So is he calling for mandatory military service of some form?
Given the likelihood of Obama banning all personal ownership of guns and rendering the 2nd Amendment moot, how will these civilian forces guard us? By hugging terrorists to death?
If only guns provide security , Iraq would be the most secure area in the world.
So if we have a civilian military force wouldn't they need to carry guns?
Hmmm.
Obama's Civilian National Security Force is not "mandatory military service” or "a civilian military force". In his July 2 speech, he was talking about expanding opportunities for people to serve in areas such as AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.
In his July 2 speech, he was talking about expanding opportunities for people to serve in areas such as AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.
Oh - you mean the same sort of service that people get "stuck" doing when it comes to the military? As liberals often say, people only go to the army because they don't have the education or means to work elsewhere.
Hmmmm.Obama wants us to think Peace Corps but he said:
“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.”
Is the Peace Corps set up to handle national security objectives??
It almost seems like he is advocating a national police force and getting rid of the local police departments. It wouldn't surprise me because many liberals believe in the centralized government concept.
WOW, what a ridiculous thing for O to let escape his lips. Scary as hell if you ask me.
If we untied the hands of our intelligence agencies and our National Guard as well as allowed ICE agents to do their work, we'd have plenty of military for national security.
Also, when the Minutemen tried to protect our border Bush called them "terrorists". Now when Obama is seeking to have a civilian force (which would be EXPENSIVE), the news media ignores it, with very few exceptions.
Seems to me this also rings a bell. Wasn't it Hitler who had a so-called "civilian force" that terrorized the country into submission?
The article that Fred posted asctually asks all good questions, the same ones I would ask. Sure hope we get some answers to this one----but somehow I doubt it.
jp says: "In his July 2 speech, he was talking about expanding opportunities for people to serve in areas such as AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps."
Yeah? so how does that fit in with national security, pray tell? Yes, do explain it to us. Totally naive is what I call your comments.
When i hear things like "civilian force" coming from a Lib, all i can think is "man, thats going cost a ton and its going to be loaded with fraud"
I'm sure he has a plan to pay for it, tho, right?
Two little words, "MORE TAXES"!
"...civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Could this be a welfare program?
Could this civilian force guard our borders and call themselves "minutemen".
Just a thought.
Maybe Curtis Slewa could help here.
jp, above, is right, no matter how much you want to mock him.
That passage is not in the prepared text of his speech. It is, however, something he ad-libbed, as seen in this YouTube of that speech about 17 minutes into it. It is clear from the context that he is talking about the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, not some new program. Here are the two paragraphs just before the cited passage (from the prepared text--he may have changed a word here or there):
As President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, 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 efforts 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.
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.
It's clear he's not suggesting arming civilians and sending them out to fight our wars. Instead--and I think he's right about this--he's saying that poor education, limited access to health care, dependence on foreign energy supplies, and withdrawing ambassadors (in State and in the Peace Corps) from the world affect our security as a nation.
So if you're not clear what he means by "civilian national security force," then read those two paragraphs carefully (or listen to the speech) where he explains what he means. It's not hard.
The more absurd Obama gets, the more Folkbum likes him. You can't make this stuff up.
It would be good for us in the military. Send the huggers in first and make the enemy use up ammo. We can then come in and mop up.
Do you mean you'd mop up the huggers or the enemies??
This idea is so stupid I thought it was a joke at first. This man actually stands a chance at being President of the United States. What happened to America? I want her back.
"man, thats going cost a ton and its going to be loaded with fraud"
You mean like the last 5 years in Iraq under your guys?
Energy Corps...
Here come the global warming police.
Hey Grumps...
Your guys voted to send us to Iraq too.
Jay, your time off of school really has dulled your mind.
I read it and a civillan national security force is not involved in any of those excuses you make for him.
I know, Jay, you can't diss your man. I mean, if you did critize a liberal for a scandal or talking stupid, that would mean you actually would have to have some courage and guts.
But keep drinking the Kool Aide, it's good comedic relief for us.
Grumpie, let's just for the sake of argument assume you are correct about massive massive massive fraud in Iraq.
You want more of that?
Do you sniff glue grumpie?
Ralphie eats it....so you wouldnt be alone...
Whatever this thing is, if it's to be "as well-funded" as the U.S. military, it would cost more than $400 billion annually. That's a lot of tax money.
I read it and a civillan national security force is not involved in any of those excuses you make for him.
Look, one of two things is possible. 1) Either Obama has some super-secret plan that no one knows about and that news of accidentally just slipped out of his mouth during a speech on an unrelated matter; or 2) Obama ad-libbed a line that re-named or paraphrased what he just talked about.
In the video, the lines in question follow immediately on after what I pasted in above--immediately, as in Obama raises his voice and rushes to speak over the applause that was building. It's ridiculous to suggest that he was trying to change the subject and add a new bullet point about a new program never mentioned before or after in any Obama speech anywhere.
I think Obama's critics (including you) may be hung up on a narrow definition of national security. Which, come to think of it, explains a lot of why we're in the current mess.
(And what time off? I'm working hard over here. I got a house note, you know.)
As big as and as well funded as the military?
Were is all of that money coming from Jay?
Fred, liberals don't even consider where the money comes from. Their whole lives have been subsidized by the government for the most part. Taxes have provided their underoo's and their Cap'n Crunch. Why would they object to more taxes. It works for them. Liberals are generally government dependant for their living and most liberals are duller than a butter knife.
Bad idea's and higher taxation doesn't come with a price for them.
Fred, Obama's ad-lib may have been a bit, well, hyperbolic. But his speech (as prepared) and his website talk about less than 300,000 people. There's no way that would come close to the DoD budget.
As far was where the money comes from, Obama has been disappointing in his lack of enthusiasm for curbing deficit spending. At least Obama's honest about that, as opposed to McCain's smoke-and-mirrors act.
Obama comes out with ridiculous moronic idea's and the left just marches along as if they don't notice. It's scary. I mean it's obvious that this guy isn't very bright. He's clearly not qualified to manage a fast food joint, yet liberals all get in line like good little sheep. Yes Obaaaaaaaa-ma, we hear you our fearless leader baaaaaa baaaaaaa.
Obama is like a high school sophomore. He has all these idea's that are fantasy.
not only not noticing, gus, but actually excusing it as a standard MO.
wonder if a republican comes out with a statement that says "we're going to cut spending ---especially on all those stupid government charity programs" if the lefties would come out and say "well.....he did say he wanted to cut spending, after all. so thats good"
shaaa...as if.
*that was me as "Anonymous"
...stupid 'puter
gus, I would be happy to debate an issue or an idea or something with you, but if all you're going to do is make sound effects and hurl insults, then I don't see the point.
"It's clear he's not suggesting arming civilians and sending them out to fight our wars."
Oh yeah? Then just exactly what is he suggesting if this force is going to be "as powerful and as strong and as well funded as the militar"y in the same sentence as he says, "“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. "
Exactly what does the Peace Corps (if that's what he meant) have to do with national security?
Hey, I'm all for expanding the Peace Corps and even some sort of domestic service for young people----but that has nothing at all to do with national security.
The man has a lot of explaining to do, no matter how much folkbum tries to wiggle out of it and make excuses. And if he mis-spoke, he still needs to explain himself, loud and clear.
Folkbum, you don't debate anyone. You spew nonsense and dodge the truth at all costs. You rationalize your socialism and spew rhetoric. You're liberal, that's what liberals do. No offense my friend. When you decide to be honest with yourself we should chat. Take care friend, I hope your music career is doing well.
folkbum says, "So if you're not clear what he means by "civilian national security force," then read those two paragraphs carefully (or listen to the speech) where he explains what he means. It's not hard."
You are making an awful lot of benign assumptions about what the man means, which is pretty naive. I think HE HIMSELF NEEDS TO EXPLAIN TO THE COUNTRY WHAT HE MEANS!!! and not depend on one of his kool-aid fans to interpret for him.
And by the way liberals, since when is asking for clarification about something said the wrong thing? You act like refusing to make assumptions about something said is somehow dishonest.
If you run your families that way I feel sorry for all of you. Making assumptions can be dangerous, because sometimes assumptions are WRONG.
If McCain had said the same words I would be questioning them and demanding an explanation every bit as much----but somehow that seems to elude you in your naive world.
rose, the Peace Corps actually has a lot to do with national security. The Corps members do not just go out and build aquifers and whatnot. They are goodwill ambassadors, the kind of presence that suggests the US cares for the well-being of the rest of the planet. Part of Kennedy's original plan for the Corps was to make sure the developing world knew we, not the Soviets, were the good guys. Substitute "terrorists" for "Soviets" and you have a sound foreign policy objective, I think.
The same for domestic service: The stronger, healthier, smarter, more energy independent we are, the better we will be able to face the as-yet unseen challenges of the next century.
And rose, did you watch the YouTube? To watch Obama's speech and think that the lines Fred quotes here were in reference to anything other than what he had just that second finished describing is a stretch. When you see the lines out of context, as Fred and his right-wing pals have so helpfully set it up, then yes, it raises questions. The original source, the editor of the oh-so-objective World Net Daily, was claiming Obama wants to establish a police state--which is exactly the kind of thing a partisan would want to spread about the other side.
Even when I read the quote, and then found the transcript of the speech that lacked it, I was confused myself. But seeing it in the speech, in context, it's clear he's not proposing another new program or suggesting anything like arming civilians, but rather reinforcing the points he's just made.
You may think I'm making excuses, but I'm not. I'm looking at a speech, and it's not hard to understand. You can disagree with the proposals he describes, but don't read more into it than what's there and start SCREAMING just because Fred, et al., have truncated the context that eliminates those questions.
You spew nonsense and dodge the truth at all costs.
Okay, gus, find one lie I have told in this thread. One. And I'll go away forever.
We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded
Stasi, anyone?
The same for domestic service: The stronger, healthier, smarter, more energy independent we are, the better we will be able to face the as-yet unseen challenges of the next century
Geez, Folkie...
The O-and-Savior now wants a "powerful, strong, welll-funded national security' force which will see to it that ALL citizens are eating correctly, using only their allotted energy quota, exercising daily, and sending the State's children to approved schools.
THAT makes me real comfortable, Jay.
I suggest you stop diggin the hole now...
Folkswagen, your tired liberal rhetorical dodge is tedious. It's all been done before. You actually responded to Roseindigo with one of the most nonsensical lib pieces of pap that I could ever imagine. Folko, you said......."rose, the Peace Corps actually has a lot to do with national security". Folko, are you high on something? What you posted is nonsense. Again my friend no offense, but you living on a different planet.
Rock on dude.
Roseindigo, Folkbloom is nuts. If Obama said the moon was made of green cheese, Folko would ask for a chunk. He's a lib. He believes that in the Great Society. Nothing will change his opinion, because he didn't arrive at his conclusions logically. Theoretically Obama can save the world by taxing and hoping. It's quite scary that educated people like Jay Folkbloom believe the way they do. Obama is nothing new. He is a con man. And Folkbloom allows himself to be conned.
I'm sure Jay Folkbloom means well.
I have come to believe that gus is a bot, a tool being deployed to drive away the thinking people from this blog. Bravo, Fred or mickey or whoever created gus, for constructing a bot that so thoroughly fails to engage on the substance but succeeds beyond expectations in name-calling and general prickishness. I tip my hat to your genius.
Also, Dad29, I call a Godwin foul.
Mr.Folkdoom, you don't think, you emote. Your world is fantasy island. Again my dear friend, no offense, but you aren't mature yet. You believe crap that is beyond belief. Obama says total garbage and you hear the Gettysburg address.....because you WANT to believe.
Jay Folkblossom, Obama is a con man. He is a manipulative phony. He isn't bright, he doesn't have experience at anything except running his mouth. But running his mouth has been his ace in the hole. People like you Mr. Folkbuns, want to believe in him. You are desperate to find a black man to make your world complete. You need to prove your moral superiority in 2 ways. One, you spend others money on failed causes. 2 you need to show others that you are not racist and are morally superior to everyone else.
You're not J. You're just another government paycheck liberal who pretends.
Someday I'd love to see you play your guitar and sing.
QED.
So far I have not seen where the money for this well funded "National Security Force" would come from.
Some say tax hike, but my guess is that it would come from the military side of things.
I say that because the left seems to have this misguided notion that a military is an evil place where only "dead enders" go.
So it actually makes sense that Military spending gets cut to the bone --actually to the mushy inside of the bone-- and the money gets shifted into this idea.
Gus is Gus Jay.
I'd be happy to show you IPS, it is unique.
Nice try throwing out accusations though.
Jay's point is still well made, Fred. Your comment thread attracts the gusses of the world like no other. I told you once that your blog had a toxic air and I believe that you revel in the byplay.
It's your blog, Fred. Run it as you see fit. You just might want to change the header, though. There's damn little respect for questions and none at all for opposing viewpoints here.
Please don't change the header Fred.
This blog is the awesomest place around for some real righty debate. Keep up the good work Gus.
You two slay me.
A less tolerant place than Whallah or Folkbum's does not exist in the cheeseosphere.
You two both come here and sling it as well as you get it and complain all day long.
Run it as you see fit. You just might want to change the header, though. There's damn little respect for questions and none at all for opposing viewpoints here.
Funny Grumps, I loosened things up considerably after I tossed 3rd way to the curb for being an insulting ass after people like you complained to no end about it.
Funny yet, you told me that when I invited you to be a contributor here, to post what you wanted when you wanted without restriction from me.
I've made the same offer to Folkbum in the past and he turned me down too.
Yeah, no dissenting view wanted around here at all.
I loosened things up after complaints from lefties that I was too tight, now you still aren't happy that I am allowing more from both sides in comments.
Lefties will always complain about anything a rightie does, that much we're sure of.
What you don't get Grumps is that there are some things that are undefensible. I tend to gravitate to those items. The fun part is in then watching you and yours squirm to defend the ridiculous behavior of your party leaders.
Take our hero Jesse Jackson. Mr holier than though race baiter Hymie-town throwing around the N-word himself now.
Where will the scorn be from your guys against him?
Absent.
If that had been someone on the right you would be screaming from the rooftops for his head.
Yet you guys will ignore a real racist like Jackson and still give him a prominent voice.
Pointing to liberal hypocrisy is like shooting fish in a barrel.
All of the commentary I read has been doing a pretty good job of ignoring Jackson for the past decade or so.
I don't know why anyone would need to explicitly disassociate themselves from someone they were not associated with.
You two slay me.
Well at least the comedic effect is reciprocal around here. It would be funny if this truly wasn't your version of a debate.
"the Peace Corps actually has a lot to do with national security. The Corps members do not just go out and build aquifers and whatnot. They are goodwill ambassadors, the kind of presence that suggests the US cares for the well-being of the rest of the planet."
This is the sort of pie-in-the-sky liberal pink fog that drives me nuts, and IT DOES NOT IN THE LEAST EXPLAIN OBAMA'S ACTUAL WORDS. Taken out of context or not, the words are still ominous.
I agree that the Peace Corps has some minor effect as good-will ambassadors out there in the world, but what that has to do with national security, which is a military function, is beyond me. You are mixing apples and oranges and making assumptions that may or may not be true. If Obama is also mixing apples and oranges, he has no business being president.
And if Obama meant the Peace Corps, then he needs to tell us so. I don't want to hear what he "meant" from you because no matter how you sugar-coat it, IT IS AN ASSUMPTION ON YOUR PART. I want to hear it from the man himself, and it's the job of the news media to get it----and as usual, they are not doing their job. Obama needs to get his story straight. That's one of his jobs as a potential leader, to clarify what he means to ALL the people. Letting this slip by is not clarifying anything to me and only worrisome because the words he actually used SCARE THE HELL OUT OF ME.
Like I said, I would feel exactly the same way if McCain (or anyone else) had said those words. If you like to live in the sort of pink haze you liberals tend to live in (oh, it's all benign and hunky-dory!!!) that's your business. I don't lead my life that way and I DEMAND THAT THE MAN HIMSELF CLARIFY WHAT EXACTLY HE MEANS. I'm also wondering how he could use such WRONG words for something to make it sound that ominous. Is he really that inept? If he is and didn't mean what he said, he needs to clarify at the least and maybe even give a sincere apology for a VERY SERIOUS misunderstanding. He owes that to the whole country, not just to the right, but also to the sensible left who don't live in a pink haze(few as they may be).
Roseindigo, Obama is not very bright. His main problem is that like John Kerry, Obama believes he is things that he clearly is not. Leader for example. He says thing that are so naive and stupid that it's hilarious, and his sheep follow along. When he says ridiculous things like creating a civilain security force the size and scope of our military, he is clearly deluded. Yet his followers don't care that he is naive. He is their messiah.
Obama - We need a Civilian Security Task Force
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T...h?
v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Obama
July 2, 2008
http://www.rockymountainnews.com...-obamas-speech/
"This will be a central cause of my presidency”.
“when I'm President, I will set a goal for "all" American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year" in their community & military.
(middle school starts at age 12)
Why would Obama FORCE Children to serve community & military for free college!
Right now grants available to “NO income” families = FREE COLLEGE
Right now loans available to low & middle income families = help pay for COLLEGE
Right now scholarships that pay a portion or pay full tuition = FREE COLLEGE
Right now we have an all Volunteer Military plus FREE COLLEGElian
Could this be Obama’s “Civilian Security Task Force” that he spoke about in 2007?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T...h?
v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Hitl Einsatzgruppen (German: "task forces", "intervention groups") Their principal task, was the annihilation of the Jews, Gypsies, and Soviet political commissars (Obama July 22, 2006 said "the so-called Christian right" are the blame for dividing this nation is it inconceivable we could have a Christian holocaust?)
change.gov
On that site, under America Serves is something mentioned on some of the comments here.
Oddly... there is in no way, shape, or form, the word VOLUNTEER. Or any other word akin to it on that page.
Read... then read again.
Jp you are a sheep, you are blinded by your own ignorance, shut up open your ears and shut your mouth, also open your eyes. do the math 2+2=4 right.. just as what this non-citizen is not for the people of the US, but rather an international order. You are going to regret your stupidity and blindness just as the people of germany did pre-1939.
their is much todo about whit racism today, blacks are comming out of the woodwork accusing whites and white police as being racist now that is the coner stone for obamas national security force he is going to dismmantle police departments and implement his security force most likely made up of poor black youth and their mentors ACORN, or some would call them brown shirts.
How in the world did this even get to be a possibility in the USA the freeist country in the world going down in six months,our military being trashed our missel defence being dismasntled, the country being drained of all its funds and assets,Corporations being robed of their money then restrictionsw put on them so they could never regain their poition. no 5 countries in the world could do that to the USA but along comes Obama.
What would we have heard from the ACLU and the left if Bush intented this?.
Obamas mother could not transfer natural citizenship to Barry Sotro, his mother left the USA when she just turned 18 and the law at the time stated for her to be a natural citizen in the USA she would have to live in the USA for at minimum of one year after er attaining the legal age of eighteen years old.
Therefore Obama could be a citizen but not a natural born citizen AND another provisionin the Constutition states only the Father can convey natural born citizenship.in addition "natural born citizen" if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14--in other words, 19.
Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday . so in the year Obama was born he could not have been a US citizen, years later perhaps five the USA changed the law but it did not grandfather to OBAMA.....HE IS NO CITIZEN.
Commenting by HaloScan
