Is The Department Of Homeland Security Obama’s Gestapo?
When Adolf Hitler made his rise to power, he established the Secret State Police in 1934, headed by Heinrich Himmler. The German name for them is Geheime Staatspolizei. Taking the bolded and underlined letters from the newly formed entity you get the more familiar term, Gestapo.
The role of the Gestapo was to spy on the German people and identify any and all opposition to Hitler’s Third Reich. They were given full authority to investigate and report or suspect cases of criminal attacks against the Nazi Party along with cases of sabotage, espionage and treason. What made them so deadly and sinister was that they were also given authority to act without any judicial oversight. They became the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of anyone that stood in Hitler’s way....
from the article, "Under Obama’s supervision, the Department of Homeland Security has been purchasing thousands of assault weapons, over a billion rounds of ammunition, of which 450 million are hollow-points, bulletproof vests, riot gear, bullet-proof traffic stops and other equipment one would readily associate with an army. Nearly 200,000 rounds of ammunition are specifically designed for sniper rifles. There are also plans to place 30,000 drones in our skies to spy on us.
If that makes you nervous, the Obama administration has also given approval for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to purchase 46,000 rounds of .40 caliber hollow points. Supposedly, they were purchased for NOAA’s Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement." Don't see anything referring to former president Bush in the point the author was trying to make. I never feel comfortable comparing our current president to Hitler or the Third Reich so will admit that is offensive. There is much fault that lies at the feet of the Bush administration concerning the department of Homeland Security, however president Obama has had 4 years to dismantle it if he wanted. It is his baby now.
jpw wrote: --- I was told for years, by some here even, that it was for peace and security. this is a bipartisan effort, so jump in and thank yourself for creating a group who is above the cohn and now acting like it. ---
Sorry to disillusion, but I was opposed to HS when it was created. I don't actually think it was originally created for the purpose of intimidating Americans, but it was easy enough to see from the beginning it would be ultimately used that way. That's what I mean by unintended consequences. If government is given power, it will be used.
Mike -- "unintended consequences". sort of like an unintended pregnancy or "oops,that apple seed I planted grew into an apple tree, how did that happen?"
the dep continues on no matter who it is in charge.... because both parties have given the a okay for this.
I was told for years, by some here even, that it was for peace and security.
this is a bipartisan effort, so jump in and thank yourself for creating a group who is above the cohn and now acting like it.
and to the question at hand..... Obama was given this power, and he can carry it out in whatever manner he wants. It really depends on what he wants.
jpw wrote: good grief! this question should have been asked 10 years ago and was not created by the current leader, but the previous, whose father announced in 91 that it is all about the new world order. Christians better wake up. ---
It's called unintended consequences. But the issue for today is, what is being justified and by whom.
good grief! this question should have been asked 10 years ago and was not created by the current leader, but the previous, whose father announced in 91 that it is all about the new world order.
Christians better wake up.
Mr. Bohemian Grove, where the sacrifices are supposedly not real, who's wife came out directly after leaving office to declare, that, guess what, she had always been pro abortion.
I understand, liberals also claim our current great leader to be a peacemaker, deserving the highest of prizes all the while being just as wore hawkish.
So the libs and cons's think they are somehow representing opposite philosophies, all the while defending the undefendable. and that's how it works.
1
There are a total of 10 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
beaver: "
mike
maybe you'd like to pick a more suitable adjective.
my, my,..."
