“Marxism in America”

[mworkman]

Check this out...:mad: so true and so many people blind and can't see it.

http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2010/10/24/video-%E2%80%9Cmarxism-in-america%E2%80%9D-by-lt-gen-ret-w-g-boykin/

[rdret1]

He makes his case very clearly. I disagree with him on what the health care bill says in the portion he mentions. I have read it. I interpret it to mean they want a corps of medical professionals on stand by; with a chain of command, rank structure, pay scale and alert system similar to the military in order to respond to natural disasters at home and abroad. I saw no references to arming or giving police style powers to said medical professionals.

[SpaceSimba]

Thanks for putting that up actually.
rdret1, i pulled it up, and i really (sorry) don't want to read 1,990 pages of legalistic (hurts my head) stuff :(
But does it mention any limitations? that's the important part.
As i recall, when we invaded Grenada, the 'construction' workers at the airport were presumed (by intel)
to be North Koreans, Russians, and East Germans among others. It's not hard to do that gag i guess, because
i don't think any locals really knew it (but i also wouldn't know, only speculate about the locals)
But really, what happened to the CIA? I've done plenty of Nixon digging in my day, was there any bill/law
constructed against something like that happening again? and if so wouldn't it negate it from happening even with
a “civilian national security force?”
Or the FBI, i mean, from blue suit to counter-terrorism, they seem like a good enough civilian national security force to me.
And disaster relief? There's two Groups working Nation Guard right? I know of a religious company "Convoy of Hope,"
and for the past few natural disasters, they've been the first to get on site and give aid. We the people.
I don't think we really need anything else, the only local problem i can't stand is cops avoiding crime. Understandable,
but only if they're job is to have a life and wife and pay and citizenship, instead of actually enforcing the law against any organized crime. (i'm half-joking)
:p
That and some civilian armed force, no matter how much they trained, doesn't have access to or the ability to train like they should to do battle with our militant counter-terrorism or spec ops.
Not to mention, the very purpose of both counter terrorism and our counter-insurgency spec ops (which is all of our spec ops, right? :) if not, the vast majority) is DESIGNED to fight bad governments in some way.
I think our government politically is in that direction, but i think the separation that America has of recent between it's politics and military would pay off in that kind of a hairy situation.
I did a whole lot of talking, but nobody else has
I'll just sit back, read my FM's, and PT in a bit
:munchin

[JJ_BPK]

Thanks for putting that up actually.
rdret1, i pulled it up, and i really (sorry) don't want to read 1,990 pages of legalistic (hurts my head) stuff :(



SS,

You need to do a lot more reading -n- searching and less posting. It will be good for your headaches and give you something to do between your SEAL workouts...

:munchin

[1stindoor]

Thanks for putting that up actually.
rdret1, i pulled it up, and i really (sorry) don't want to read 1,990 pages of legalistic (hurts my head) stuff :(
But does it mention any limitations? that's the important part.


Let me see if I understand your post...feel free to correct my interpretation. It's your second post...the first being your intro about two weeks ago...and while you don't have the desire to read the document and draw your own conclusions...you do have the desire to ask what it says. You're off to a wonderful start.

[SpaceSimba]

Roger, i'll read it
:o

[uplink5]

I saw no references to arming or giving police style powers to said medical professionals.

LTG Boykin does describe this as a constabulary forces which by definition, suggest an armed police force. Therefore I agree with you that without specific requirements to arm this corps of medical professionals, your point is valid.

The point I do agree with Boykin on though is that by creating such a corps, with a chain of command, rank structure, pay scale and alert system similar to the military in order to respond to natural disasters at home and abroad, is pernicious at best. It's not a far cry away from creating a truly constabulary force, by definition and I'd suggest that it perhaps wouldn't be in the "too hard to do category" to expand the role of such an organization either. The ramifications of this would truly be huge. Also, the bigger question for me would be why would we create such a force along these militarily similar lines? Shouldn’t our media be asking these questions as they would have if Bush had proposed such a sceme?

So, I for one do find these authorizations written into the HC bill to be quite disturbing, especially without further explanation. That said though, I think that any such organization is much less probable with the results of the last election having changed the political landscape. And of course, the Supreme Court under Roberts is still a conservative court. The unconstitutionality of such a far reaching corps, as Boykin suggest, may still be a saving grace as well. That and of course, hope springs eternal that sanity would prevail in the end.....jd

[Richard]

meh...anybody ever hear of the NHS?

The opposite of pro is con;
That fact is clearly seen;
If progress means move forward,
Then what does Congress mean?
- Nipsy Russell

IMO if 'Commun-' or any other form of '-ism' comes to America, it will surely come as everything else has - wrapped in the flag, whistling 'The Star Spangled Banner', and ridin' on the belly of a reptile...so be prepared to shoot low.*

And so it goes...;)

Richard :munchin

*And with appreciation and apologies to Sinclair Lewis (It Can't Happen Here).