Obama's "Civilian National Security Force"

[Playboypenguin]

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.

That is because he never suggests creating a new force. He clearly states what he means. He is referring to this as a collective. That all these current organizations together would form the body of this abstract entity that would serve to better the country and strengthen our country and it's standing in the world. To try and portray this as creating this new, uniformed, regulated organization is a blatant misrepresentation.

You still have not answered how this one small segment, culled and edited from the center of a broader statement, invalidates the entire half hour speech which clearly spells out the objecting. You have a full and detailed explanation but then you try to isolate one small phrase and speculate on how it might contradict or invalidate the actual message.

Where in the half hour speech does he even mention creating a new task force? Where? He just does not. He mentions enlarging already existing programs, increasing funding to social programs, and increasing the incentive for people to get involved.

 

[Slugthrower]

There is a lot of over reaction on the part of many folks. Many of us will listen to sensationalized media outlets. For the most part this is due to the intellectual laziness of the American public or our desire for reality to be what we infer from "bubble gum" entertainment. If you find yourself listening to such outlets as Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz or other such programs you may wish to check yourself. Those that listen to other sources in the MSM (main stream media) you definitely should check yourself, IMO.

What you are about to view to will most likely bore you. It is over an hour long. This is what Obama is talking about when he wants a civilian security program. Make your own decisions and come to your own conclusions. You may find yourself wondering why we have such knee jerk reactions to things that we have gathered little knowledge of.

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,1620/

After you have watched the video, look for the video of Next America Project Rollout, within the screen that you will be taken to, it is the one with Colon Powell pictured in it. I believe that many will find this video rather inspiring and much more entertaining than the previous video that was observed.

Personally, I cannot bring myself to vote for Obama. To each their own. Isn't freedom great?

 

[jimpeel]

Nothing new here. Bill Clinton, in his book "Putting People First" was calling for a national police force and that book came out before he was ever president. Where he was going to get that kind of manpower could only come from the civilian sector.

 

[jimpeel]

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.wordpres...ional-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/ar...unity_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.

From your link:

"... Upon fulfillment of an individual’s national service obligation, a Serving-Citizen will be granted full citizenship and the right to vote. “

You needn't look farther than a reading of "Starship Troopers".

 

[cxg231]

It's threads like this that make responsible firearms owners (like most on here) look to be paranoid, delusional and prone to hysteria and hyperbole.

Few if any of the people on here calling Sen. Obama a "fascist" can actually define what a "fascist" really is. This is just mudslinging with the politics of fear at it's finest. Those calling Sen. Obama a socialist would be much more accurate than those calling him a fascist...

More importantly: Some of you would do well to remind yourselves that the honorable George W Bush has done more to erode our civil liberties than any president in history. Between the erosion of our civil liberties and his constant use of words like "Muslim extremists" - the Bush administration shares more than a few passing resemblances to the Nazi regime which many of you enjoy bringing up in relation to Sen Obama. The Nazis controlled the German people partly thru fear of the Jews (the Nazi era "Muslim extremists"), and partly by erosion of civil liberties.

Sound familiar?

 

[xrocket]

CGX ...

It's threads like this that make responsible firearms owners (like most on here) look to be paranoid, delusional and prone to hysteria and hyperbole.

Thank you for posting your opinion.

It is after all a Legal & Political forum open to all. On July 2, '08 in Colorado Springs, BHO made a speech about national service. What raised eyebrows of some, myself included, was his inclusion of four words; "Civilian National Security Force" in the context of matching the military in strength, size and funding. The national press did not pursue the fact that in the official published transcripts this term and in fact the complete paragraph was removed. Also, the speech was removed from BHO official site. All the other speech's are there, you can check for yourself.

I do think someone or a group who pursues truth on their own through acquiring facts and knowledge should not be termed "paranoid, delusional, prone to hysteria or hyperbole". This is a serious election with great consequence in the balance and the junior Senator from Illinois with less than four years of national service does not offer much in the way of background to those who seek more knowledge about his politics. There is no need to go over the list of his socialist associations and voting record. That is a given and a separate discussion.

Few if any of the people on here calling Sen. Obama a "fascist" can actually define what a "fascist" really is. This is just mudslinging with the politics of fear at it's finest. Those calling Sen. Obama a socialist would be much more accurate than those calling him a fascist...

I think the better question is what do you fear?

I agree, he is a Socialist. In this particular thread no one has called BHO a "fascist" and when you state "few if any could define a fascist" well, I think you shortchange the intelligence of forum posters.

After reviewing both the complete speech and the shorter relevant part of the speech, I posed a simple question with one charge to the readers.

Did he actually say and mean what he said or was it a subconscious slip-up?​

And the charge was to "do your own research". If you choose to ignore the clip, not do your own research and not answer the question that is your right. Ignore it, plain and simple. Just don't disparage those who don't believe as you and choose to make informed decisions based on fact finding.

 

[mwm1331]

Eco green of course.

