Obama's "Civilian National Security Force"

Slugthrower posted: "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. "-- I'm aware of the official term, but most people aren't, and gestapo is indeed a common usage word in most dictionaries with an etymology described as beginning in 1934. So, you were almost accurate. ;)

Do you really think that the Civilian State Security Forces envisioned won't have an branch of secret state police? That indeed is what one of the missions would have to be in order for efficacy.

However, upon further consideration the "vision" is more accurately described as a Western version of the redbook Maoist "Youth Groups" with the same role and goals. One of my instructors who has passed escaped China during those days and described great horror and atrocities foisted upon their own friends, family and parents by the youths of that organization so that China may be safe and progressive.

Communists ideals out of Mao's own playbook. There has never been an institution and maintenance of communism on a national level without fascism. Forcing each person to maximize their ability in a prescribed manner by the state so that those who are in a position of power continue according to their need. (It's a paraphrase, but the practical application is close enough.)

Mussolini, Stalin, Castro and Mao would be beaming with pride. I already made implications of Germany's forte into socialism with their youth groups and secret police, although he killed far fewer people than Stalin or Mao despite being a insane and horrible creature himself. Stalin made the cover of Time magazine in the USA as a great leader during his slaughter of 20 million people. The mainstream media is often worse than clueless.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad you brought this issue up xrocket- I would have never known or thought it existed from the main stream media.
Click to expand...
You won't see them report a lot of stuff on his views on policy...they know the country wouldn't even consider putting him in office if they knew the whole truth.:barf:
 
This kind of baseless speculation is why a substantial number of Americans think Obama is Muslim.

If you listen to the context of the speech in which the "civilian national security force" is mentioned, it's clear that he's talking about an international diplomatic effort. Immediately before the phrase, he mentions expanding American consulates and the Peace Corps. He's talking about improving our national security by engaging other countries and their citizens in dialogue and improving the image of the US throughout the world.
 
That is a very polished whitewash.

The CNSF is a broad approach to mandatory national service for all citizens encompassing two years of unpaid "service" beginning at age eighteen and after high school graduation. Recruits will be "educated" and farmed out to extended branches of "restructured" government agencies.

That is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Wow, classic right wing rhetoric.

Did anyone actually bother to listen to the enter half hour speech before jumping on this out of context snippet from the middle of a statement like a bunch of rabid dogs who care nothing for validity? Someone went to a lot of trouble to edit out everything before and after that part of his statement.

He was calling for increasing funding for the peace corps, Americorp, faith based charities, raising teachers pay, raising the pay of other civilian jobs that support the countries common objectives, increasing aid to new energy sources, and increasing support structures overseas for the military.

He was calling for increased opportunities for citizens to volunteer time in energy groups, after school programs, and research groups.

He was calling for people to become involved in their communities and provide compensation via education opportunities.

He was calling for citizen to work more with veterans and providing non-profits the means they require to provide education and health care to at risk children.

He was calling for funding farm co-ops investigating alternative energy sources.

There is in no way any hint of a desire to create an uniformed civilian police force. That is a complete fabrication based solely and dishonestly on a blatantly manipulated out of context quote.

This is one of the lowest and seediest attacks I have ever seen and the original poster should be ashamed of perpetuating such false propaganda if he did so knowing the nature of this complete fabrication. if he did not know he should be ashamed for not having the intellectual curiosity to find out the turth.

All this stuff does it prove what desperate and ruthless people the right wing truly consists of these days. it sickens me and it sickens most of thinking America.

That is a very polished whitewash.
Click to expand...
No, that is the fact of the matter. Your post is a dishonest and blatantly biased attack without merit or substance. Just one more of many. It is either a willful reiteration of a known lie or willful ignorance since all one had to do was listen to the speech to completely dispel the whole notion.
 
PBP,
I had the very same impression when I first saw it. I figured it was one of those threads like the 'Obama is Osama' one that was recently locked. But slow down, Google the terms, it's not just hysterical blather.

I know your prone to shouting down messages you disagree with. But this looks to be like the one a few months ago where you wrongly and quickly asserted:
Anyone that would publish anything that even implied that a foreign occupying power had the ability to "win" a civil war between the nationals is either a paid shill or a hack. At the very least they seem unable to understand global history.
Click to expand...

That seemed to you to be so foreign to your preconceived and settled idea of things that you were unable to even consider the possibility. Turned out to be correct though.

This looks like a real deal intent of not just Obama but a Democrat aspiration.

Look into it yourself and be prepared to have your jaw drop. I'm not a Democrat or an Obama supporter and even I thought this was trash when i first saw it but it DOES have legitimacy.

Google "Civilian National Security Force" or "democrat requiring mandatory service"

You'll find more then you expect.
 
Bruxely

I listened to the speeches. The content is not there. This is simply a case of people saying "look at what we say he means and not at the full text of what he actually says."

Taking snippets from a speech and treating them as free standing ideas is dirty tactics in anyone playbook...and in this case it requires a person to ignore plainly spelled out ideas reiterated time and time again in the body of the speech and focus on an skewed interpretation and presentation of one small part of one statements. This is the old pay no attention to what he said, better yet do not even listen to what he said...pay attention to what we say he meant.

I only shout as loud as the people who want to spread their lies at the top of their lungs. This is a blatant lie and it deserves to be called out.

Anyone can assign their own meaning to anything. Just look at how many posts there are today comparing Obama to Hitler just because he spoke to a large crowd in Germany. Then decide if you want to be one of those type people or do you want to be someone that requires fairness and honesty from both sides. I do not see a bunch of threads on here about McCain's frequent gaffs regarding the middle east this weekend.
 
I agree, the Obama is Hitler is just as intellectually repugnant as the Bush is a blood thirsty neocon tripe.

But Obama has demonstrated a pattern that is discernible at this point. Damaging truths he avoids....... Damaging people he tosses under the bus......when he's wrong he contorts his past statements into a 'refined' position.

On this one he could have easily explained it the way you did if that was the case, but it's not, that's YOUR interpretation. His campaign reacted by AVOIDING the matter and the statement has been DELETED from the transcript of the speech.

You don't avoid and hide benign intents. And pro-internationalism isn't something he's trying to avoid appearing as.

Read up on it, try this one about his campaign avoiding it. Or read the one from the LEFT about this. Better yet, Google it yourself and see for yourself. NOWHERE is it explained as being "about an international diplomatic effort".
 
On this one he could have easily explained it the way you did if that was the case, but it's not, that's YOUR interpretation. His campaign reacted by AVOIDING the matter and the statement has been DELETED from the transcript of the speech.
Click to expand...
No, his campaign refused to lower themselves to this type of hateful and manipulative game that disgraces all who engage in it. Refusing to do so makes them look better and better. McCain really needs to step in and take a stand against this stuff instead of sitting back and staying silent. It is making him look bad.

The entire speech is public record and anyone that wants to see how ridiculous this is can watch the entire speech.

These tactics are just sleazy and disgraceful. I do not tolerate them from either side. I would attack the same tactics used against Bush.
I agree, the Obama is Hitler is just as intellectually repugnant as the Bush is a blood thirsty neocon tripe.
Click to expand...
Bush is not a blood thirsty neo-con. He is just a failure. Be it because of gross incompetence, misguided idealism, or simple bad luck. Cheney is a bloodthirsty neo-con. :)
 
PBP said:
Bush is not a blood thirsty neo-con. He is just a failure. Be it because of gross incompetence, misguided idealism, or simple bad luck. Cheney is a bloodthirsty neo-con.:)
Click to expand...

Well you have just reduced yourself to the level of those 'Obama is Osama' types.

I know your game too PBP. When the topic is one you dislike you bait behavior that brings the lock. I won't be biting.........I would discourage others to ignore the 'perile bickering' bait also..........

Perhaps you need a break from L&P for a little while.

Back to the topic, if you look into it yourself rather then accept your assuptions about it as fact, you, or anyone can see that he is avoiding this big time and that NOWHERE is it explained as being "about an international diplomatic effort". The State Department ALREADY has a civilian international diplomatic corp anyway.
 
Well you have just reduced yourself to the level of those 'Obama is Osama' types.
Click to expand...
No, I did not try to twist facts or sling mud. I am simply noticing his record low approval rating, his mismanaged preemptive war that he campaigned for, the lack of a solid energy policy, the lack of legitimate social progress, the decline of the economy, the repeated violations of civil rights, the multiple lies to the public, and the multiple indictments and resignations in his cabinet and party.
I know your game too PBP. When the topic is one you dislike you bait behavior that brings the lock. I won't be biting.........I would discourage others to ignore the 'perile bickering' bait also..........
Click to expand...
Nice try, nothing I said is lock material. It dealt clearly and plainly with the topic and it's lack of merit.
Perhaps you need a break from L&P for a little while.
Click to expand...
If you can't handle actual facts that contradict the innuendo and lies of these right wing slasher pieces maybe you need to take a break from L&P. That might be hard though. I did notice that all but three of all the posts you have ever started are in the L&P section. It seems to be the only aspect of these boards you take advantage of at all.
Back to the topic, if you look into it yourself rather then accept your assuptions about it as fact, you, or anyone can see that he is avoiding this big time and that NOWHERE is it explained as being "about an international diplomatic effort". The State Department ALREADY has a civilian international diplomatic corp anyway.
Click to expand...
No one took it off topic. The topic is that he clearly states what he means. He means expanding the Peace Corp, Americorp, diplomatic organizations, after school programs, faith based programs, education programs, farm co-ops, etc. He does not in anyway call for the creation of anything new. He simply calls for increased funding of and involvement in these programs. It is clear to anyone willing to look.
 
How do you know what he means when neither he nor his campaign will comment on it and have deleted THAT part of the speech and ONLY that part. Why sweep something benign under the rug?

Your innuendo has less viability then the OP does. He lists the organizations you are suggesting AND a 'Civilian National Security Corps'. Further he directly equated then with the military. I don't buy that they are doing energy efficiency work as national security work. Another VERY strained definition is required. This time of national security.

"Like the military they will spread 'green' to the country". Nope, doesn't fit.

Have you yet looked into this or are you still working off your original assumption alone?

Seriously, CHECK IT OUT for yourself. You have again jumped to a conclusion that doesn't fit and are working to validate it instead of looking into it yourself and coming from a position of knowledge.

Now if that information doesn't match your assumptions what are you left with?
 
Civilian-not associated with the military or police
National- having to deal within the borders of a nation
Security-dealing with matters of protection
Force-active power
A group of people not associated with the military or police providing protection within the borders of our country. Who do we need protection from? If it comes down to it I can more than protect myself as probably can every member of this forum. Words such as this should send shivers down the spine of every person who reads them.
 
How do you know what he means when neither he nor his campaign will comment on it and have deleted THAT part of the speech and ONLY that part. Why sweep something benign under the rug?
Click to expand...
Because I listened to an articulate and well presented speech that clearly spelled out his goals. Did you listen to the entire speechs?
 
Who do we need protection from?
Click to expand...
Did you listen to the speech? Clearly not. He that it was a matter of security because for our nation to be able to achieve it's goals the military needs to be free to do it's job and not saddled with additional responsibility. That citizens needed to step up and get involved in their communities to better their coutry and strengthen our standing in the world and our well being at home. Pretty simple.
 
Of course I listened. OVER and OVER as I could hardly believe what I was hearing.

His exact words:
"We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. 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."
Click to expand...
italicized portion deleted from transcripts

An Energy Corp, Veterans helping veterans find jobs, expand Foreign Service, double the Peace Corp. Are these currently the job of the military or are they separate entities doing this right now? They are separate. Are these national security activities? NOPE

THEN he ADDS a 'Civilian National Security Force' to achieve 'national security interests', directly equates it to the military and says directly that it would be 'just as powerful, strong, and well funded'. Clearly NOT rolling Energy, job finding for vets, and the Peace Corp together into a new national security corps. That's a contorted reading on what he said. He stated a separate corps that performs national security objectives "we've" set. Where can the military not perform national security interests right now? Inside US borders. US civilians performing national security interests called a 'Civilian National Security Force'. That's not innuendo, that's what he said.
 
So? Those words do not change the context of his speech. You are taking a few words and trying to say they override thirty minutes of clearly spelled out objective. It does not hold water at all. The speech is clear, concise, and specific. He clearly explains why the community involvement is needed for the security of our nation and how he hopes to achieve that goal. You are disregarding the speech and assigning your own meaning.
 
My question here is what job will the CNSF be doing? Is their purpose at home or abroad? To go in beside the military would hopefully mean in another country. Who is going to protect them while they are out doing whatever it is they are doing in a war zone? Are they to receive military training. If so, what and who do they answer to and how will such an organization be structured? If not, instead of freeing up the military you would have to add the task of babysitter to their list of responsibilities. There are thousands of organizations that already are involved very successfully within their communities in very positive ways. People do need to get involved, but the last I heard it was a free choice, not a compulsory one. This idea has been floating around for some time now and the more I hear the less I like it. This entire thing stinks of yet another attempt by the left at social landscaping.
 
The statement is in it's context above. It's not just pulled out as a single sentence, it's not a reference to an international diplomatic corps, and it's not encompassing the other energy, veteran, Peace Corps items. Granted the ENTIRE speech isn't about his Civilian National Security Force. Nobody claims it was. It is as he said it. No innuendo, no right wiger blah blah.

What's the next cover story? Your an imaginative apologist, what is the new angle? I hope it's better then the blood thirsty neocon thing........

Done your own research yet? Don't smell right after you do that does it........
 
Good morning all.

A fella goes to bed and wakes up the devil incarnate. :eek:

Well, considering the poster, I'm not going to take the bait. That would be too easy.

I would like to publicly thank the following posters for doing their own research, adding their own knowledge to our discussion and responding to the one question I posed with insight and in a most straightforward way so each of us combined could be better informed.

Waitone, Harry Schell, Bruxley, Copenhagen, Madmag and Izinterrogator

Thank you gentlemen.

For those of interest, perhaps joining our discussion in mid-stream, I would encourage you to go to the beginning and read through all of the posters comments to this point. As I asked each responder to do earlier, do your own research and share your knowledge with all here. I also stated along with the youtube quotes there is a full length version available and I provide the marks of the relevant points in the first paragraph. Once you have done your own reading and research and have an informed opinion please post it, but I have one request: Reserve the personal attacks, baiting, name calling and demagoguery for other forums and places. Each of us can more benefit from a pool of knowledge then singular voices doing every thing in their power to turn white into black and day into night to mask intent, suppress knowledge and stymie thinking.

I ask this of all here. Use reason, cite sources, add knowledge and please give your opinion without personalizing your responses. All are welcome to post.

Thank you

Carry on!

PS: As an illustrious moderator once said; Think Twice Write Once
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top