"They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.

[Clock]

I'm probably not using the quotes forum properly, but hey, everything is worth a shot.

--

Seems to be this picture making its rounds on the internet such as this:





I did simple research of the quote on the internet, and it seems to come from Obama's commencement speech at Ohio State University on May 5, 2013.

As it turns out, the quote is real. I think conspiracy believers use this quote as irony when looking at the below headlines, and calling Obama a 'sheep dressed in fox clothing' or a 'simple pawn to the elite' and etc.

Here is part of his speech, to give context to the quote :

[The founders of the US thought us]To educate our people with a system of public schools and land-grant colleges, including The Ohio State University. To care for the sick and the vulnerable, and provide a basic level of protection from falling into abject poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth.
To conquer fascism and disease; to visit the Moon and Mars; to gradually secure our God-given rights for all of our citizens, regardless of who they are, or what they look like, or who they love.
We, the people, chose to do these things together — because we know this country cannot accomplish great things if we pursue nothing greater than our own individual ambition.

Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all of our faith in government to solve our problems; we shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us; it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government.

Content from external source

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/06/transcript-obamas-commencement-speech-at-ohio-state/

The Facts:

Obama isn't saying "Oh, you hear those people not trusting us? They're morons and liars!"

In fact, he's actually saying that if you don't have 100% trust in the government, and says that it's fine, while 100% encouraging for individualism. ("because we know this country cannot accomplish great things if we pursue nothing greater than our own individual ambition.")

For someone who is part of a group wanting to control the entire world by putting innocent people in FEMA camps, why would he tell this to us? Shouldn't he be telling us the opposite? I guess it's "all part of the plan".

So yeah, not really debunked anything, just put it into proper context, I suppose.

 

[mynym]

So yeah, not really debunked anything, just put it into proper context, I suppose.

The whole context is that Obama Inc. supports international bankers creating money/debt out of nothing more than they do providing a form of government for we the people.

So in reality, he's merely another mask on the "separate, sinister entity" that lies at the root of all evil.

 

[dunbar]

Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems;

"The United States is owned and dominated today by a hierarchy of its sixty richest families, buttressed by no more than ninety families of lesser wealth... These families are the living center of the modern industrial oligarchy which dominates the United States, functioning discreetly under a de jure democratic form of government behind which a de facto government, absolutist and plutocratic in its lineaments, has gradually taken form since the Civil War. This de facto government is actually the government of the United States -- informal, invisible, shadowy. It is the government of money in a dollar democracy."

- Ferdinand Lundberg - 1937 expose on the super-rich "America's 60 Families". Lundberg used tax records to uncover the often impenetrable financial and political machinations of the 60 Families

 

[Cairenn]

That was 1937, a lot of things have changed. Major industries then have collapsed and new ones arisen.

It is entirely too easy to BLAME someone else for not doing as well as you think you should be doing. From a curse by an old woman to the Gods of Olympus or 'original sin' to the 'shadow cabals' of conspiracy theorists. It's an excuse. Some folks are rich, some have too much money, that is life. Some folks are smart, some can sing, some can hit a ball. Life isn't fair.

 

[MikeC]

- Ferdinand Lundberg - 1937 expose on the super-rich "America's 60 Families". Lundberg used tax records to uncover the often impenetrable financial and political machinations of the 60 Families

And so what?
Posting a quote without at least TRYING to link it to the topic looks like spam to me.

 

[Pete Tar]

No, he really thinks it's proof, case closed.

 

[dunbar]

That was 1937, a lot of things have changed. Major industries then have collapsed and new ones arisen.

Yeah, things have changed. The wealth gap has widened dramatically and wealth is super concentrated in far fewer hands. So in this respect things took a turn for the worse.

And so what?
Posting a quote without at least TRYING to link it to the topic looks like spam to me.

I'd say it links quite aptly with the little fairytale Obama Inc is selling here. But maybe he was referring to government in the abstract, not this particular form of government we Americans live under today. The government we now have today is dominated and owned by the super rich and as such it is little more than "some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems", it is "the government of money in a dollar democracy".

 

[MikeC]

See - now THAT is commentary - why not say that when you make the post in the first place??

I think you are exhibiting the "usual" Obama-hatred that seems to permeate the CT ranks these days and which I think is going to have to be conveniently forgotten when he fails to become a despotic tyrant overthrowing the constitution by completing his 2nd term and then someone replaces him... ...but at least I know what you mean!

 

[dunbar]

See - now THAT is commentary - why not say that when you make the post in the first place??

Because it seemed fairly obvious and stating the obvious is, well, dull.

I think you are exhibiting the "usual" Obama-hatred that seems to permeate the CT ranks these days

I don't hate Obama, I just regard him for what he is -- a bought in, sold out establishment puppet. Most "conspiracy theorists" hate Obama either because they are hard right wing paleo-conservative fanatics or they are libertarian anarchists who just hate government all together. That's not me, I basically agree with Obama here in the abstract, but unfortunately the reality is 'that our experiment in self-rule is just a sham which can’t be trusted'.

which I think is going to have to be conveniently forgotten when he fails to become a despotic tyrant overthrowing the constitution by completing his 2nd term and then someone replaces him... ...but at least I know what you mean!

He has become a tyrant to a certain extent, he has overthrown the constitution in many respects. Tyranny comes in many forms, some are more subtle but it is tyranny nonetheless. The ACA is one example, 20,000 pages of corporatist malfeasance as law. No public option, no single payer, just a diktat to purchase a defective product from a for profit racket. That alone could be called tyranny and that's just the least of it.

 

[Mick West]

Because it seemed fairly obvious and stating the obvious is, well, dull.

And required here on Metabunk.

Speak plainly. Explain what you think. Don't assume an allusion is enough.

And try to stick to the posting guidelines. Broad generalizations are frowned upon, specific claims of evidence are celebrated.

 

[Joe Newman]

I think you are exhibiting the "usual" Obama-hatred that seems to permeate the CT ranks these days and which I think is going to have to be conveniently forgotten when he fails to become a despotic tyrant overthrowing the constitution by completing his 2nd term and then someone replaces him... ...but at least I know what you mean!

Just because he finishes his term and leaves has no bearing on his presiding over an increasing tyrannical govt. He took the torch from Bush and he will pass it off to someone else, yes, but during his time on the watch, folks who are watching what is going on behind the rhetoric are seeing that the power of the government is increasing, the constitution is being disregarded and the people are increasingly at the mercy of a govt gone wild.

 

[Mick West]

Just because he finishes his term and leaves has no bearing on his presiding over an increasing tyrannical govt. He took the torch from Bush and he will pass it off to someone else, yes, but during his time on the watch, folks who are watching what is going on behind the rhetoric are seeing that the power of the government is increasing, the constitution is being disregarded and the people are increasingly at the mercy of a govt gone wild.

But what do you think of Obama's point that it's unwise to characterize government as simply the source of all our problems? Caution is warranted, but is there not room for some functionality of government? "We have never been a people who place all of our faith in government to solve our problems; we shouldn't want to." But are anarchy, apathy, and revolution the only options?

 

[Joe Newman]

But what do you think of Obama's point that it's unwise to characterize government as simply the source of all our problems? Caution is warranted, but is there not room for some functionality of government? "We have never been a people who place all of our faith in government to solve our problems; we shouldn't want to." But are anarchy, apathy, and revolution the only options?

I think there should be room for functional government. But the problem is that beyond the rhetoric, more and more, government is becoming the source of many problems and it is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

His statement sounds good, but it is not in line with the actions of his government, which is taking more and more control out of the hands of individuals and placing it in the hands of a dysfunctional bureaucracy and out of control security sector.

Anarchy isn't an option beyond individuals raging against the machine as it beats them into submission. Apathy is being aggressively prescribed as a self-medicating defense mechanism because of the overwhelm that comes from helplessly watching the cookie crumble before our eyes. That leaves revolution, something only a few are prepared to undertake in an effort to reclaim what they can of what they've lost in the liberties and ideals the country was founded upon. But they know (of should) that they have no chance against this behemoth put in place by the DHS.

So, with the government doing so much to agitate a frustrated an increasingly angry and divided populace, sooner or later something has to give and when the dam bursts somewhere, the only option will be to meet it with overwhelming force because that is the trajectory that has been established by the increasingly tyrannical govt.

It's a well-worn path. Push them till they pop and pop them till they can't push any more.

 

[SR1419]

I think there should be room for functional government. But the problem is that beyond the rhetoric, more and more, government is becoming the source of many problems and it is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

But what is making it dysfunctional? Is the the partisan machinations and divisions within the government and conflicts amongst constituents? Or is it the 60 banker families that rule the world?