With a smiley face. Carlin called it, the dirty hippy, "Smiley Smiley"

And as for Obama being a fascist, he defintitely has some very facist tendancies. Themes of Unity and Sacrifice, a religon of state in which all men and women owe service and fealty to the state, a charsimatic leader whose followers imbue him wiht messianic import, a promise to bring sweeping change which will heal all wounds, undo all evil, and bring a "radiant future" in which all people act as one.

 

[cxg231]

Thank you for posting your opinion. It is after all a Legal & Political forum open to all.

Thank you for responding civilly. You posts are well thought out and your original post in this thread was neutral and unbiased, unfortunately it did bring out those here with, shall we say, "less than mainstream" opinions.

I do not think someone or a group who pursues truth on their own through acquiring facts and knowledge should not be termed "paranoid, delusional, prone to hysteria or hyperbole".

I totally agree with you - those who pursue truth through acquiring facts should be commended. There are many posters on this thread that have done just that, and I appreciate their comments.

However, it is statements like these that have raised my eyebrows, with posters jumping right to the "fascist" angle without bringing any facts to the table to back up their statements:

They have a word for it, well it is a rather old word and many people died to be rid of them. It's spelled "G-E-S-T-A-P-O."

Will their uniform shirts be brown or black?

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.

Any facts behind the supposed assemblage of a UN-led global army?

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.

A branch of "secret state police" is pure hyperbole on the part of the poster, not supported by the statements of Obama AFAIK...besides, Bush already has our own government spying on us via the Patriot Act...

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.

And what would the "whole truth" be? Where are the facts outlining the "truth".

xrocket, my remarks about "paranoid, delusional, prone to hysteria or hyperbole" was not directed to yourself or any of the other thoughtful posters, I apologize for having too broad a stroke on my brush.

 

[gretske]

You still have not answered how this one small segment, culled and edited from the center of a broader statement, invalidates the entire half hour speech which clearly spells out the objecting.

Let me take a shot at this. It is quite simple, everything, everything, a presidential candidate says, writes or does during a campaign is fair game, and should be. It is natural for a candidate to try and say what they think will garner the most votes in an effort to win. But, amid this lying and pandering, there will be moments of truth that shine through. Whether this statement is one of those or not, is up the individual. But, what is undeniable, is that these impromptu utterings can, and should, be scrutinized. Especially when the campaign staff attempts to erase the reference.

 

[xrocket]

Cgx231

xrocket, my remarks about "paranoid, delusional, prone to hysteria or hyperbole" was not directed to yourself or any of the other thoughtful posters, I apologize for having too broad a stroke on my brush.

No problem and it's great to have a divergent opinion on board.

Is there anything to add on your part? We have had a few fellows provide background on some of the civilian groups mentioned and how they are currently composed. It seems to me the Obama campaign handlers ( no disrespect intended ) have done a very good job of tamping down this particular remark. Perhaps there is nothing to it all, but with the effort to remove it and not acknowledge it, too me it's still smoking a little in the background. As of today it has not gained any additional traction and it might not although I'm still working on running down leads.

 

[obxned]

If I join, do I get to wear a Brown Shirt?

 

[cxg231]

Is there anything to add on your part? We have had a few fellows provide background on some of the civilian groups mentioned and how they are currently composed. It seems to me the Obama campaign handlers ( no disrespect intended ) have done a very good job of tamping down this particular remark. Perhaps there is nothing to it all, but with the effort to remove it and not acknowledge it, too me it's still smoking a little in the background. As of today it has not gained any additional traction and it might not although I'm still working on running down leads.

I personally don't think that there is anything to be worried about. After digesting the available information, it appears that there has been no effort to tamp down anything, IMHO. The official Obama website does not have every speech he makes available for viewing (only a select few), so there is no discernible specific exclusion of the particular speech in question.

I think this is a matter of looking too hard. Sometimes we tend to stare at the forest so long that we end up focusing on one particular tree that seems odd, when in fact the forest itself is totally fine.

A good example is the extreme element of the population that actually believe that 911 was an "inside job". (I am not one of them, just for the record.) But those people have looked so hard at single "leafs" of information, they have convinced themselves that there is something there that does not in fact exist when you look at the whole forest. People (myself included) have a tendency to find what they want to find and come to predetermined conclusions based on whatever "evidence" they can rustle up.

I just don't think there is anything sinister going on, nor is there any evidence of a cover-up, IMO.

No problem and it's great to have a divergent opinion on board.

The great part is that we can all have different opinions, thanks to the constitution and the people who fight for our freedoms.

I have no problems with any well-thought out opinions and arguments, so if it is clear that someone has done their homework and came to a conclusion based on the available information, I can totally respect that regardless of their opinion.

My previous posts were railing against knee-jerk statements not based on research. (See above).

 

[xrocket]

"I just don't think there is anything sinister going on, nor is there any evidence of a cover-up, IMO"

I sincerely hope your right.

Vigilance is part and parcel of patience.