Obama's Police State: A "Civilian National Security Force" as Strong as Military

DriftingByTheStorm
DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
edited July 2008 in A Moving Train
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:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    in the interest of FAIRNESS, before i get fucking slammed here.
    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 was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • DixieN
    DixieN Posts: 351
    Isn't a civilian national security force the civilian side of the National Guard, Coast Guard, etc.? Civilians are already part of our national security picture. Loads of civilians work for the DOE, etc. through contractors to the government. The national laboratories are chock full of civilians working against terrorism and the like. Our national civilian security force as it stands is pretty well funded and strong. I'm not sure Obama said anything terribly earth shaking or as cloak and dagger as seems to be implied here. What he said would certainly be more exciting if it actually were.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    DixieN wrote:
    Isn't a civilian national security force the civilian side of the National Guard, Coast Guard, etc.? Civilians are already part of our national security picture. Loads of civilians work for the DOE, etc. through contractors to the government. The national laboratories are chock full of civilians working against terrorism and the like. Our national civilian security force as it stands is pretty well funded and strong. I'm not sure Obama said anything terribly earth shaking or as cloak and dagger as seems to be implied here. What he said would certainly be more exciting if it actually were.

    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 was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    I didn't read all of th article, but

    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.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    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)
    (")_(")
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,888
    Jesus Christ... you read waaaaayyyyyy too much into things.
    My whole life
    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
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    blackredyellow wrote:
    Jesus Christ... you read waaaaayyyyyy too much into things.

    just give me an idea what he really means?
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,888
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    just give me an idea what he really means?

    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.
    My whole life
    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
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    blackredyellow wrote:
    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.

    so what do you think he's talking about?
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • nobody
    nobody Posts: 353
    Before spilling out facts from a cleary biased source, you should actually ponder a little bit „who is behind that source?“ “what is the motive behind this article?” and “whom does this help?”
    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.
    Godwin's Law:
    "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
  • velogator
    velogator Posts: 174
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    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:


    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.
    Manchester, TN - 2008
    Washington, D.C. - 2008
    Philadelphia, PA I - 2009
    Bristow, VA - 2010
    Baltimore, MD - 2013
    Milwaukee, WI - 2014
    Hampton, VA - 2016
  • meme
    meme Posts: 4,695
    nobody wrote:
    Before spilling out facts from a cleary biased source, you should actually ponder a little bit „who is behind that source?“ “what is the motive behind this article?” and “whom does this help?”
    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.

    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.
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • nobody
    nobody Posts: 353
    meme wrote:
    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".

    why? because that would make me look like an idiot even more?;)

    m.
    Godwin's Law:
    "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
  • meme
    meme Posts: 4,695
    nobody wrote:
    why? because that would make me look like an idiot even more?;)

    m.

    No, because you were questioning Drifting's sources. But if his source was actually correct, what's the point attacking him on that? :)
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • nobody
    nobody Posts: 353
    meme wrote:
    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.
    Godwin's Law:
    "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
  • meme
    meme Posts: 4,695
    nobody wrote:
    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...
    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.

    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.
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • nobody
    nobody Posts: 353
    meme wrote:
    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.
    Godwin's Law:
    "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    If people think dissent against the system can grow and not have the police force militarized they're dreaming of another universe...

    snooze button alert...dust off your history books from around the world.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    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)
    (")_(")
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Okay,
    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 was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • DixieN
    DixieN Posts: 351
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    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".

    ???

    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.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    DixieN wrote:
    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.

    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"!
    dixieN wrote:
    We don't need to beef up existing civilian security

    right.
    so what is Obama talking about?
    dixieN wrote:
    We do not yet have the police state necessary to achieve this feat

    so is that why he wants the money,
    he knows our "defenses" our lacking?
    ;)
    dixieN wrote:
    , no thanks to our current glorious leader.

    hey he tried.
    he did get us patriot acts and perpetual wars.
    All we need now from Obama is the follow through.
    :D
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?

Categories