Tags: kleinfeld | Investment | Risk | obama

The Investment Risk That Obama Poses

By
Monday, 10 Oct 2011 08:55 AM Current | Bio | Archive

Do you think that a president of the United States should have a personal military force loyal to only the president and not necessarily to the Constitution?

Would you agree that a president with that power would be able to take control and end the American form of a free market capitalist economy?

Are these questions figments of somebody's paranoid imagination or a potential reality?

If these are possibilities, even if small and not free from controversy, then is it important to factor this risk into your future investment safety decisions?

History teaches us that takeover of a government and nationalization of an economy is not only possible, but it is a regularly occurring circumstance.
___________________________________________________________

Obama Donor Banned This Message

First Google put $803,436 into Obama’s campaign coffers. Then They Denied this Video

But you can watch it here

Watch, learn, and receive a free Survival Guide ($49 value) for your personal financial future.
___________________________________________________________

Countries have become socialist, Marxist, communist, or nationalist with a welfare economic system. They all failed economically and, consequently, politically. Current experience shows us that all existing ones are failing even now.

Could such a thing actually happen here?

It is almost self evident that a form of collectivism — a welfare- or entitlement-dominated economy — has been the trend in the United States for quite awhile.

Congress long ago began ceding its power and authority to whoever was president at the time with the blessings of the Supreme Court. There is no need for Congress to declare war anymore. It hasn't since World War II.

Pass legislation? Why bother when the president's administrative departments, agencies, and commissions can just issue regulations. Besides it takes valuable time away from campaign fundraising.

Perhaps it is not such a leap for a president, dedicated to radically transforming America, to leverage this situation, use existing law, take a bold political step, and grab total direct control of the country and the economy by means of a private army.

How would the president do this?

It may not be as difficult as one would think. What I have discovered is that the legal foundation is already in place.

It is a fact that the Obamacare health act contains provisions under Title V Sections 5209 and 5210, which together establish a new Ready Reserve Corps in addition to the Regular Corps as part of the Public Health Service.

This seems innocent enough. Or are these sections really as insidious as some say?

Sections 5209 and 5210 are the basis for so many on the internet blogs and some TV and radio commentators to believe that these sections grant to the president the authority to establish a private military group responsible only to him.

FactCheck.Org, states these are "false rumors" accusing some, including Fox News, of some sort of conspiracy theory. FactCheck.Org asks the question: "Should we run to our bunkers?"
FactCheck.Org thinks not.

I think otherwise.

But not for the reason that is given by those who analogize this danger to some sort of action by Hitler, his brownshirts, Nazism, the Soviet Union and the like. Although Rep. Paul Brown of Georgia did make that observation (except for the Stalin part) back in November of 2008.

It is unquestionable that inflaming an issue with incendiary language does not lead us easily along a path to discover the truth. It is, in fact, a classic fallacy of logic.

With that said, it is clear to me that by virtue of Obamacare, the president has, at the very least, the authority to establish a new Ready Reserve Corps, of some kind, within the Public Health Service. All without any limitation as to numbers or the need to go to Congress for funding.

FactCheck.Org says this means that the president will only have the power to create a ready reserve of healthcare workers in case of emergencies.

The basis for the opinion asserted by FactCheck.Org is just too thin to take at face value.

FactCheck.Org also accused the "doomsayers" of taking things out of context. The ad hominem attack is another classic fallacy of logic. Context depends, obviously, on how you analyze the facts which make up the context.

As I discovered, there was a lot left out of the context of FactCheck.Org's analysis. It just doesn't get us to the truth.

Their analysis was a fairly superficial way to explain why and how the president’s private army couldn't be established. I looked at the flip side. I was thinking about finding out why and how it could.

In July 2008, the president gave a now infamous speech proposing to add 250,000 "people of all ages, stations, and skills" to the AmeriCorps to meet the national goals of providing healthcare and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world.

(Strangely, I thought that what was the government was supposed to be doing in the first place with a $3.5 trillion budget and all those millions of public servants.)

The president also said he wanted to establish a new energy corps, grow our Foreign Service, and double the size of the Peace Corps.
But why the need for all these brigades of people?

The president tells us his objective towards the end of his speech. He says, "We cannot continue to rely on our military to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, and just as strong, just as well funded."

Can it be possible to have national security be dependent upon a vast group of unarmed community service providers instead of the police and military?

It has been observed that national security ultimately requires somebody to carry and be able to use weapons — and to kill if necessary.

Weapon training and killing people is not something that your everyday doctor or nurse or other health provider is trained to do. Or bill Medicare for.

At about the same time as the president made this remarkable speech, the Department of Defense issued a Defense Directive 1404.10 establishing a new "DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce."

This new Civilian Expeditionary Workforce will be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy for a rather lengthy list of situations.

The new Directive is in accordance with prior DoD Directive 3000.05. As one commentator pointed out, under the prior Directive the original Civilian Expeditionary Workforce mentions the term "overseas" no fewer than 33 times, "while the Obama revision does not mention 'overseas' at all."

In fact, a commentator pointed out, "The revised directive is designed for 'emergency operations' in the United States." It definitely is not limited to health issues.

The Public Health Service Corps is one of the seven uniformed corps. It has uniforms, songs, flags, and the service members, like the regular armed forces, can be subject to the Military Code of Justice as well.

The Public Health Service has long history of being militarized. In fact, Congress has passed legislation allowing it to be militarized again by the president.

Why should Congress have to make a decision, bound to have some political blowback someplace, when it can dump the problem into the lap of a president?

Under federal statutes Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter 1, Part A, Section 217, the Ready Reserve Corps are within the Commissioned Corps and part of the Public Health Service.

The Ready Reserve Corps can become a branch of the land and naval forces by executive order of the president, not only in time of war, but also in "an emergency involving national defense as proclaimed by the president."

In addition, Obamacare section 5210 is not limited to health emergencies. It states, "The Ready Reserve Corps may be called to active duty to respond to national emergencies and public crisis..."

The Ready Reserve Corps is the new part of the Public Health Service which clearly can be under the control of the president by law.

Let's speculate now on how the president might use this new corps.
Here's where I add a bit of opinion. The president, it seems to me, has overwhelming exhibited his willingness to by-pass Congress and act by use of regulations. If nothing else, he is a motivated man with a goal to radically transform the United States.

As I see it, Obamacare is a step along the way.

And the president seems to have a disdain for the limits of the Constitution. His assertion of power and authority by virtue of the 14th Amendment in the recent deficit and budget debate shows this most clearly.

As expected, he was supported in this assertion by prominent Democrats and, of course, various professors of Constitutional law from the elite Ivy League law schools.

The president has said he wanted a private army. The facts and law enable to do just that.

He has, in place, legislation from Congress, Department of Defense Directives, and a history of the militarization of the Public Health Service.

All of this together gives the president the power to ultimately include the Ready Reserve Corps as part of the uniformed land and naval military corps.

And the president can do this anytime he deems there to be a national emergency.

What is more is that Congress gave him the authority to pay for it.
This leads me back to my initial financial inquiries.

Could the president form his own private army? If so, would the president then have the power and means to nationalize the economy ending all forms of private investment financial security?

I'll let you decide.

© 2017 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.

 
1Like our page
2Share
Kleinfeld
Do you think that a president of the United States should have a personal military force loyal to only the president and not necessarily to the Constitution? Would you agree that a president with that power would be able to take control and end the American form of a free...
kleinfeld,Investment,Risk,obama
3139
2011-55-10
Monday, 10 Oct 2011 08:55 AM
Newsmax Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
MONEYNEWS.COM
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved