DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:42 pm**

Does this statement by Karl Obama bother any of you here?:

\"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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\"

So Obama wants another security force out side of the regular military, National Guard and civilian police forces. Why? Who do you think will comprise this force and who will they be most loyal to? If this idea does not get the alarm bells ringing I don't know what will.

Obama has not said why we need it, unless of course one factors in Barney Franks statement the Dems will push to reduce the real military budget by 25%. I hope someone can correct me on this.

Perhaps the 6 month surprise Biden was talking about was a take over of the country by Obama's \"Security\" forces. Hope not but the more that comes out the less I will be surprised at what Obama will do.

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:01 pm**

America, Banana Republic?

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:02 pm**

I'd sure like to hear what the context was. No where that uses that quote do they give us the sentences before that line....
On it's face it sounds kind of odd to me that he would propose building a branch of government that rivals the military considering the budget involved.

When I read \"civilian national security force\" I think maybe he means beef up the CIA, as in intelligence gathering, the diplomatic corps, etc. etc.

If he's actually trying to pave the way to install his own 'republican guard' he's in for a short term....there are people who will react very badly to anything like that and they don't have 17 year old skin heads advertising their plot on my space...they are old school militia types who live for the day they get to \"rescue\" America from an internal threat.

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:07 pm**

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:19 pm**

Here is a bit of context, also with video of the whole speech.

I think that both interpretations are probably wrong. If you listen to the whole speech –- or even the couple minutes before his security force proposal — I think that it’s reasonably clear that Obama is talking about expanding a range of domestic and international agencies such as AmeriCorps, the Foreign Service, and the Peace Corps — and adding some new ones.

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:06 pm**

Nice link Pandora.

I thought the final comments were interesting

So – if Obama means what he says – his civilian national security corps would cost at least another $100 billion a year, and perhaps as much as $500 billion a year. With total federal income taxes of $935 billion in 2005, Obama's proposal would mean using up to half of all federal income tax revenues just to fund his promise “to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military.

3. Last, given the dangers and the sacrifices that our fighting men and women are making every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, is it really fair to suggest that AmeriCorps and similar programs should be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military?

Times have certainly changed. I hesitate to think what the American public would have thought of a politician during World War II who suggested that those donating their time to tutoring, visiting the sick, or leading blackout drills on neighborhood watches on the homefront should be “just as well funded” as those serving in the military. My grandfather, who was too old to serve in WW II and led such neighborhood drills, was a man whom I admired more than anyone else I knew while I was growing up. I’m certain that my grandfather would have thought Obama’s suggestion to be strangely lacking in proportion and simple common sense.

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:20 pm**

That’s terrifying, and I don’t scare easily. Welp, it’s time to join my local right wing militia.

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:45 pm**

Welp, I guess the coal miners will will be thinking twice before voting?

\"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted,\" Barack Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January.

Coal, the one readily available source of energy we have that we don't have to wait 10 years to get, and Alfred E Obama wants to tax it out of existence. I now know why Obama will need a personal army...for when all the unemployed coal miners start after him.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:02 pm**

dissent wrote:I thought the final comments were interesting

I puzzled about this myself. Does he really mean that as much money will be spend on this civilian force than on the military? I think the most reasonable interpretation is that they will be as well funded relative to their requirements. So, because they won't need nuclear subs, F22 raptors, etc. much less budget will be needed to fund this civilian part as well as the military one. At least that's what I make of it...

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:35 pm**

Looks like we'll find out soon enough. As for me, I'll catch you on the flip side of the Northern Americas - I'm off to Canada. I'll be back when Obama's gone. =/

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:09 pm**

MD-1118 wrote:Looks like we'll find out soon enough. As for me, I'll catch you on the flip side of the Northern Americas - I'm off to Canada. I'll be back when Obama's gone. =/

Thankfully I am high up in the Rockies.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:20 pm**

Cuda68 wrote:
MD-1118 wrote:Looks like we'll find out soon enough. As for me, I'll catch you on the flip side of the Northern Americas - I'm off to Canada. I'll be back when Obama's gone. =/
Thankfully I am high up in the Rockies.

What I wouldn't give to live in a little cabin high in some obscure mountain range, cut off from the world (except for internet, of course). That must be nice.

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:10 am**

Actually ... It is pretty nice.

DescentBB

To Arms!

To Arms!

Re:

Re:

Re: