creation of a ‘National Security Force, just as powerful, just as well funded as the Military’! When I heard this I was astounded and disgusted. Does this not register with any of you Obama voters? Knowing this, how could anyone vote for him? Could you imaging if G.W. Bush had uttered these words during his campaign? Oh, you didn’t know about it? Is that because the media didn’t question anything this guy said, or because you were too lazy to dig for any information on him, and it felt so good to be part of the ‘historic moment’?
Well, if you voted for him, you’ll certainly be complicit in what promises to be one of the most historic moments in world history. The destruction of the United States of America, a trashing of the worlds only system of government intended to protects the rights of the individual.
Here’s a question, why do you think that he sees a need for this? Could it be that after he collapses the economy, there is likely to be some unrest in the streets? Does anyone really think it can’t happen when history is filled with example after example?
Well, rather than rant on about this, I’m planning a more complete Chairman Obeyme post in the near future, but everyone should know that this spending is not intended to help the economy. You know, I can’t wait until the entitled ones finally figure out that health care coverage and health care, are not the same thing.
I’ve said this numerous times, but I will guarantee that within 6 months, it’s going to get very difficult to find any Obama voters. It happened with both Carter and Clinton in his second term – you’d have thought that no one had voted for them!
Well rather than just whine about it, I intend to offer a solution. There may not be anything we can do right now but if we, as citizens, don’t stand up to this new tyranny, we have no right to complain. I plan to post some ideas here in the next few weeks and I’d like to get feed back and ideas from any others that have similar concerns.
-OMB
I hate to say it, but it looks like Obama is well on his way to having his “Civilian Expeditionary Workforce”
Check out DoD Directive 1404.10
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf
possible uses of this “workforce” are restoration of order and stability operations.. among others.
Longshanks | Mar 4, 2009 | Reply
Wow Longshanks, I tried reading that and I started getting scared! It’s like a nightmare. Deatheaters, that’s all I could think of. Where is Dumbledore’s army??
Seriously is this real?
EAP | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
Yeah,
I read it and I don’t get it. What does ‘global national’ mean?
-OMB
omb | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
Yeah, that whole document is very vague. It could apply to a police force or to a force that supports supply lines with medical, engineering, and services. It is loosely defined so that when the time comes they can use this document to back up whatever they want to use it for.
Also I Googled “Global National” and apparently its a Canadian TV show, so no worries there.
Turd Furgeson | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
I have been looking at different comments on the DoD directive. I can’t actually make heads or tails of it myself but did muddle through.
It is a replacement for the original directive from 1992 which dealt with “overseas deployment of civilian personnel”. Interestingly the new directive does not mention “overseas deployment” and adds some new terms which Longshanks already made note of.
EAP | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
I might be getting into the realm of wacked out conspiracy theories.. but Bush did make changes to the Posse Comitatus Act after Katrina…
Longshanks | Mar 5, 2009 | Reply
Could this be nearer than we think? A link to Hugo the thugs latest socialization efforts.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D96O6QGG2.htm
J Galt
J Galt | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
J. Galt,
I heard about this-it is disturbing to say the least. My daughter recently did a presentation on Stalins’ food holocaust on the people of Ukraine. Food is a weapon, per Uncle Joe.
-OMB
omb | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51354
Perhaps this will explain without the conspiracy theories running rampant. It is easy. If you work for the DoD, you may serve in a greater capacity.
Global national is hardly a Canadian TV show. Was that a joke? Sorry if it was. Example; If you believe having foreign oil is within the scope of our National security, and it happens to be in Iraq, (anywhere outside the US is of course foreign)then it is global national security.
What if people were forced to do National Service? We used to have a military draft that might have required you to die, remember?
Fluffy | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Fluffy, I’ll be honest, I was half in the bag and tired when I read through that document, so I honestly didn’t understand some of the references. But did you actually say with respect to compulsory national service that it was the equivalent of the draft? I don’t think so. There’s another word for compulsory service, that’s slavery. Don’t you think that’s the least bit totalitarian?
-OMB
omb | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
The draft WAS compulsory!(Except for Rush, Dick Cheney,etc.)
Fluffy | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Yes, compulsory for National Defense. You know, Hitler and Stalin had compulsory service, they were called concentration camps and gulags.
I’m sure you’d be ok with that, because hey, they were for the working man!
omb | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
DoD service is not compulsory.
You are insulting and over the top
Fluffy | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Uhhh, here’s your comment to which I was referring.
‘What if people were forced to do National Service?’
I’ve got a big problem with compulsory national service, except in time of war where a draft may be necessary. You, apparently, don’t. I don’t see how it’s insulting to point out the that Stalin and Hitler wholly embraced this form of ‘service’. Examine all arguments at their extremes to reveal whether they make sense. Basic engineering math.
-OMB
omb | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
You cavalierly imply that concentration camps and gulags were a form of “service”, then say I’m okay with that. That is insulting.
There are many kinds of service work being done in, out, and in the name of this country. Too many organizations to name. I don’t think compulsory anything is okay, although I did use the word “forced” which was a misspeak.
However, I think it is too bad that as a society
Fluffy | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
sorry…hit the submit button accidentally.
I think it is too bad that as a society we see and use community service as a punishment. I can’t see how this country got started without people helping people to succeed, or at the very least, to eat and stay warm. There are many ways to serve your Country , and we should teach our children to do so proudly. Serving the good of the Nation and its people is not always socialist, sometimes it is Christian, or simply humanitarian.
We had a draft through Vietnam. Was that National Defense? According to my map, Vietnam is not in Ohio, and I don’t recall any Vietnamese storming my suburban streets. you went to jail if you said “Hell no I won’t go” and kill some other mother’s son….unless you had a boil on your butt. Is that compulsory, slavery or totalitarian? Was it wrong?
Fluffy | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
Cavalierly? All I did was to look at your arguments at their natural extremes. If you mispoke, then I retract my comment about it being ok with you. Here’s a quote for you to consider…
“It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.” – Ayn Rand
omb | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
I agree with your sentiments on voluntary service entirely. Service to the community takes many forms, however. I view working, participating in the economy, and paying taxes as service to the community every bit as much as ladling out soup at a shelter.
Yes, the draft was for National Defense – we should have done more. Perhaps we could have stopped the benevolent Communists from killing another 3 million people in Cambodia.
omb | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
I might be willing to shoot someone invading my shores, but I’m not going across the world to kill in order to fight an ideology.
Ayn Rand speaks in larger terms. She was a profound and intense atheist who said “God is an insult to man”. Her beliefs are very evident in her writings.
“Everybody’s got to serve somebody”.
Bob Dylan
Fluffy | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
Yes Rand was an atheist. So what? She was correct and prophetic on so many things that I’m willing to grant her that. I actually don’t know if she just opposed the influence of organized religion, or didn’t believe in a higher being. I’ll try to find out.
Remember, The Vietnam war was started and escalated by liberal Democrats. A Republican ended it.
omb | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
She was an ATHEIST! NO higher being. Didn’t you read the quotes? Maybe you should get to know the woman, then re-read her. (You are not the only one who reads!. I had a head start on you.) Her books are full of her beliefs. Perhaps she could no more get rid of the remnants of her beliefs imposed under Communism, than I can abandon my beliefs as I was brought up. As much as I can appreciate the Earth and its gifts, I can’t be a Wiccan, because it always goes in my core back to a belief in a higher power, whether it is a being or not.
Rand was a smart woman and has some truths, I’m not buying Objectivism as my guiding light.
It matters not to me who starts or ends war. War is war. Killing is killing. Politics is politics. You are constantly confusing me with some sort of Democrat-lover. I tend to be progressive, but I don’t give a hoot for divisive lines of separation.
Fluffy | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
Fluffy,
Take a prozac. I haven’t read everything she has written, I bet all you’ve read are quotations. I have read two books of hers, one of them twice. What I was saying was that I really don’t care whether or not she was completely atheistic and that I didn’t know for sure. I don’t have to agree with everything she says in order to respect her point of view on many many things. Damn!
Look, you and I have had enough conversations over the years for me to operate from the assumption that socialism and perhaps marxism have a certain appeal to you. I don’t think you are necessarily a Democrat, although you likely vote that way, just like I am not necessarily a Republican, but I tend to vote that way, as well.
Anyway, there are many people who’ve made statements with which I agree but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’ve read everything they’ve written, or that I’d agree with all of it. So what?
You are the one who brought Vietnam into this conversation, so I just reached a little further.
-OMB
omb | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply
Ok, you know more about her than I do, I still contend that the quotation I included in the conversation was appropriate and worthy of consideration within the discussion we were having. -and I think she was a genius.
omb | Mar 8, 2009 | Reply
Longshanks, I think the changes that were made after the Hurricane Katrina hit, were repealed…At least I think I remember this.
EAP | Mar 12, 2009 | Reply