This quote is from Hal G.P. Colebatch's article in The Australian, referred to by spindoc, and linked to by StG:

"This campaign [of forced evolution into a 'soft' totalitarian state] seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in a fudged and deniable manner."

Antiseptic's correction of Arjay's misquotation of 'industrial-military complex' and misattribution of it to JFK, achieved by quoting the original draft of Eisenhower's reference, 'Military-industrial-Congressional complex', is also particularly relevant. The relevance derives from the mention of the word 'Congressional', thereby establishing a focus upon the electoral process as a key element of this first creeping, now seemingly accelerating, totalitarianism in the US.

I suggest that it is in the subversion of the electoral process that this totalitarianism gains its first traction, whether it be in the democracy that is our Constitutional Monarchy, or the (in Antiseptic's view) unrepresentative republic that is the US. That subversion may be effected in the US through apathy (witness the historically low voter turnout) and complacency (witness the acceptance of electronic voting and counting). In Australia, where electoral apathy is prohibited by law, I suggest the subversion is one of the actual administration of elections and matters related thereto, a subversion facilitated by a debauched legislative environment in that respect.

Whilst I am in broad agreement with much of what Arjay has recounted in his opening post, I am amazed at the seeming naivety of the question as to why Obama has not yet repealed the Patriot Act, which is a product of the legislature. Whilst a President may influence the passage, or repeal, of legislation, such may take quite some time.

In Australia, far from endorsing what scaremongering 'shock jockery' may insist *must now be done* in the US, I suggest it is far more appropriate to expose the corruption of our electoral process. This means noting anomalies, and their potential significance.

Obama is a radical left-wing loony and his appointee to head the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is cut from the same cloth.
Ironically the DHS was formed to combat the threat posed by radical Islam after 9/11 but the multicultural left can't manage to muster up enough rational thinking to identify the obvious threat so they have to manufacture one and who could possibly be more dangerous than those who don't wholeheartedly embrace the dystopian left wing agenda?
As identified by the report these are:

war veterans
opponents of illegal immigration
supporters of the literal meaning of the Second Amendment
believers in constitutionally limited government
opponents of the killing of unborn babies
supporters of U.S. sovereignty and independence
opponents of same-sex marriage

These dangerous terrorists must be stopped and Obama and Janet are the right people for the job.

Forrest Gump.In 2006 Obama elected to keep the Patriot Act with 3 changes to aid civil liberties.Section 213 of this act is of major concern.It allows for phone taps,invasion of your property,access all information on your computer,medical records,bank a/c and take DNA samples without your knowledge or consent.

Obama sees the major problem as being George Bush's executive orders but the Patriot Act gives them unauthorised access to your property whereby incriminating evidence can also be planted by them.

You only have to look at the RTA in NSW whereby you can be proved innocent of a traffic offence and still lose your points.The RTA are judge,jewry and executioner.

Arjay, it's jury not jewry.

I think that's what's known as a Freudian slip.

As for the wingnut paranoia about being included in profiling parameters for extremism, I'm told that if they wear hats made of tinfoil they're invisible to Big Brother.

Personally, I'd rather not be in close proximity to anyone who matched too many of the DHS criteria .- particularly if they're wearing a tinfoil hat

Horus and Bugsy,

There is a post missing from the thread, but its not the one Horus mentioned. It is one of Fractelle's.

Earlier she had posted just minutes after this post on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 1:48:55 PM the identical text plus a link. It was pretty clearly an unintended double-post, with one small difference, the link, which had either been forgotten on the first posting, or hadn't copied into the posting pane when intended for posting.

I flagged the first of the virtually identical posts for deletion purely as a thread clean-up suggestion. Either by mistake, or because of a requirement to follow strict propriety with respect to double-postings, the second post containing the link was the one taken down by OLO.

My apologies to Fractelle. Here is the link I believe she posted: http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=3283

I retrieved it from the 'Recently closed tabs' display under 'History' in my Firefox browser. I hope it is the correct one; memory says it is (and the fact that it was in the History shows that I at least opened it, if not read it, doesn't it?).

What may have thrown Horus is that both the post count dropped back by one, and the pagination of his post may have altered as a consequence. He may thus not have seen his post where it had previously been, and mistakenly concluded it was missing. Such things happen.

Interesting, the arrival of KMB on the thread with a whole stack of assertions in relation to Obama, following the earlier accusations of trolling levelled by oug earlier in the day. Doubly interesting, in the light of the topic 'Abortion is a Blessing and Abortionists are Saints' and my comment thereon: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2654#59738 , particularly the second link given and the lack of response in that dialogue.

In my view its 'shock jockery' when a poster opens a topic with a set of assertions, but then has nothing of substance to say.