 

[Mick West]

We'll see.

 

[MikeC]

Because it seemed fairly obvious and stating the obvious is, well, dull.

It might be fairly obvious to you, however there is a wide range of opinion, knowledge and preconception on here, and if you do not explain yourself then you have no real right to expect people to understand what you might consider "obvious" .

I don't hate Obama, I just regard him for what he is -- a bought in, sold out establishment puppet.

I see that as the same thing.

He has become a tyrant to a certain extent, he has overthrown the constitution in many respects. Tyranny comes in many forms, some are more subtle but it is tyranny nonetheless. The ACA is one example, 20,000 pages of corporatist malfeasance as law. No public option, no single payer, just a diktat to purchase a defective product from a for profit racket. That alone could be called tyranny and that's just the least of it.

And yet it passed Congress and was ruled constitutional by the SC.

 

[Cairenn]

Personally I think a single payer option would have been better, BUT, you can't destroy an entire industry and thousands of jobs to get it. You have to start moving that direction and that is what ACA did. It was a kluge and yes it will have major problems but it will provide care to some that were not able to get insurance.

 

[Twana J]

It might be fairly obvious to you, however there is a wide range of opinion, knowledge and preconception on here, and if you do not explain yourself then you have no real right to expect people to understand what you might consider "obvious" .



I see that as the same thing.



And yet it passed Congress and was ruled constitutional by the SC.

Not exactly
March 11, 2010 -- In a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader Harry Reid says Democrats will use "reconciliation," needing only 51 votes, to pass the health care bill.

March 21, 2010 -- The Senate passes its version of the bill, sending the legislation to Obama for his signature. A separate package of changes expanding the reach of the measure also passed the House over unanimous GOP opposition, and will be taken up by the Senate.

March 23, 2010 -- Obama signs the bill

 

[MikeC]

Not exactly
March 11, 2010 -- In a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader Harry Reid says Democrats will use "reconciliation," needing only 51 votes, to pass the health care bill.

March 21, 2010 -- The Senate passes its version of the bill, sending the legislation to Obama for his signature. A separate package of changes expanding the reach of the measure also passed the House over unanimous GOP opposition, and will be taken up by the Senate.

March 23, 2010 -- Obama signs the bill

You will have to explain to me how that was not passed by Congress??

 

[Twana J]

You will have to explain to me how that was not passed by Congress??

Well since it was deemed a tax by the SC it should have originated in the house not the senate . Goes against our constitution .

Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.

Revenue bills were only to originate in the House because members of the House of Representatives are the only federal officials elected directly by the people. Senators, up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were chosen by the state legislatures. And the president was chosen by the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 it was felt that, in order for the new federal government to have sufficient legitimacy to gain popular support, it was imperative that at least part of the government would always have a popular mandate. Hence the three words at the beginning of the Constitution are "We the People." This meant that the new government would derive its authority directly from the people and not from state governments.

Content from external source

 

[Cairenn]

If that is so, why didn't the SC overrule it?

 

[MikeC]

Indeed - I imagine the reason would be that although it is a tax, it is not actually revenue or some arcane definition?

Actually, looking here, the summary says:

A majority of the Court, including Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, held that the individual mandate is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to levy taxes.13 Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in pertinent part provides that “Congress shall have Power. . . to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”

Content from external source

And according to the history posted on Wiki it DID originate in the house:

As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[89] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code.

Content from external source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code

So my thoughts over arcane interpretations were incorrect - no-one argued the origin because it DID originate in the house.

 

[Joe Newman]

We'll see.

We're seeing, Mick. But only if we are willing to look. Unless your bar is set to such a height that the only acceptable evidence is a fully boiled frog, then at some point you have to take note of what is happening around you in the way of steadily heating water.

If you have dismissed all the canaries in the societal coal mine as kooks and liars, you are missing much in the way of the details. The msm just doesn't carry the stories about govt overreach and out of control cops, so if that's the only source of one's news, of course it's going to be a case of "nothing to see here." Then if someone puts an article up as evidence, it's dismissed because the source isn't of the elect, so it's a skewed slant out of the box.

If a site has ten articles and eight are overheated op eds, that doesn't negate the two that are reporting on events that feed the fuel on the frogpot.

 

[Joe Newman]

I see that as the same thing.

