Obama's Police State: A "Civilian National Security Force" as Strong as Military
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Obama's "Civilian Nationals Security Force"
-Joseph Farah
With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.
For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.
In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.
Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?
What does it mean?
If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?
I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?
Are we talking about creating a police state here?
The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.
Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?
If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?
So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.
At this point all I can do is enlist your help – and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.
Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?
The questions are endless.
But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.
Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?
I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.
Help me out here. What am I missing?
Can I get a hand?
What IS he talking about?
WTF do we need a million well armed people ON THE STREET for?
WTF is he going to do with a "CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE"?
As well funded and as strong as the ENTIRE Military?
For DOMESTIC used !?!
Is this a fucking joke?
Police State, anyone?
Obama supporters.
HELP YOUR BOY OUT HERE.
WTF!
:cool:
-Joseph Farah
With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.
For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.
In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.
Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?
What does it mean?
If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?
I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?
Are we talking about creating a police state here?
The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.
Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?
If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?
So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.
At this point all I can do is enlist your help – and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.
Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?
The questions are endless.
But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.
Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?
I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.
Help me out here. What am I missing?
Can I get a hand?
What IS he talking about?
WTF do we need a million well armed people ON THE STREET for?
WTF is he going to do with a "CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE"?
As well funded and as strong as the ENTIRE Military?
For DOMESTIC used !?!
Is this a fucking joke?
Police State, anyone?
Obama supporters.
HELP YOUR BOY OUT HERE.
WTF!
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Here is the COUNTER EDITORIAL:
Jack Lewis RESPONSE [bold added by ME]
On July 2nd in a speech in Colorado Springs, Barack Obama said...
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
The transcripts have all had the above paragraph censored, even on the Wall Street Journal's web site. But the video is on YouTube, albeit it seems to be available only some of the time. At about 6:40 into the video, you can hear the above comment. (I'd suggest downloading it, then finding the spot, because using YouTube to do it doesn't seem to work)
Joseph Farah at WND is alarmed at the idea of duplicating the expense of the military for a "massive but secret national police force".
I can't figure out how Farah missed the obvious.
Our Founding Father used a Civilian National Security Force, except is wasn't that well funded (it didn't need to be) and it's core power was ensure specifically in the Bill of Rights....
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Founding Fathers knew that often the Military would need to be assisted by civilians. Non-military citizens assisting the military were referred to as the Militia. Every able-bodied man was considered to be already a part of the national Militia. Therefore in order to ensure that the Militia was well regulated, the rights of every citizen to posses weapons was preserved in the Second Amendment, or at least that was the intention. Many years and many morons later, the meaning of the Second Amendment has become obscured. That's why Barack Obama calls for the creation of something the Founding Father assumed we'd always need and have.
That may also explain why there's been such an effort to hide what he said. Obama apparently didn't understand the ramifications of his statement. I'm sure he's been slapped back into shape and warned not to make a slip like that again.
I just wish more Conservatives had caught the real ramifications of what he was saying, rather than assuming the worst.
And, BTW, while I object to the "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" part, I agree that more emphasis should be placed on the need for a national Militia to assist the Military. But I'm not holding my breath.
You guys buy this?
You think Obama is trying to reorganize a MILITIA?
really?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
why was it edited from the transcripts and from newspaper reports?
and why is it phrased like it is a singular and NEW organization?
he didn't say, "we need to beef up our existing civilian defense infrastructure".
he called for a "Civilian National Security Force".
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Once they start finding problems with the police force...it means that they are looking to beef it up and make upgrades. It wouldn't surprise me if they try to pass new gun laws legislation sometime thereafter.
I wonder if Obama is just parroting the name of an actual plan that has been cooking up in closed circles.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
just give me an idea what he really means?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I don't know... but neither do the yahoos writing editorials creating some sort of manufactured panic about a "chilling" secret plan for a "massive secret police force" which is his "biggest and boldest initiatives before the election".
I'm not even sure how someone can read that first editorial with a straight face.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
so what do you think he's talking about?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Just like you so elaborately do when something is handed to you in a government envelope!
If this is what your profound “research for years” has been so far, it is nothing but an insult to every serious researcher. The beginning of research is being critical of ALL sources.
And I seriously ask you: Have you learned anything about political issues that you didn't already believe in 8 years ago?
something to this extent: "Whooaa, I wouldn't have thought of that...I have never seen it that way"
With those thread-headlines you continue posting, and by your blind faith in every other “alternative” article you find on google.news you - at best - ridicule yourself.
(It only diverts from the important points, that you are obviously trying to make)
and I'm very sorry that I just ressurected this thread.
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
It's obvious you don't support Obama, we get it. You are entitled to your views but your passive aggressive approach to slamming Obama is really tiresome. All these "questions" you have, try goggle.
Washington, D.C. - 2008
Philadelphia, PA I - 2009
Bristow, VA - 2010
Baltimore, MD - 2013
Milwaukee, WI - 2014
Hampton, VA - 2016
After reading the first few lines of this post I was hoping you would then say: "It has actually been found out that the writer made up those lines". I do think what he said was not carefully enough thought through. I am willing to discount it as such (even though that causes me to discount the things I want him to do, too, such has significantly improving health care access...).
As far as I am concerned, I would not have any problem with creating a weaker military and a stronger civilian national security force (especially if we include in it scientists and such like someone suggested above). But I can easily see that if he really meant that, that would cause him to lose million of votes. As an Italian citizen, I also found Driftin's OP funny. In Italy, the police is considered a non-military, civilian body. We also have a military police and most Italian can't tell the difference, but that's another story.
why? because that would make me look like an idiot even more?;)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
No, because you were questioning Drifting's sources. But if his source was actually correct, what's the point attacking him on that?
I am not attacking the quote in the source, but the source's interpretation of the quote (that the OP went along with):
Police State
bigger than military (while the quote says equal)
making an indirect hint to Obama as a Nazi Thug...evoking other negative images: North Korea, Soviet Union, Cuba in connection...
etc.
-> sensationalist, overblown, I am the only true voice stuff...
(and I'm not on "obama's side"...I'm not even american...it's a call for a sober argument)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
I do think the journalist was bringing up a fair point. You mention not being an American. It is a huge deal here staving off the big evil government from everyone's life, and I think Obama's words as they were pronounced would not sit well at all with most Americans. The journalist's interpretation, I am sure, makes sense to a lot of people here. And, if what Drifting posted is true about the Obama campaign trying to edit that portions out... that would be your proof that those remarks are indeed incendiary in the US context.
yes, I know he was making a fair point:)
but making a fair point in connection with useless claims like "Police State" doesn't help raise awareness about the actual point, but it just creates hype and animosity, and this - in part - is what the author is trying to achieve. it's Spin, not sober comments on news. in fact: as BRY pointed out the whole article is quite comical...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
snooze button alert...dust off your history books from around the world.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
a dozen responses bashing my "incendiary style".
Not ONE attempt at rationalizing what Obama actually said.
WHAT DID HE MEAN?
SPECIFICALY,
what the fuck would he be talking about that is
AS WELL FUNDED, AS POWERFUL and STRONG as THE MILITARY (that is EVERY branch of the armed service COMBINED) ...
WHAT?
What is he talking about !??!
CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE
quit complaining about my "overblown" language,
and give me some goddamn answers, please.
ANYONE.
Step right up.
EXPLAIN IT!
Thats all i freaking want.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The military is treated as a singular organization, yet it's made of many organizations. Same thing here on the civilian force. It's made of of many branches. We don't need to beef up existing civilian security; that might be why Obama didn't say we needed to do this. The capitals on Civilian National ... are yours, not his. You like to make it sound like a new organization by making a title of it instead of descriptive words for what we have in order to make a mountain out of not even an ant hole.
I believe that what was said could be edited from one newspaper report. I don't believe that what he said would have been edited across any number of newspaper reports. We do not yet have the police state necessary to achieve this feat, no thanks to our current glorious leader.
Have fun promoting your theory. Will the storyline develop to include a resurrected Stalin enlisted to help Obama "do the (far) Right thing?" I can't wait for the next chapter in this continuing fiction.
the so far quoted sources have indicated that this was edited NOT just out of the Wall Street Journal -- now owned by Rupert Murdoch! -- but also out of "the transcripts"!
right.
so what is Obama talking about?
so is that why he wants the money,
he knows our "defenses" our lacking?
hey he tried.
he did get us patriot acts and perpetual wars.
All we need now from Obama is the follow through.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Maybe that's why noone else questioned that statement. And the capital letters are yours in this case.
Much ado for a single quote, I'd say.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Possibly the MOST POORLY WORDED\ARRANGED ARTICLE EVER?
(unless of course, the article is correct, and this is how Obama intended his remarks to be taken)
Is U.S. ready to serve?
Experts: Bipartisan support, societal woes could aid Obama's attempt to boost volunteerism
By John McCormick | Chicago Tribune reporter
July 3, 2008
From Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, presidents and those who aspire to be president have long put forth calls for greater public service. Some found success, while others fell short of their lofty rhetoric.
Roosevelt formed the Civilian Conservation Corps and Kennedy created the Peace Corps with strong support and participation, while Clinton's AmeriCorps has never fully realized its potential, hampered by continuing funding struggles since its 1994 inception.
Still, as Sen. Barack Obama called for greater public service Wednesday, some experts predict the potential now exists for programs seeking an expansion of volunteerism to succeed, despite a slumping economy and the nation being at war.
"This may be a moment in time that is different from when earlier calls did not prove that effective," said Stephen Goldsmith, a former Indianapolis mayor and chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Obama hopes to expand U.S. service programs: GRAPHIC Goldsmith, a Republican and professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said bipartisan support, serious societal problems and heightened interest in service among young people could offer new or expanded service programs the ability for growth not seen in decades
He said surveys show today's youth, a group sometimes called the " 9/11 generation," is deeply attracted to service, even as such interest has fallen off for other age groups following the attacks in 2001.
"It may represent a real shift to interest in community service," Goldsmith said.
Amid that environment, Obama outlined several proposals to boost service, both at home and abroad, during a speech in Colorado Springs.
"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July," Obama said. "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger."
In his speech at a University of Colorado campus, he pledged that enhanced public service and active citizenship would be a central cause of his presidency.
"We will ask Americans to serve," the Illinois Democrat said. "We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve."
Obama's draw to youth
For supporters, Obama's credibility on the topic is enhanced because he proved during the primary campaign that he could captivate and then mobilize young voters. His campaign argues they might also follow him into community service.
Clinton had a similar, though not quite as powerful, pull among youth. But his AmeriCorps program, which recruits workers in exchange for an education stipend, has never caught on the way the Peace Corps did in the 1960s and '70s.
Funding for AmeriCorps has been strained amid agency mismanagement and disdain for the program among some Republicans.
Still, it recorded its 500,000th participant last year. Volunteers nationwide have served needy communities by tutoring children, feeding the homeless, caring for the elderly and rebuilding areas struck by disaster.
Obama promised to increase AmeriCorps slots from 75,000 to 250,000 and pledged to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011.
Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain of Arizona also supports an expansion of both programs and has stressed public service, including in the military, during campaign appearances.
Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional service members.
"It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said.
Obama had outlined many of the proposals offered Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December.
Goals set for students
[From Here]"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle school and high school students.
For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students tied to that level of service.[To Here. See The Problem? CONTEXT. Yikes!]
In Chicago, meanwhile, billionaire investor Warren Buffett headlined two fundraisers to benefit Obama and the Democratic National Committee.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Just watched the speech on You Tube and in the context of the whole thing it looks to me like he was just talking about the importance of volunteering and public service. Talks about increasing available slots in the Peace Corp and AmeriCorp.. stuff like that.
I don't think he was talking about starting like a new branch of government like the Dept. of Homeland Sec or anything like that. Just a call to service. He also talked about increasing the number of troops in the military.
Just my take.
http://inthepresenttense.blogspot.com/
--Bush used civilian Blackwater Security personnel in New Orleans to supplement the police force who had abandoned their posts.
--Bush used civilian militias from other States to stand in with border patrols in AZ and CA to supplement the promised increase to the border patrols.
Bush knew that his Administration would continue to utilize the National Guard in its efforts aboard. Governors were speaking out about lack of National Guard resources during domestic emergencies. So he came up with a volunteer corp.
--In 2007 President Bush in his State of the Union speech called for the creation of a new civilian corps ... that would function "much like our military reserve". ...
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0107/012307p2.htm
Obama's plan is in line with this idea for response to domestic emergencies.
Oh and Blackwater is NOT a civilian militia, it's a privatized corporation.
Companies like Blackwater are now building bases on the borders. These companies are NOT civilian militias.
Sounds terrible.
1. Blackwater is not part of the U.S. military force. They are civilian personnel of a corporation for hire. Yes, they were sent as armed personnel under contract by the U.S. government. Note, I did not refer to Blackwater as militia.
Civilian organized militias from various States were sent to AZ and CA to stand in with border patrol.
2. It doesn't matter where Blackwater or security companies like Blackwater build compounds. Unless the government authorizes them to act in the name of the government they are what they are, a private civilian security force for hire subject to the laws of the U.S., unlike their mission in Iraq.
3. As terrible as it sounds, it is Bush's plan and to me it does borders on a police state of action when put in use.
You referred to civilian militias, but failed to mention Blackwater separately, which is why I assumed you thought them as militia.
Other than the fact that it's highly debatable whether this is a good idea (since there are lots of racists):
Info on their base:
http://mexidata.info/id1416.html (older one)
http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/18/blackwater-border-base