Obama's "Civilian National Security Force"

X

xrocket

New member
Obama, speaking in Colorado Springs July 2,2008 calls for a "Civilian National Security Force" as large and as well funded as our current military forces. The speech has not been covered or exposed by the national media. The youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhzvyblUy4 is the part where he states his plan. For those which doubt what they see and hear there is a complete youtube recording. The relevant section is 16:40 to 16:58.

The question is; Did he actually say and mean what he said or was it a subconscious slip-up? If what he said is what he means, it is almost too much to put into words the ramifications of his call for a "Civilian National Security Force" equal to our military.
 
The civilian security force is a component of a Civilian Service Corp. So far the media has not investigated it (surprising?) but provisions are beginning to make it to daylight.

In essence O'Bama's plan is to replicate the pattern of past dictators in his attempt to nationalize the youth. All dictators in history have attempted to control the next generation. What O'Bama and his political party is attempting is no different. His plan is to require multiple years of service at no cost by all youth of a particular age range. Some will be directed into bureaucratic jobs at no salary. When service is fulfilled they will get all kinds of bennies including free post high school education. Some will be directed into bureaucratic jobs, other will be moved into the security forces. He intends to fund the domestic security forces via a 90% cut in funding for the military.

What has not been discussed is why would he think the military can have its budget cut by 90% and still do its job. I think what is going on here is the final push to form a global security force (UN?). Internal security is the province of the states while external security is provided by some global organization.

These plans are well-thought out. Various liberal NGO's have signed on to the concept. When the plan is revealed there will be considerable vocal support from the get-go.

If the foregoing is correct it appears Chairman-Messiah O'Bama is walking the path of past dictators.
 
Methinks he said what he meant, just like high school students are going to be pressed into his version of Castro's Young Communist League to do community service.

That a civilian force should be created as well armed as the military, um, is that not the militia? And how to accomplish this with AWB's and the rest of his law-abiding citizen disarmament program? Seems maybe that only some people would be in this "citizen" militia and it would be "well-regulated" by government at some level...with the money comes the strings.

And why do we need this force?

If law-abiding citizens can disarm, there must be no threats out there. Okay, that's ludicrous, I know it, you know it...scratch the idea, except that the denziens of Hyde Park might think that is how we all live. Ignorance is bliss, especially when you couple it to privilege and more personal wealth than likely any four of us together hope to see in a lifetime.

Or Obama does want the kind of monopoly on violent force that a Robert Mugabe enjoys? Select carefully who is recruited into this "force", make sure the rejected potential recruits are disarmed...

No wonder he spoke before a memorial to racial military superiority...

Buy ammo.
 
I have to admit, when I first saw this thread I thought 'Oh man, another hyperbole soaked 'Obama is a ________' thread that will make people apposed to Obama look like hysterical wack jobs.

I went ahead and googled "democrat requiring mandatory service" as a generic phrase to see if this was just a single Obama line pulled out of context and sensationalized so people could go "oh my GOD!!" or was this an actual intent of Democrats.

I was startled, more then a little, by what I found right of the bat on a LEFT leaning site that was concerned about just this thing.
http://politicallycorrected.wordpress.com/category/mandatory-national-service/
Reading that made me go 'what the......' So I looked around some more. Turns out it is actually a Democrat aspiation. Doddd and other (now former) Democrat candidates are on board.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/23/dodd_urges_mandatory_community_service/
This goes back to the Kerry campaign also.http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000447.html And if I'm not mistaken Clinton was how started Americorps. It's of course not manditory, or security related.....yet.....but incrementalism is how they have dismanteled many things about American standards.

This is a bit un-nerving. I'm going to be looking into this more.

Notice how quickly leftist get hostile very quickly if you disagree with them and at the same time preach tolerence......
 
Thanks fellas for your insight ...

I could not believe what I was hearing. I too am doing much more deeper research, but what I don't understand is nothing nationally has been said about this security force.

It's getting really interesting.
 
Obama, like Kerry, took this statement off his website. He deleted the lines "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." from the transcipt of the Colorado Springs speach.
 
http://www.anewtone.com/2008/07/nobamas-civilian-national-security.html

"We cannot continue to rely only 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."

That statement alone is scary but having it placed in context is frightening. Barack, in this interview, has placed it in context. One of the partners here at A Newt One, Loki, has stated that if Barack intends to utilize AmeriCorps and Peace Corps personnel to fill vacancies in embassies and missions "that have been boarded up", he certainly doesn't understand the United States Constitution that her has purported to have once been an instructor thereof. However, it gets worse than that. This has grown beyond the pale of frightening. Behold:

"I should add, by the way, that part of the change that I want when it comes to Army and Marine structures is the mix of training that we're providing and mix of personnel that are in these forces. One of the things I have been so impressed with is the heroic job that our men and women in uniform have done basically on the fly having to train themselves on the spot to function as engineers or function as social workers or function as translators or political consultants. There's just been a whole bunch of work that has been done that we haven't prepared people for. They learn on the job, but if anything Iraq should have given us a template for the kinds of skill sets that we're going to have to provide to our military. And that's true in Iraq. That's true in Afghanistan. That also means, by the way, that we're going to have to, I believe, reconfigure our civilian national security force. In a way that just hasn't been done.

I mean, we still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side in the way the State Department is structured and [Agency for International Development] and all these various agencies. That hearkens back to the Cold War. And we need that wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight. When we talk about reinventing our military, we should reinvent that apparatus as well. We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military."

Parse that.

This interview was published on 08 JUL 08, 6 days after his speech in Colorado Springs. However, he makes no mention of AmeriCorps or Peace Corps personnel but he does say this:

"Absolutely, but the only problem with soft power is the term itself makes people think it's not as strong as hard power. And my point is that if we've got a State Department or personnel that have been trained just to be behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out there alongside our military and engage, then we don't have the kind of national security apparatus that is needed. That has to be planned for; it has to be paid for. Those personnel have to be trained. And they all have to be integrated and that is something that we have not accomplished yet, but that's going to be what's increasingly important in our future to make sure that our military has the support that it needs to do what it does the best, which is fight wars."

And there you have it. He is going to arm State Department Personnel so they can fight along side the United States Military. He is going to utilize AmeriCorps and Peace Corps Personnel to go into areas the US Military does to be the Agents of Change. Case closed and checkmate.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm . . . I'm glad you brought this issue up xrocket- I would have never known or thought it existed from the main stream media. Very interesting indeed. Kinda scary too.
 
I keep replaying the video and he keeps saying the same thing...I still can't believe what he said! Doesn't "just as powerful" mean just as well armed?
 
I can't listen to the audio, and the only actual text I've seen is this:
We cannot continue to rely only 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.
Click to expand...
I see nothing here to suggest brownshirts or gestapo, but I do recall reading something about a well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state.

So what's with all the panic?
 
This statement is old news and a concept already in use. Ever heard of Provincial Reconstruction Teams? This is about an expansion of the civilian side of those teams so they are not so dependent on military personnel hastily trained in skills that are already resident in other government agencies. Anyone remember the uproar over at the State Department when they said all foreign service officers would have to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan? Not everyone was going to work at the embassies, I've worked with several FSOs on the PRTs over there.

Three things concern me, however. One, why do we need to make these permanent? Isn't Obama planning on withdrawing from Iraq? How many other countries is he planning on invading? Two, why does this need to be mandatory? The Americans for a National Service Act website specifically states that the
secondary goal of Service Nation is to set America on a trajectory to become a nation of universal national service by 2020.
Click to expand...
Ah, I love it when people use the term universal instead of mandatory. Makes it sound so much more benign. Third, if every 18-20 year old in the country is going to be drafted into this, that means they won't be working in the private market to make money to pay taxes that would pay for this.

So what's with all the panic?
Click to expand...
Because no one should be forced to work as a government employee if they disagree with the administration that forces them to serve. At least in the military, you volunteer and you have the opportunity to recognize that you will probably serve during two presidential terms, so you might not agree with the administration you work for. Everyone screams bloody murder when Congress discusses bringing back the draft, this is no different. Oh, except you may be sent to a combat zone for civil affairs work as a non-combatant, so you don't get a rifle to defend yourself with.
 
Last edited:
Panic? ... What Panic? ...

We don't need no stinking panic!

We need informed voters. We need the people running for the highest position in the land to openly and fully state their position and aspirations for the Presidency. This is what we need.

This morning I googled the words "Civilian National Security Force" and found many diverse opinions about this very subject. Rather than selectively put my choice of links here, I would encourage each of us to do our own research and follow up. What is interesting though is the few bloggers who are explaining the concept away or trying to diminish it's impact seem to be loosing the battle with people posting negative comments. What is even stranger is there are left leaning liberals who are not buying into the concept and are alarmed at it's audacity.

Where I'm concerned is there seems to be a broad, but low-key Democratic agenda for organizing a reordered socialized system from the ground up in America. What appears to be extremely dangerous in the next few years is a perfectly aligned system; President, Senate, House, Supremes and a large, well funded (bought) indoctrinated "Civilian National Security Force" equal to the military. Just let all of this sink in and consider the consequences.

I have and maybe it's time more should too.
 
Last edited:
Another thought crossed my mind. This "Civilian National Security Force" is supposed to alleviate pressure on the military by providing people to do some of the nation-building work. However, the skills required to do this type of work require years of experience to manage the effort. If they are merely going to be laborers, then they are going to be hurting rather than helping since you must get the Iraqis and Afghanis involved in their own rebuilding efforts so they have a stake in it. So we'll end up with a large organization of workers with full federal benefits who are sitting around while you pay for it. Just what this nation needs, more people getting a handout for nothing on the backs of working people.
 
GESTAPO isn't a word. It is an abbreviation/contraction for Geheime Staatspolizei (Old German) or in English Secret State Police. In modern German it is Geheime Zustandpolizei. Just so you know. ;)

SIPO might be a closer abbr for what Herr Obama is recommending. He is talking security police after all not a secret police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top