Obama Wants ‘Civilian National Security Force’

Read this article about Obama’s remark proposing a domestic police state, with a budget and personnel size larger than the military. Can anyone actually believe that we would need that many soldiers inside the country to protect us from “terrorists”? The article asks a great question: what is the Constitutional authority for this? None. What happened was Obama misspoke and let the cat out of the bag. If you elect Barack Obama, he plans to try to set up a police state. Don’t fool yourself into believing McCain won’t do the same. They are both puppets of the global elite.

Edit:
Everyone seems to think the idea Obama put forth in his speech is about building bridges or working for volunteer organizations. We can get a clearer idea of what he meant by looking deeper. In the comments below, there is an excerpt from a book by Rahm Emanual, Obama’s new right-hand man starting in January. The book outlines a program of compulsory, that is, mandatory, civil defense training for all Americans aged 18 to 25. This sounds very much like preparation for a large-scale war to me, but that would just be crazy, right? They wouldn’t be planning another world war, would they? Here’s some audio and video of Rahm talking about this program, and at the end is the snippet from Obama’s speech. This is the “change” you voted for.
Vodpod videos no longer available.

Obama is President Elect. Will we get a new New Deal?

Obama is President Elect. Will we get a new New Deal?

Advertisements

~ by skepsis on July 17, 2008.

16 Responses to “Obama Wants ‘Civilian National Security Force’”

  1. A police state isn’t what Obama was talking about. He was talking about franchising more organizations to be the solution to national, international, and global issues– not just the military.

    It is about minute 16 of the speech here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

    Obama is trying to pull the JFK template of civil service organizations to build bridges and in-roads. He never said anything about police– he only spoke about alternative solutions to always turning to the military as a single political leverage point.

  2. Obama keeps showing how dumb he really is, he has to have people write down everything he says or he gets all messed up! Here is a song that will enlighten anyone…well maybe not a democrat liberal! 🙂
    http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/07/17/fla-billboard-reads-please-dont-vote-for-a-democrat/

  3. @ goodtimepolitics – Do not believe for one minute that Obama is dumb. Do not believe that McCain is dumb. Do not believe that Bush is dumb. They are well-trained actors. When I’m done responding to comments I will post a video about Bush’s intelligence and you can apply this to the other situations.

    @ dragonflydm – Obama won’t answer any questions about it, so can you explain to me exactly how building bridges and roads has anything to do with “national security”? Can you give me one good explanation, other than creating a civilian spy force, that we would need to have hundreds of thousands of citizens working for “national security”? Later in the video he talks about compelled service for high school and college kids. (Side note: He also talks about withholding funding from schools if they don’t comply, which seems pretty contrary to his supposed views on No Child Left Behind) This sounds a lot like the “Hitler Youth” or the Spies from 1984 to me. We already see the billboards going up across the country: “Turn in your neighbors for illegal guns” and the like, with images of perfectly legal guns on them. We see police already performing “knock and talks”, systematically searching urban households door-to-door without warrants, only color of law. We see metal detectors, fingerprint scanners, and video cameras being set up in schools. This is all to indoctrinate the next generation to be comfortable with being spied upon and having their privacy invaded. This isn’t just Obama-bashing. McCain, I am completely sure, has the same exact plan. A bill like this was signed by George H.W. Bush, then one by Clinton, and another by George W. Bush. Domestic spying is non-partisan. See the new FISA law. Add all this together and this “volunteer” force as big and well-funded as the military may have a slightly more sinister aim than you will consider.

    Watch the video and think about what he’s saying when he explains he will compel your kids to “volunteer” through legislation.

  4. Obama is more of a risk than John McCain ever will be and yes Obama is dumber than dumb as he has been taught by no other than The Nation of Islam, Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers and the same ones are telling him what to say and do now…think long and hard and you will see that he is being ruled by this group otherwise he would be lost! Yes he The Nation of Islam wants a police state I think!

  5. you were all cheering when the palestinian kids were gunned down because they threw rocks at israeli tanks… because they were ‘terrorists’.

    now the same fate is brought upon your own family, in your own backyard… where *you* are now the terrorists.

    you called the critics ‘anti-semites’ and look where defending the oppressors got you.

    keep defending them… even on your way to the FEMA camp on an army train. keep telling yourself michael chertof, the man in charge of overseeing your new life under Martial Law, is blessed because he is of the ‘chosen people’. keep telling yourself that paul wolfowitz is a patriot who had nothing to do with fooling the nation into a proxy war, or that you’re not paying for said war at the fuel pump.

  6. […] to be turned into an everyone-is-guity, spy-on-your-neighbor state. Barack Obama is calling for a civilian national security force as large as the military. What does that mean to you? 500,000 people spying on the rest of us? The DOJ/DHS TIPS (Terrorism […]

  7. You guys are ALL fucked up, and don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

  8. Could Americans Control Direction of “Civilian National Security Force” under Obama?

    No one has yet qualified what Obama meant when he stated in July 2008: “We cannot continue to rely on our military 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.”

    Brief Historical note: Germany under Hitler during hard economic times set up a volunteer neighborhood/community “Civilian National Security Forces” to protect the Homeland. Once established, the civilian force became a “neighbor” Political Enforcement Arm of the Nazi Government. And was subsequently run by the Gestapo.

    Could Americans control the direction a civilian national security force might take under Obama? How would local police interact with a “civilian national security force” that is just as powerful as the U.S. Military? Would volunteer civilians have access to Citizens’ private records? Could U.S. private mercenary companies now contracted in Iraq work with a “Civilian National Security Force” on U.S. Soil?

    Could Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights be trashed including illegal search and seizure. Could Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force” members handle neighborhood informants and share like the Gestopal did in seized and forfeited assets from Americans.

  9. Who would this civilian security force be under control of? Obama? Who would be over who…Police or Security force? We already have a civilian force to call on in case the military needs them…its called “Black Water” and they are doing a great job in Iraq. We don’t need another group just as powerful as our military that Obama would be totally in control of! I don’t think he could get it pass congress anyways!

  10. I am constantly amazed at the amount of energy wasted by right-winged crazies trying to make Obama out to be The Boogeyman. I had to go four pages deep on Google to find the entire video and a cogent description of the video for the truth-challenged loons of this country.

    I’m surprised how many people really believe Obama would state, in a public speech, that he wanted to start a national paramilitary force. Many seem to not have bothered to read the speech, or watch the video of the speech (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2046706/posts), but instead have just seized on one quote from the speech. If you did read the speech or watch the video, and took the time to understand it, you’d realize he’s not advocating some new paramilitary force–he’s saying that he wants to increase funding for many public service organizations that already exist, and create a few new ones. He wants to implement, on a national scale, some of the grassroots organizing methods he learned in Chicago. That alone may scare some people, but that’s a different issue, but at least grassroots organizing is not paramilitary, at least not what he’s proposing. For him to propose that he has better answers than some current methods of organizing, public service, etc. throughout the US, and would like to see his ideas implemented on a national scale, IS a big deal, and not something people should automatically swallow, but not something that should be rejected outright and falsely labeled. But much, if not most, of what he’s proposing is not some single “force”, but rather a “force for good”.

    (continued)
    10-27-2008 5:55 AMJohn Sawyer

    Obama’s use of the phrase “a civilian national security force” was, in retrospect, a poor choice of words. He was making only a rough analogy to the military’s role, by saying that people engaged in nonmilitary activities like teaching, public service, etc. are also needed to ensure the US’s national security–that we shouldn’t rely on just the military to ensure national security. So, in other words, what he’s suggesting, on a national basis, is the very OPPOSITE of a new national military organization–instead, he’s calling on more people to engage in civilian work, generally described as the public service sector, to help improve the US. He’s saying that we should look at such an incr…
    read more»
    Obama’s use of the phrase “a civilian national security force” was, in retrospect, a poor choice of words. He was making only a rough analogy to the military’s role, by saying that people engaged in nonmilitary activities like teaching, public service, etc. are also needed to ensure the US’s national security–that we shouldn’t rely on just the military to ensure national security. So, in other words, what he’s suggesting, on a national basis, is the very OPPOSITE of a new national military organization–instead, he’s calling on more people to engage in civilian work, generally described as the public service sector, to help improve the US. He’s saying that we should look at such an increase in funding and workforce for civilian public service, as a national movement, and so only in effect, a “civilian national security force”, to COUNTER reliance on military solutions. He really should have thought twice about using this phrase–he should have listened to whichever of his advisors removed it from his original, written version of the speech, since if you remove that one phrase, what he’s suggesting sounds interesting (though I’m sure plenty of people will object to what he’s proposing even if they’re completely clear on it).
    10-27-2008 5:56 AMJohn Sawyer

    (continued from previous post)

    To reiterate: Obama is not saying we need some kind of paramilitary force in the US in ADDITION to proposing increasing funding and manpower for public service–he’s saying his “civilian national security force” IS this proposed increase in funding and manpower for public service. It’s not a national police force, nor a Hitler Youth, nor is he suggesting arming teachers, solar power researchers, etc., nor is he even remotely suggesting teaming public service with the FBI, police, local military, etc. to spy on people, report “suspicious activities”, etc. I really fear for a lot of people’s abilities to understand written and spoken words, when I see them manag…
    read more»
    (continued from previous post)

    To reiterate: Obama is not saying we need some kind of paramilitary force in the US in ADDITION to proposing increasing funding and manpower for public service–he’s saying his “civilian national security force” IS this proposed increase in funding and manpower for public service. It’s not a national police force, nor a Hitler Youth, nor is he suggesting arming teachers, solar power researchers, etc., nor is he even remotely suggesting teaming public service with the FBI, police, local military, etc. to spy on people, report “suspicious activities”, etc. I really fear for a lot of people’s abilities to understand written and spoken words, when I see them manage to twist someone else’s words so badly. But people will hear what they’ve programmed themselves to hear. Unfortunate.

    Just prior to this part of his speech, he described how he wants to increase US military troop numbers, to make their deployment overseas less of a burden to them–more troops means fewer would have to be deployed longer than is reasonable. I don’t like the idea of expanding the military, or of engaging in unnecessary military action anywhere, but his reasoning is that if we’re going to have our military deployed overseas, it should be given the strength to get whatever jobs done that they’re sent to do. The reason he preceded the “civilian national security force” part of his speech, with his ideas about increasing military troop numbers, was first to reassure people who believe in a stronger US military, that he agreed with them, and that what he was about to propose wasn’t a replacement for military service; and then second, to contrast that supposed military need, with an equal if not stronger need to fund civilian organizations that are trying to achieve non-military good.

    (continued)
    10-27-2008 5:57 AMJohn Sawyer
    And no, the public service he’s calling for, won’t be “mandatory”, and no, if you haven’t heard of it before, the existing organization named AmeriCorps is not a paramilitary organization, nor does he want to make it one.

    Go back and read the speech, preferably from its beginning, but at least starting with “Now, just as we must value and encourage military service across our society…”

  11. You posted this months ago and it has stayed hidden until now–good job!

  12. I’m not sure where you copy and pasted that comment from, Tim, but thanks. That’s basically the reaction I get from Obama supporters who remember this speech. They say I’m twisting his words and I need to go watch the speech again. The fact is, folks, that in this speech he tells you that his plan is to make “civil service” mandatory for all high school and college kids. Mandatory. To all of you saying it won’t be mandatory, or that it’s some sort of grassroots increase-the-volunteers movement, I remind you that the definition of volunteer specifically leaves out mandatory activities.

