OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO STAGE 'REICHSTAG' EVENT AS TRIGGER FOR MARTIAL LAW, DHS SOURCE WARNS
Washington, DC – The Obama agents, through the DHS and other assorted colluders, are plotting a major 'Reichstag' event to generate racial riots and produce the justification for martial law, delaying the November 2012 elections, possibly indefinitely, a DHS whistleblower informed the Canada Free Press on Tuesday.
The 'Reichstag Event' would take the form of a staged assassination attempt against Barack Obama, "carefully choreographed" and manufactured by Obama operatives. It would subsequently be blamed on "white supremacists" and used to enrage the black community to rioting and looting, the DHS source warned.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2128/441/DHS_Whistleblower:_Obama_Will_Commit_Reichstag_Event_To_Trigger_Martial_Law.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2128/441/DHS_Whistleblower:_Obama_Will_Commit_Reichstag_Event_To_Trigger_Martial_Law.html)
(Hope I did this right!)
RR, for what it's worth, before it's news is an interesting site, but anyone can post anything they want.
I used to post stories there, but found that most of the responders seemed to want to read moire into the story than was really there.
They love a good conspiracy and this guy feeds that need.
I don't doubt there is some truth in the story, but that's the problem, you have to find the truth and go from there.
I'm sure Alex Jones will have something on it in a few days.
The truth is that any race riots would be confined to inner cities, and handled by the police and state national guard. AND contrary to what seems to be the prevailing belief, the majority of blacks are not poor and do not live in the inner cities. Whatever support Obozo may enjoy among blacks,they are not going to commute from their homes in the burbs to riot for that clown and even in the inner cities the majority of the people will stay indoors during public disorder. So how exactly is Obamao supposed to gin this up into a national emergency?
I don't think I'll believe this until more authoritative sources start coming forward. Not that it is unbelievable, because it is VERY believable. It would take an event like the 1968 Detroit race riot to convince other races for the NEED for martial law.
Nor can we ignore that every action Obama has taken thus far is alien to American beliefs and values. In other socialist countries it is not that uncommon for coups and juntas, and all those other neat artifacts of tyranny. If the existing democracy is too inconvenient, then overthrow it! (The Marxist way.)
It's all BELIEVABLE. But until better proof exists, it is still just speculation.
Quote from: Ragin Rebel on May 13, 2012, 07:40:29 AM
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO STAGE 'REICHSTAG' EVENT AS TRIGGER FOR MARTIAL LAW, DHS SOURCE WARNS
Just thought you should know that Nazis were fascists, and fascism is a Right Wing political ideology.
Hope that helps. :D
The story liked to an article in the Canada Free Press by Doug Hagmann of The Northeast Intelligence Network. Under NIN's credentials they were once quoted by Fox News. :unsure:
If there is any truth to this the story it is now out. :thumbup:
I don't put anything past this administration. :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 08:29:26 AM
Just thought you should know that Nazis were fascists, and fascism is a Right Wing political ideology.
Hope that helps. :D
The National SOCIALIST Party ring any bells, comrade?
Quote from: quiller on May 13, 2012, 08:36:57 AM
The National SOCIALIST Party ring any bells, comrade?
Really?
You`re going to base your argument on the proposition that Hitler would never tell a lie?
:lol:
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 08:40:40 AM
Because we know Hitler would never use misinformation.
Nope nope nope, never! :lol:
You're not doing well at proving your theory.
Quote from: quiller on May 13, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
You're not doing well at proving your theory.
What are you babbling about?
It`s a fact that fascism is a Right Wing ideology.
Here is a lecture from the University of Maryland. Read it and learn. :D (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/oorhan/Lecture%206_Political%20Ideologies%20I.pdf (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/oorhan/Lecture%206_Political%20Ideologies%20I.pdf))
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 08:45:54 AM
What are you babbling about?
It`s a fact that fascism is a Right Wing ideology.
Wrong.
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 08:45:54 AM
What are you babbling about?
It`s a fact that fascism is a Right Wing ideology.
Then by all means prove the National Socialist Party was in fact a fascist party, and that fascism is a right-wing philosophy. You sound so confident, I'm sure you'll have no trouble in doing so....right?
