Posted on 01/31/2009 7:28:00 AM PST by ronnyquest
Have a look at DoD Directive 1404.10:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf
Is this where Chairman Obama's mysterious 600,000 new jobs will be created? Does this remind anyone else of Germany in the first half of the 20th Century? Are we going to see brown shirts and black armbands in the near future?
>>>>> Damn right and he might be unarmed at that. <<<<<<
I was hanging with some DoD civvies at CRC Ft. Bliss on the way to Iraq and it was optional and totally voluntary for them to accept or decline weapons issuance (Beretta 9mm if I recall correctly).
Not a single one wanted to carry (despite some being avid gun owners) because it was too much of a PITA. They figured having a weapon was a big inconvenience and nothing more than a gesture if they should actually need to use it (i.e., 9mm versus AK or RPG or IEDs).
Since you are using this DoD Directive 1404.10 as the foil and justification for a bizarre overreaction and to stir up your fellow Freepers, could you kindly identify the specific and unambiguous text and passages from the actual Directive to us?
I'd like either to understand what your actual concerns are, or to confidently conclude that those concerns are illusory, uninformed, and overstated.
As jim-x mentioned above, he has been an actual subject of DoDD 1404.04 (or its predecessor) in the past, and I have worked and been friends with guys who were as well.
So what's the beef. There's nothing new here so far as I can tell, aside from someone at DoD twiddling with the title and the language and maybe some very arcane bureaucratic nuances unique to DoD (and as jim-x also mentioned, under the GW Bush DoD, not Obama's).
So what's the problem?
I certainly would have if allowed. And as it turned out I never needed one. But I would have preferred to have one.
It would truly be wonderful if we all had your clarity of vision and understanding.
You wrote that now is not the time to worry. I observed (using the collective ‘we’) that at various earlier points in time the same had been said; namely, that it wasn’t yet time to worry. My suggestion is, that had we ‘worried’ a bit more at those times, we perhaps would not be in the predicament in which we find ourselves, today.
That many have been concerned over 0bama’s socialist tendencies and his ascension to the Presidency is, in my view, insufficient. Mere observation is hardly effective in stemming the tide of this onslaught. Action must be taken.
You challenge my opinion that it’s time to refresh the tree of Liberty. Fine. However, a return to the foundational principles of self reliance, personal responsibility, and economic freedom will refresh that tree, just as surely as will armed insurrection. I have not advocated rebellion, yet. I do, however, retain the right to do so, despite your belief that it might be premature or counter-productive. And, my belief is, in no way, contemptuous of the Constitution or our form of government. It is, more correctly, the very process by which those original principles were first enabled for this grand experiment.
Part of the beauty of this nation is that we are (or should be) free to believe as we wish, to worship as we wish, and to expect that government should be constrained by the parameters established in the Constitution and approved Amendments. It is obvious that we don’t agree on some things. That is fine...even if you’re wrong.
I think you missed Bush signing legislation that did just that already.
;-)
Actually, though, the Korean Air Lines one is more like the OLD Pepsi logo. This Pepsi logo is the first one that is asymmetrical, from the historical review I did.
Heck, many civvies were killed in The Pentagon on 9/11.
Corporatism == Collectivism == CommunismRegarding the corporatist economics of Mussolini's fascist regime...
"In actual fact, it is the State, i.e. the taxpayer, who has become responsible to private enterprise. In Fascist Italy the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise. As long as business was good, profit remained to private initiative. When the depression came, the Government added the loss to the tax-payer's burden. Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."Salvemini goes on to discuss the bailouts, which were targeted to large corporations but not small businesses. All of this sounds familiar to everyone, I'm sure...--Under the Axe of Fascism, by Gaetano Salvemini, p. 416 (1936).
"In December 1932 a Fascist financial expert, Signor Mazuchelli, estimated that more than 8.5 billion lire had been paid out by the Government from 1923 to 1932 in order to help depressed industries (Rivista Bancaria, December 15th, 1932, p.1,007). From December 1932 to 1935 the outlay must have doubled."The plays are being taken from various playbooks, but that doesn't make them equal; however, the common thread is authoritarianism/centralization of power.--Under the Axe of Fascism, by Gaetano Salvemini (1936).
Eleven DoD civilians have died in Iraq (OIF) and one in Afghanistan (OEF) - 9 were KIA, 3 non-hostile.
62 civilians (mix of DoD & Contractor) were killed in the Pentagon on 9/11.
OK. Then what is your “chief concern here”?
If you must have it spelled out for you, rather than being able to extrapolate from my earlier statements, I will do so.