    Second, just look at what he called it – “national defense”. Building bridges, feeding the homeless, etc, while great ways to spend your time volunteering, have absolutely nothing to do with “national defense”. Taking FEMA training or going to boot camp, that’s national defense. Volunteering at the YMCA? No.

    And if you still don’t believe that this is what Obama is talking about, then you, my friend, are the one guilty of only hearing what you are programmed to hear. You listen to Obama’s words as the only proof of what he’s planning and you stop there. Let’s dig a little further, though. His buddy, and apparent new Chief of Staff in January, Rahm Emanuel, wrote a book entitled The Plan: Big Ideas for America. In it, he details a plan for mandatory public service for kids aged 18 to 25. Here’s an excerpt:

    It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service….

    Here’s how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They’ll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we’re hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities’ most pressing needs.

    Twist those words. Mandatory basic training equals draft. The vast majority of Americans aged 18 to 25 voted for Obama. This is the change he spoke of so often.

    Call me right-wing if you want, but labels never did anyone any good. I believe in small government, ending all entitlement programs, all federal law enforcement, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, our involvement in world government through the UN, IMF, World Bank, and the BIS. I believe abortion should be legal, at the national level, and should be a state issue. I believe the same about drugs, homosexual unions, and basically anything else. Many of my beliefs are conservative, many liberal, all Constitutional.

  13. I cannot say that President Obama is planning a civilian military, but I can say that what Rham is talking about is crapola. There is no way that any person should be forced to volenteer for public service unless they are criminals that didt commit violent crimes. So with that said it still makes me wonder why some of the people that is in the presidents cabinet and on his staff got the jobs. I mean he has got some people that I wouldnt want to work for or with. However America is waking up to the evil of this out of control government.

  14. CHECK OUT “AMERICAN POLICE FORCE”. THEY ARE TAKING OVER A PRISON NEAR HARDIN, MT. THERE’S A LOT OF MATERIAL ON IT OUT THERE.. SOME OF IT IS YOU ON TUBE, AND SOME ARE VIDEOS NEWS ITMES FROM A TV STATION IN BILLINGS,MT. THEY WONT’ SAY WHO OWNS THEM, THEY WON’T SAY WHO FUNDS THEM, THEY GAVE AN ADDRESS IN DC THAT IS A FAKE. THEY CAME INTO TOWN AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED WITH 12 BLACK VEHICLES, AND THEY PATROLLED THE STREETS WHILE THEY WRE THERE.. WHILE HARDIN HAS NO POLICE FORCE, AND THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT. IS THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT, IT APPEARS THE SHERIFF’S DEPT WILL TURN THAT DUTY OVER TO THESE GUYS. THE PEOPLE ARE SHOCKED AND DON’T LIKE IT.. SOME WERE INTERVIEWED ON VIDEO TAPE, AND ARE UPSET, BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE, OR WHAT THERE PRESENCE MEANS. ALSO APF SAYS THE DONT’ NECESSAIRLY WANT TO USE THE FACILITY AS A PIRSON, BUT WANT TO “TRAIN” THERE. HUH? YA’LL RESEARCH THIS LIKE i DID.. THERE’S SOMETHING SINISTER ABOUT THIS. IT SMELLS. COULD THEY BE CONNECTED TO OBAMA’S CIVILIAN ARMY? THEY WERE FORMED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR. 2009

  15. Here we are a year later and Obama has taken over banks, GM motors and now trying to take over your health care! He’s put the American people in more danger of an terrorist attack here on our own soil, matter of fact we have had three terrorist attacks within the last three months. But maybe the people has awaken to the fact that Obama is not good for America!

  16. THIS SMACKS OF BROWNSHNIRTED SS TO ME. WHY DOES OBAMA NEED A THUG ARMY? TO ENFORCE HIS TYRANNICAL AGENDA. WAKE THE HELL UP!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: