|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Nov 14, 2008 9:31:10 GMT -5
November 11, 2008Q: Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"? I read a quote from Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia which stated that Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the "Gestapo" or the Nazi Brownshirts. What is the truth behind Obama's statements that he wants to create a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military]"? A: This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service. This question stems from an interview that Republican Rep. Broun of Georgia gave to The Associated Press Nov. 10. The story carried a headline, "Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship." It said that Broun "fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship." And it quoted him this way: Rep. Paul Broun, Nov. 10: It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's [Obama's] the one who proposed this national security force. ... That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context. Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold. Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to 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 clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to 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 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. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.
-Brooks Jackson [glow=red,2,300]EXACTLY![/glow]Source:www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 14, 2008 10:35:08 GMT -5
"Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas."
Except that his own words made his "security force" a totally different entity than AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps or the USA Freedom Corps. He mentioned those and how he wants to build them up. Then he mentioned his 'security force.' Again, what does a security force as stong, powerful and well funded as all our military have to do with any of those organizations? And how does one make an organization as stong and powerful as the military without "guns and police powers." Mr. Brooks in his comments is making as much of a guess as the rest of us. That is the problem - this master wordsmith said something very strange and disturbing, his official version cuts it out, he refuses to talk about it. So we are left to wonder what it all means.
"Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide."
We don't know. All we know is that he wants a security force that can act as a counterbalance to the military. And given his record of using intimidation, coersion, etc. against anyone who dares to oppose him, I would not put it out of the realm of possibility. Or, more likely the more subtle version of the same thing, endless law suits for imagined offenses.
"and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.
People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to 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 clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country."
And this takes a "security force" that is equal in power and strength to all of our military? The only thing he called for that takes a "security force" is the opening of our embassies. And the security of those fall to the USMC.
We have heard for the last two years what a master orater The Obama is, how he uses words so well and with such great precision. How he says exactly what he means. So he must have meant exactly what he said - he wants some powerful well funded armed force at his command outside the military. That is what his words mean. But now the spinmeisters of the left are telling us that his words don't mean what they mean. That he was talking about something else.
Maybe if the Office of The Obama hadn't redacted those words it wouldn't be such a big deal. But here we have a blatant lie of omission and then silence on the issue. He refuses to tell us what he meant by it.
JMO, I assume that the source for your post is the Annenberg funded FactCheck. Let's see, if I recall, the various Annenberg groups support all sorts of socialist causes, with FactCheck being an informational arm of it. About as unbiased as a Birch Society newsletter.
If we are wrong, fine. I hope we are, actually. We will look silly and alarmist, but that goes with being human, it happens. But if we are right, and The Obama gets his security force, we will never have the chance to correct the damage The Obama will have done to our Republic.
Again, if Pres. Bush, or Sen. McCain had he been elected, had said the same things, the progressives would be just as worried as conservatives and libertarians are now. And would be more vocal about it, and likely throwing their usual riots, I mean, "peaceful protests."
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 14, 2008 12:18:30 GMT -5
November 11, 2008Q: Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"? I read a quote from Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia which stated that Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the "Gestapo" or the Nazi Brownshirts. What is the truth behind Obama's statements that he wants to create a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military]"? A: This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service. This question stems from an interview that Republican Rep. Broun of Georgia gave to The Associated Press Nov. 10. The story carried a headline, "Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship." It said that Broun "fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship." And it quoted him this way: Rep. Paul Broun, Nov. 10: It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's [Obama's] the one who proposed this national security force. ... That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context. Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold. Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to 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 clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to 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 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. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.
-Brooks Jackson [glow=red,2,300]EXACTLY![/glow]Source:www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html Well now, he never said that. And if it is true, why is the original version of his speech not available in context on his website any longer? Why has all information regarding his "Civilian National Security Force" been purged from his site? And tell me something, how can an unarmed security force be "just as powerful, just as strong" as our military if it is unarmed. I happen to understand quite a lot about self-defense and I know that only so much can be accomplished without weapons. No, you are engaged in propaganda, even if it is unintentional. What he said is very chilling. The very fact that you do not understand that shows me a great deal about your character. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Nov 14, 2008 13:58:26 GMT -5
I was listening to Brian Sussman on the way home last night and a caller who was in support of Barack's "national civilian security force" thought that such a force would be perfect for going into the gang infested, crime ridden areas of Oakland and Richmond (for one example) where even heavily armed police are sometimes reluctant to go, and would go a long way to cleaning those areas up.
So if those civilian security force types with their "three months of training" (to quote Rahm "F**k the Republicans" Emmanuel) are not going to be armed as some here seem to be assuming, just exactly what are they going to do in those neighborhoods?
Aside from becoming homicide and assault victims, that is.
The utter fallacy of that line of logic is appalling. And given the "just as powerful, just as strong" concept that Barack (and others including Rahm "F**k the Republicans" Emmanuel) has advanced in parallel with the very idea of the civilian national security force, why is it so difficult to not see the potential for an American Protective League type of operation?
Barack, and others, have said this force would be trained to operate in the wake of natural disasters. So who is to say they won't be trained to pull shenanigans like what sworn law enforcement officers did in New Orleans post Katrina?
What those who are rushing to defend Barack, and divert attention from the proposal, don't get is that these types of proposals when left so completely nebulous is that there is a logical presumption to be made that just about anything could happen.
If Barack and his peeps want to pursue this, they are going to need to put some real definitions and structure about what the expectation is for this "force". How it will be constituted, what it's duties, responsibility and authority will be.
Without that all we can do is think in terms of what it could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Nov 14, 2008 14:18:01 GMT -5
That is exactly right, and that's my point. But, let me guess, because now I'm lazy, stupid, mesmerized by propaganda, and Barack's amazing ability to speak, oh, and let's not forget my questionable character I couldn't possibly be making the same point as you anointed Big Dog.  If I had poor self esteem the above words would be hurtful, but since I don't too bad for you all. I will keep attempting to make my points, and opinions even if I don't have the "right' stuff (pun intended), and can't assimilate into your club, or as I like to think of it, pack. I will remain here nipping at your heels... Respectfully of course. |
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Nov 14, 2008 14:30:46 GMT -5
JMO,
I'm REAL HAPPY For "Brooks Jackson's" OPINION of HIS INTERPRETATION of Obamas words. And just because YOU ALSO FEEL like that is how it should be interpreted that makes it so? Brooks nor You nor I can EVER REALLY KNOW what he meant unless HE comes out and says it..now then will we.
BUT
His ORIGINAL WORDING was pretty "interesting" to say the least..and now it's being "Scrubbed" ...WHY WHY WHY?
If it is SOOOOO "innocent" and "He meant Peacecorps..." WHY SCRUB THE INNOCENT REFERENCE?
Oh aaaaaaaannd......
In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, a “branch of the Annenberg Foundation”.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels. The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
Isn't that convenient...
In 2005 B. Hussein Requested $3.5 Million For The USC Annenberg Research Network.
To believe FACTCHECK.org is unbiased or NOT in support of B. Hussein to the point of suppression of FACT and outright lying you are truly a sheep heading to slaughter.
When people act like "Fact" check is real I wanna cry. .. and feel that this country is already doomed ....
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 14, 2008 14:32:30 GMT -5
What I see in that video is a reason to revolt. The police involved should be imprisoned. In fact, they should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Nov 14, 2008 14:34:02 GMT -5
If you look closely you will notice that the peace officers who tackled and disarmed the old woman are wearing the patch of the California Highway Patrol......... they, and many other out of state LEOs, were there in the days after Katrina to "help".
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 14, 2008 14:34:16 GMT -5
That is exactly right, and that's my point. But, let me guess, because now I'm lazy, stupid, mesmerized by propaganda, and Barack's amazing ability to speak, oh, and let's not forget my questionable character I couldn't possibly be making the same point as you anointed Big Dog. If I had poor self esteem the above words would be hurtful, but since I don't too bad for you all. I will keep attempting to make my points, and opinions even if I don't have the "right' stuff (pun intended), and can't assimilate into your club, or as I like to think of it, pack. I will remain here nipping at your heels... Respectfully of course. I will not tolerate a national security force. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Nov 14, 2008 14:36:37 GMT -5
So what's next Max, you're going to tell me that Brooks Jackson is really Bill Ayers writing under his nom de plume? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 14, 2008 14:37:12 GMT -5
If you look closely you will notice that the peace officers who tackled and disarmed the old woman are wearing the patch of the California Highway Patrol......... they, and many other out of state LEOs, were there in the days after Katrina to "help". Their identities should be determined and they should be fired from the California Highway Patrol. Prosecuted in Federal Courts and sent to prison for violation of the Second Amendment, civil rights and assault. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Nov 14, 2008 14:41:17 GMT -5
Soooo, who ordered the confiscation of guns? The Sheriff's Dept. has that power alone?
|
|