Is this where Chairman Obama's mysterious 600,000 new jobs will be created?
We still have not been told exactly how or from where Obama intends to fulfill his promise for the 600,000 new government jobs he continues trying to sell to "the people." Are we talking 600,000 new bureaucracts? I doubt this is the case. So, since government produces no product that can be sold, how will these jobs be filled? Worrisome.
We do know, however, from Chairman Obama's own words, that he wants a civilian defense force equal in power to the military.
In his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Worrisome.
This directive, which it has been suggested is the reincarnation of previous directives, nonetheless comes at a time when such a thing seems suspicious to reasonable people, none of whom wear tinfoil hats. Worrisome.
Are we going to see brown shirts and black armbands in the near future?
This is a reference to Hitler's own civilian paramilitary force used during his rise to power. For those of you who did not read about this in school, from books, here is an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
Reasonable people could easily draw parallels between Germany's Nazi party "brownshirts" and the potential for a similar force through use of this directive. Only this time, the brownshirts are trained by the military, funded by the federal government, and equipped with military-grade hardware. Worrisome.
Angkor wrote: I read/skimmed the Directive and saw nothing ominous or even very interesting."
Well, did you read it or did you skim it? Did you, perhaps, collaberate with others who are knowledgable in such matters? Did you seek out professional analysis? I'm not saying I sought out professional counsel, just curious if you had and, therefore, could provide some insight that military service, government service, and critical thinking can not.
I still hope that you will let us know when it is time to start worrying. All those DoD and DoD-friendly personnel came on in a tizzy acting like I'd pointed my finger at them. Not so. Call it paranoid if you will, and you will, we have some very legitimate concerns, not the least of which is how quickly Chairman Obama is moving to consolidate his power. Reference the "fairness doctrine" for starters.
>>>>> Well, did you read it or did you skim it? Did you, perhaps, collaberate with others who are knowledgable in such matters? Did you seek out professional analysis? <<<<<
Did I “seek out professional analysis?”
Heh.
Yes. I did.
My conclusion? You’re talking out of your hat.
“Heh,” indeed. I have no hat, but we shall see.
Reasonable people are being pushed in completely unreasonable directions.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."Those words have long been code for advocating open rebellion. If that was not your intent, you should have used a disclaimer.
"I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."That he forgives and even voices his approbation for their actions because of their misperception, we cannot claim the same excuse. We are not uninformed or ignorant. We are fully aware of what is occurring and are aware that no laws have been broken in this transition of power.
" the very process by which those original principles were first enabled for this grand experiment."My problem with that approach is that those procedures, which have been duly followed in the election of Obama, were instituted to prevent open rebellion from ever again being necessary. They left us a republic so that the differences between men could be hashed out in the halls of Congress rather than the battle field. We are nowhere near the point of collapse when that system has failed.
>>They left us a republic
A Republic is a system, of government characterized by the Rule of Law.
I observe the facade of “regulation” that exists in our financial infrastructure and its clear the Law is NOT ruling; and if the Law is not Ruling, then, ladies and gentlemen, Elvis and the Republic have left the building.
What’s left in place is criminal, organized, and in control.
When was the last time we had a high profile RICO prosecution in this country? Enough said.
Point well taken regarding the need for disclaimer. I’ll keep that in mind.
Yes, I am familiar with Jefferson’s letter. Thank you for the excerpt.
I do, however, disagree with you that:
“We are not uninformed or ignorant. We are fully aware of what is occurring and are aware that no laws have been broken in this transition of power.”
It seems to me that a great many people are NOT fully aware of what is occurring, and thus ARE uninformed or ignorant.
In addition, I disagree that no laws have been broken in this transition of power. Questions remain as to 0bama’s qualifications to hold the office, and there was certainly NO challenge to the Electoral Vote when presented for certification by VP Cheney.
I’ll skip your notion about “this sort of stupidity”...
And, lastly, this:
“They left us a republic so that the differences between men could be hashed out in the halls of Congress rather than the battle field.”
We can agree on that one. But, when one end of the political spectrum so controls the debate, such that voices in moderation or opposition are rendered silent and further dialog becomes futile, then the halls of Congress cease to be representative of the spirit of that republic. And that is when other, more strident means become necessary.
It is clear that we disagree. I rather hope that you are right in your estimation. But, I’ll continue to prepare, in the belief that mine is correct.
Perhaps, though, you would belay our fears with your powers of observation and remarkable acumen in domestic security concerns.
Like I mentioned before, I only have the benefits of years of military sevice, years of government service, and critical thinking on my side. You must have some source of enlightenment far beyond this, so enlighten us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.