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2012, 08:48:21 AM
Wrong.
I can hear you filing your teeth from here. :popcorn:
Quote from: quiller on May 13, 2012, 08:49:09 AM
Then by all means prove the National Socialist Party was in fact a fascist party, and that fascism is a right-wing philosophy. You sound so confident, I'm sure you'll have no trouble in doing so....right?
Not at all. Obviously.
Read this lecture from the University of Maryland (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/oorhan/Lecture%206_Political%20Ideologies%20I.pdf (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/oorhan/Lecture%206_Political%20Ideologies%20I.pdf))
It explains it quite clearly.
The opinion of one lecturer at a leftist college certainly convinces ME, yessir!
Quote from: quiller on May 13, 2012, 08:50:25 AM
I can hear you filing your teeth from here. :popcorn:
I love it when these Canadian trolls pop in here and get their socialist asses handed to them. Speaking of, I miss JNFM...
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 08:50:59 AM
Not at all. Obviously.
Read this lecture from the University of Maryland (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/oorhan/Lecture%206_Political%20Ideologies%20I.pdf (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/oorhan/Lecture%206_Political%20Ideologies%20I.pdf))
It explains it quite clearly.
No it doesn't. The person who wrote this is mentally challenged. Please try harder.
Quote from: quiller on May 13, 2012, 08:52:48 AM
The opinion of one lecturer at a leftist college certainly convinces ME, yessir!
Thank you for making me realize how lucky I was to grow up in a country with one of the top education systems in the world.
In order to create a coherent argument, you can`t just make stuff up, and then call it a `fact`. You have to be able to prove what you`re saying, often by doing what I did: Citing a reliable source. The University of Maryland is considered a reliable source.
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2012, 08:54:36 AM
No it doesn't. The person who wrote this is mentally challenged. Please try harder.
Thank you for making me realize how lucky I was to grow up in a country with one of the top education systems in the world.
In order to create a coherent argument, you can`t just make stuff up, and then call it a `fact`. You have to be able to prove what you`re saying, often by doing what I did: Citing a reliable source. The University of Maryland is considered a reliable source.
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:02:06 AM
Thank you for making me realize how lucky I was to grow up in a country with one of the top education systems in the world.
How so? Please explain how you are more educated.
Quote
In order to create a coherent argument, you can`t just make stuff up, and then call it a `fact`. You have to be able to prove what you`re saying, often by doing what I did: Citing a reliable source. The University of Maryland is considered a reliable source.
Try again. You explain how the support for smaller government, pro-Constitution, support of personal property rights and personal freedom, and free markets equals fascism.
Please, make this entertaining.
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2012, 09:09:41 AM
How so? Please explain how you are more educated.
Well, I come from Canada, which has one of the best educational systems in the world, so odds are I received a better education than you did.
One of the things that makes our educational system so good is that it is based on critical thinking. Sadly, the American educational model has been based on memorization of facts, the lowest form of education.
If you want to learn more, read up on Bloom's Taxonomy.
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2012, 09:09:41 AM
Try again. You explain how the support for smaller government, pro-Constitution, support of personal property rights and personal freedom, and free markets equals fascism.
Please, make this entertaining.
Seriously? You want me go through the myriad of right wing talking points and disprove them one by one, on a subject that is considered common knowledge? That's just silly.
I quoted a reliable source: The University of Maryland. It clearly stated that fascism is a far right political ideology.
If you have a reliable source countering that, please present it. BTW, you can't just make an ad hominem attack on a source, and consider it discredited, as you did here:
''The opinion of one lecturer at a leftist college certainly convinces ME, yessir!'' Ad Hominem attacks are considered a logical fallacy, something you would know if you had received a Canadian education. They carry no weight in an argument.
Oh oh, the golf course is calling.
Cya later, have fun!
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:38:38 AM
Well, I come from Canada, which has one of the best educational systems in the world, so odds are I received a better education than you did.
It's government run education. It is all crap. I'm sorry you hold value in it.
Quote
One of the things that makes our educational system so good is that it is based on critical thinking.
Yet, you can't articulate your ideology.
Quote
Sadly, the American educational model has been based on memorization of facts, the lowest form of education.
I know tons of Canadians. You guys aren't that smart I hate to tell 'ya.