That's the problem. By seeing it as just Obama hating CT stuff, the focus is on the disapproving the reaction instead of putting the blame on the action that led to that "hating."

 

[Joe Newman]

If that is so, why didn't the SC overrule it?

That's what a lot of people want to know. Why not, indeed.

 

[dunbar]

If that is so, why didn't the SC overrule it?

Why indeed. Could it be that Supreme Court Justices are carefully selected and thoroughly vetted by the political agents of the money power in order to ensure that only those individuals are elevated to the position of justice who have demonstrated over the course of many years throughout their careers as jurists and academics their ideological sympathies and deep seated allegiances to the overall course and character of the economic and political interests of the ruling class?

It is time to inject some reality into this issue. In fact, through most of its history the Supreme Court has engaged in the wildest conservative judicial activism in defense of privileged groups.

Be it for slavery or segregation, child labor or the sixteen hour workday, state sedition laws or assaults on the First Amendment---rightist judicial activists have shown an infernal agility in stretching and bending the Constitution to serve every inequity and iniquity.

Right to the eve of the Civil War, for instance, the Supreme Court asserted the primacy of property rights in slaves, rejecting all slave petitions for freedom. In the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the Court concluded that, be they slave or free, Blacks were a “subordinate and inferior class of beings” without constitutional rights.

Thus did reactionary judicial activists---some of them slaveholders---spin racist precepts out of thin air to lend a constitutional gloss to their beloved slavocracy.

When the federal government wanted to establish national banks, or give away half the country to speculators, or subsidize industries, or set up commissions that fixed prices and interest rates for large manufacturers and banks, or imprison dissenters who denounced war and capitalism, or use the U.S. Army to shoot workers and break strikes, or have Marines kill people in Central America---the Supreme Court’s conservative activists twisted the Constitution in every conceivable way to justify these acts. So much for “strict construction.”

[...]

In sum, the right-wing aggrandizers in black robes are neither strict constructionists nor balanced adjudicators. They are unrestrained power hustlers masquerading as sober defenders of lawful procedure and constitutional intent.

If this is democracy, who needs oligarchy? -
Michael Parenti: Right-Wing Judicial Activism
full article:
http://hnn.us/article/23064

Content from external source

 

[MikeC]

Or it could be the bill did originate in the house!

The dissenting SC justices did argue against constitutionality - but not because of where the bill originated.

 

[dunbar]

I see that as the same thing.

Of course you do, because I'm a "conspiracy theorist" and as a "conspiracy theorist" I don't have a legitimate, rational point of view. I have only irrational hatreds stemming from the deep seated paranoia of an unhinged borderline personality. My worldview isn't derived from either logic or reason but fomented from fear and ignorance.

 

[Joe Newman]

Of course you do, because I'm a "conspiracy theorist" and as a "conspiracy theorist" I don't have a legitimate, rational point of view. I have only irrational hatreds stemming from the deep seated paranoia of an unhinged borderline personality. My worldview isn't derived from either logic or reason but fomented from fear and ignorance.

And Alex Jones. You can't leave him out.

 

[dunbar]

But what is making it dysfunctional? Is the the partisan machinations and divisions within the government and conflicts amongst constituents? Or is it the 60 banker families that rule the world?

It's not an either/or problem, it's complicated. A rational observer doesn't discount or dismiss one in favor of the other, a rational observer only tries to recognize and account for all the factors at play in order to gain a sense of the overall dynamic.

 

[Twana J]

Indeed - I imagine the reason would be that although it is a tax, it is not actually revenue or some arcane definition?

Actually, looking here, the summary says:

A majority of the Court, including Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, held that the individual mandate is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to levy taxes.13 Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in pertinent part provides that “Congress shall have Power. . . to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”

Content from external source

And according to the history posted on Wiki it DID originate in the house:

As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[89] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code.

Content from external source

So my thoughts over arcane interpretations were incorrect - no-one argued the origin because it DID originate in the house.

The Constitution says revenue-raising bills must be approved first in the House of Representatives. But even though it imposes taxes, the ACA started in the Senate. That makes it a non-starter, in a constitutional sense.”

Content from external source

http://www.pacificlegal.org/release...e-Care-Act-started-in-wrong-house-of-Congress

The Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HR 3962)[1] was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives in November 2009. It never became law as originally drafted. At the encouragement of the Obama administration, the 111th Congress devoted much of its time to enactingreform of the United States' health care system. Known as the "House bill," HR 3962 was the House of Representative's chief legislative proposal during the health reform debate.