Quote
If you want to learn more, read up on Bloom's Taxonomy.
If you want to learn more, start using your brain and get some real world experience.
Quote
Seriously? You want me go through the myriad of right wing talking points and disprove them one by one, on a subject that is considered common knowledge? That's just silly.
You don't have the education to handle it.
Quote
I quoted a reliable source: The University of Maryland. It clearly stated that fascism is a far right political ideology.
Academia is not a reliable source. Quit parroting what other people think and use your brain.
Quote
If you have a reliable source countering that, please present it. BTW, you can't just make an ad hominem attack on a source, and consider it discredited, as you did here: ''The opinion of one lecturer at a leftist college certainly convinces ME, yessir!''
You haven't made a case yet. You just posted someone else's work. We can post links back and forth all day long, but I would rather you think and articulate on your own. Can you handle that?
Quote
Ad Hominem attacks are considered a logical fallacy, something you would know if you had received a Canadian education. They carry no weight in an argument.
It is not uncommon for Canadians to interpret a request for dialogue or thought as an attack. The last Canadian who came here tried to tell us about "Demand and Supply" and didn't know the Democrats swept the House and Senate in 2006, yet told us we were wrong. Sorry, Canadians haven't exactly been a shining pillar of smarts. Hopefully, you can change that and start sharing and discussing your own thoughts.
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:40:23 AM
Oh oh, the golf course is calling.
Cya later, have fun!
Enjoy it while your weather permits. I play year round.
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:38:38 AM
Well, I come from Canada, which has one of the best educational systems in the world, so odds are I received a better education than you did.
One of the things that makes our educational system so good is that it is based on critical thinking. Sadly, the American educational model has been based on memorization of facts, the lowest form of education.
Yes I can understand where you might find he other side, having the actual facts at hand, disconcerting. However, they are still the facts. Fascism was a left wing statist philosophy, having little if anything in common with any right wing conservative or reactionary movement.
QuoteIf you want to learn more, read up on Bloom's Taxonomy.
Of course. Why we'd be glad to have our opinions handed to us by a fifties left wing academic, who was simply regurgitating the "conventional wisdom". BTW, that's what's called an Appeal to Authority, considered a fallacious argument.
QuoteSeriously? You want me go through the myriad of right wing talking points and disprove them one by one, on a subject that is considered common knowledge? That's just silly.
Why is it silly to note what the NAZI's called themselves. Is it your argument that their total government control of all industry and all workers, was not in fact left wing? Is it your argument that because they allowed businessmen to make a profit they, were not socialist? That would be news to the democratic socialist regimes in Europe. Or is it that Fascism was a particularly nasty form of leftist ideology, and you woul prefer that particular can to be tied to the tail of the right?
QuoteI quoted a reliable source: The University of Maryland. It clearly stated that fascism is a far right political ideology.
In that case I'd like to quote a reliable source on Fascism, by the name of
Benito Mussolini. who stated his philosophy as:
"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State". Feel free to explain how such a philosophy - with it's total lack of any civil society - is rightist.
QuoteIf you have a reliable source countering that, please present it. BTW, you can't just make an ad hominem attack on a source, and consider it discredited, as you did here: ''The opinion of one lecturer at a leftist college certainly convinces ME, yessir!''
Ad Hominem attacks are considered a logical fallacy, something you would know if you had received a Canadian education. They carry no weight in an argument.
As I note above, your Argument from Authority, is also considered fallacious. In any case it seems your vaunted Canadian education didn't give you the ability to think for yourself, or else you would have asked the obvious question of why, for a "rightist" philosophy Fascism and Nazism are almost indistinguishable from left wing philosophies such as socialism and communism. Hint - all are totalitarian statist.
As the Weimar Republic did its slow-motion implosion in the late 1920s and early 1930s, single-party rule or even a dual-party system like ours was unthinkable. Most elections for national seats featured a field of many candidates, sometimes dozens, from a mind-boggling array of political parties. Government happened only as a coalition of parties, as opposed to what we're used to.
In this byzantine political landscape, the Nazis struggled and gained ground, and eventually established enough power to put Hitler in the Chancellery in January 1934. But the government Hitler oversaw was still a coalition government. The Reichstag fire -- very likely engineered by the Nazis -- and the death of President Paul von Hindenburg were the events that really put the Nazis over the top.
But all through the struggle years, the Nazis fought (literally, via the SA) the various communist parties (there were more than one) the hardest
because they were competing for the exact same voters. It's simply not possible to be much more left-wing than the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Consider some of Nazi Germany's prominent institutions:
- nationalized industries
- a Ministry of Propaganda, for Christ's sake
- gun control
- state control of banks
- attempts to substitute secular "made-up" rites for religious holidays
- concentration camps (sometimes called "gulags" in other places)
- wage and price controls
- mandatory youth organizations
- the suspension of elections
- summary executions of political prisoners
The list goes on and on. If you notice a remarkable similarity to the features of places like the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, you're paying attention.
The Nazi Party is today so widely described as "ultra-right-wing" precisely as a result of the efforts of left-wing historians and educators who have spent nearly 70 years attempting to re-write history, and redefine the meaning of the word "liberal." I note that the linked presentation illustrates "Liberalism" as being the exact center of the political spectrum (or, if you like, the political "horseshoe"), when in modern terms it certainly is not. This is the re-education I'm talking about.
The state-run, state-funded, prog/lib managed University of Maryland is not exactly what I'd toss out as an authoritative source on the political spectrum.
There is nothing that is more vicious that competing branches of the same religion. Nothing is worse that two armies of true believers who are positive that the people on the other side are "heretics" who have betrayed the true faith. Witness the Sunni/Shia of the current day. Or the Catholic/Protestant of the era of Religious Wars. Or the Nazis/Communists on the Eastern Front. There is always something particularly ruthless about people who believe ultimate truth is "on their side".
Obama doesn't need to stage an assassination attempt to instigate riots among "Inner City blacks. All he has to do is lose the election - fair and square! Whether he loses by a little or by a landslide it will be blamed on "Angry White Men" and corrupt "Corporations" and "Banker Gangsters of Wall Street" (code words for Jews).
You think the election of 2000 was a fiasco, you ain't seen nothing yet!
There will be riots if Obama loses - bet the house on it!
-Dr Watt
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 08:29:26 AM
Just thought you should know that Nazis were fascists, and fascism is a Right Wing political ideology.
Hope that helps. :D
Indeed it did - haven't had a laugh like that for a while. I always get a pretty good chuckle when I see this line of logic.
Right wing = Fascism = Nazism
and Right-wing = Republicans therefore Republicans = Nazis
It is actually quite logical, however incorrect, as there are equal signs between terms which aren't equal.
Kinda like old worn out example - that they give you when they teach you
reasoning to accompany you newfound logic knowledge, at least if they taught you properly -
All dogs have four legs and hair AND All cats have four legs and hair therefore all dogs are cats. Just based on the logic, tell me it's wrong - can't - gotta apply
reasoning.
Applying a little reasoning and doing a little reading (any PoliSci textbook will do) you'll find that Politcal science 'right-wing', which the first term refers to (sorry about the broken infinitive there, ACanuck, but I'm American) is waaaaay different than our everyday language definition.
ACanuck took the logic back as far as he needed to to prove his point, applying no reasoning to it. They go hand in hand. Actually he only supplied half the argument he was trying to make - he left the other half to implication.
Take it from the top and apply a little reasoning -
What is Nazism? Fascism.
What is Fascism? Right-wing.
Ummmm, what's the next
logical bit of reasoning here?
That's right!
What is Right-wing? Political science and politics will give different answers here, so the logic doesn't work.
It a tricky point, but a common mistake with a half-assed comprehension of logic. They only teach you the first part.
Then - this is a hoot too - ACanuck tries to single-source it to credibility. That's just bad practice. All it is is what one guy thinks about it, I don't care who the guy is.
I got another chuckle over the
ad hominem attack and the logical fallacy thing. While his superior education provided him that nugget of knowledge, , and he is quite correct, it apparently left him unprepared to actually
recognize an
ad hominem attack. The attack was on the source's position, which would go towards credibility.
'I don't believe that guy because he has a big nose' is an
ad hominem attack.
Doesn't matter the method of 'attack', I'd question
any single source reference, just as a matter of course.
But anyhow, Fascism is a mix of political ideals, some left, some right, but actually the mix comes out quite distinct from both. The case that fascism is left wing is just as easily made as the case that it's right wing. How someone argues the case normally depends on which side they start with.
It intersects with our concept of right-wing at the social conservatism point and diverges from there.
It's differentiated from both the left and the right, and probably better defined by what it is
againstIt's anti-capitalist, but also anti-proletariat, for example.
Fascism differs from modern day conservatism, just for one example, in the form, size and scope of government, Fascism works for a totalitarian single-party state and the modern right-wing moves the opposite way, towards smaller central government, if you use the tenets of the Tea Party as in indicator of modern right wing thought.
Nazism is a much nuanced version of fascism, and differs in substanial aspects and in no way represents our concept of 'right-wing'.
In short, to equate fascism with modern conservativism is incorrect.
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 09:02:06 AM
Thank you for making me realize how lucky I was to grow up in a country with one of the top education systems in the world.
In order to create a coherent argument, you can`t just make stuff up, and then call it a `fact`. You have to be able to prove what you`re saying, often by doing what I did: Citing a reliable source. The University of Maryland is considered a reliable source.
A lecture can be done anywhere, so what makes the declarations of a single person so authoritative that it would sway the masses into accepting
ANY idea? Try that out on either side of a political argument.
You mean you Canuckistanis really
DO put all your Canadian eggs into one basket?
You sound simply awesome, lauding your "superior" educational system while concurrently citing an
AMERICAN source. :thumbsup: (We're #1, we're #1!")
Have you no
national pride up there any more? :ttoung:
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 13, 2012, 04:00:36 PM
As the Weimar Republic did its slow-motion implosion in the late 1920s and early 1930s, single-party rule or even a dual-party system like ours was unthinkable. Most elections for national seats featured a field of many candidates, sometimes dozens, from a mind-boggling array of political parties. Government happened only as a coalition of parties, as opposed to what we're used to.
Sounds alot like Greece today.
I don't know if this is how it will happen, but I have thought for a long time that prior to the elections in November, Obama will cause something to occur to enable him to declare Martial Law and postpone or cancel the elections alltogether. IMO that is the only way he can stay in office. What better way to become a permanent dictator? I hope I'm wrong. I fear I am not.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on May 14, 2012, 09:07:10 AM
I don't know if this is how it will happen, but I have thought for a long time that prior to the elections in November, Obama will cause something to occur to enable him to declare Martial Law and postpone or cancel the elections alltogether. IMO that is the only way he can stay in office. What better way to become a permanent dictator? I hope I'm wrong. I fear I am not.
With all of the recent news of voter fraud, a company in Spain counting election results, the fact Obama has a sucky record to run on, you've got a point. With his polling at 53% disapproval, the loss of a lot of the Catholic and Jewish vote, all he has left is Hispanics, the dead, and voter fraud to pull off a victory. So Martial Law is an option. But if Obama misjudges the county sheriffs in this nation, he may not even be able to pull it off with that. A Sheriff can decide whether Martial Law will be implemented in his county!!!
Quote from: Charliemyboy on May 14, 2012, 09:07:10 AM
I don't know if this is how it will happen, but I have thought for a long time that prior to the elections in November, Obama will cause something to occur to enable him to declare Martial Law and postpone or cancel the elections alltogether. IMO that is the only way he can stay in office. What better way to become a permanent dictator? I hope I'm wrong. I fear I am not.
I've often felt that because of his lack of familiarity with America, and his insular upbringing and education, Obozo may truly believe that his left wing philosophy represents the way most Americans feel. After all, he isn't going to get the truth out of the media, which exists inside the same echo chamber. Maybe he does accept the adulation of his canned audiences as actual support. He did win, and may assume that he has an "army" out there, ready to fight and die for him. I don't think his ego, is capable of recognizing he's only a novelty act, and not a "star".
Quote from: ACanuck on May 13, 2012, 08:29:26 AM
Just thought you should know that Nazis were fascists, and fascism is a Right Wing political ideology.
Hope that helps. :D
The NAZI were not right wing. They fit the left wing mold much more realistically. That is why they are socialists.