On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed an alternative health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590).[2] In 2010, the House abandoned its reform bill in favor of amending the Senate bill (via the reconciliation process) in the form of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Content from external source

Looks like according to wiki HR 3590 started in the Senate .

 

[Twana J]

Not a tax ? is he lying ? This is tyranny !

 

[Cairenn]

We will have to see what the court system decides then, won't we? If the Republicans were so sure of that they wouldn't have been doing gymnastics to stop it.

 

[Twana J]

We will have to see what the court system decides then, won't we? If the Republicans were so sure of that they wouldn't have been doing gymnastics to stop it.

Yes we will . It doesnt matter because its seems to be failing on its own . If you cant run a website you really have no business running healthcare for a country with 300 million people . The republicans havent really done squat to try to defeat it . Remember Nixon wanted it as well as did the Heritage foundation . http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/ Its tyranny because its from both sides its just a illusion for division purposes . United We Stand Divided We Fall . It really has nothing to do with Obama he is just a tool being used against all of us .

 

[Joe Newman]

Or it could be the bill did originate in the house!

The dissenting SC justices did argue against constitutionality - but not because of where the bill originated.

Regardless of these quibbles as to how Obamacabre was foisted on the public, a funny thing happened on the way to the msm and the dems joining the wtf parade.

For all the harping on those crazy ct kooks and tea party turds that goes on around here, there isn't a single aspect of this trainwreck that is now coming to light in the most hideously embarrassing way that wasn't predicted or reported on by the loons in the tabloid fake wretched excuse for media before the thing was rolled out. They scooped the msm on this coming and going and even though the msm is now beating the same drum, it has been strictly catch up.

 

[dunbar]

And Alex Jones. You can't leave him out.

Oh yes, we can't ever forget AJ, that corpulent over-amped fear pumping adrenal gland of a patriotard that parodies to the point of grotesque exaggeration what a true muckraking populist ought to be. Only in this culture could AJ be mistaken for anything other than bad satire.

 

[Pete Tar]

Regardless of these quibbles as to how Obamacabre was foisted on the public, a funny thing happened on the way to the msm and the dems joining the wtf parade.

For all the harping on those crazy ct kooks and tea party turds that goes on around here, there isn't a single aspect of this trainwreck that is now coming to light in the most hideously embarrassing way that wasn't predicted or reported on by the loons in the tabloid fake wretched excuse for media before the thing was rolled out. They scooped the msm on this coming and going and even though the msm is now beating the same drum, it has been strictly catch up.

Could you list those revelations and the articles that predicted them?
Did someone predict the website would crash?
There was opposition, but that's not specific and hardly a 'scoop' of anything.

 

[Clock]

For some people who thought what Obama was saying was very obvious, I found it on the 'Conspiracy Watch' facebook page, and most people were making the comments that I had mentioned in my first post.

 

[MikeC]

Looks like according to wiki HR 3590 started in the Senate .

Nope. You have not understood - the Senate took an existing bill that HAD been started in the House, and changed the wording

From GovTrack:

GovTrack’s Bill Summary
This is the Senate's health care bill. The bill started off with text regarding an unrelated matter but the Senate is co-opted this bill as a vehicle for passage of their reform and changed the text in whole to the health care bill. They do this because the Constitution requires all revenue bills to start in the House, and their health reform plan involves revenue. So they have chosen to work off of a bill that started in the House, even if that bill is unrelated.

Content from external source

Here is it's progress:

Introduced Sep 17, 2009
Passed House Oct 08, 2009
Passed Senate with Changes Dec 24, 2009
House Agreed to Changes Mar 21, 2010
Signed by the President Mar 23, 2010

Content from external source

 

[MikeC]

Of course you do, because I'm a "conspiracy theorist" and as a "conspiracy theorist" I don't have a legitimate, rational point of view. I have only irrational hatreds stemming from the deep seated paranoia of an unhinged borderline personality. My worldview isn't derived from either logic or reason but fomented from fear and ignorance.

Thank you for affording me the same generalization that you are apparently upset that you think i afford you - that I am apparently only capable of thinking what it is you think I think

But no.

CT'ers have many legitimate and rational points of view, and even points of fact.

It was only my shorthand that equates "Obama haters" with T's because they are so often one and the same.