Barack Obama's Plan for Giant Police Force - Cannabis.com Forums Message Boards - Medical Marijuana, Cannabis Club, Dispensary, News

Torog · #1 (**permalink**) Jul-15-2008, 07:55

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

BETWEEN THE LINES

Barack Obama's plan
for giant police force

Exclusive: Joseph Farah exposes senator's desire
for military-sized 'civilian national security force'

Posted: July 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
By Joseph Farah

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "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."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

What does it mean?

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?

If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?

So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.

At this point all I can do is enlist your help – and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.

Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?

The questions are endless.

But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.

Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?

I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.

Help me out here. What am I missing?

Can I get a hand?

killerweed420 · #2 (**permalink**) Jul-15-2008, 10:57

We already have this thanks to Bush and his chronies. Its called Blackwater and others.

RobPA · #3 (**permalink**) Jul-16-2008, 22:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by killerweed420

We already have this thanks to Bush and his chronies. Its called Blackwater and others.

They arent nearly as big as any of our military forces. This is talking about a national police state. Nothing surprising from a socialist though.

Stoner Shadow Wolf · #4 (**permalink**) Jul-16-2008, 23:14

police state + me = homicidal/suicidal maniac rampage

i'll have fun, will YOU?

8182KSKUSH · #5 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 01:26

Well, I think you are giving him too much credit. I don't think it's exactly his plan. He is just the top sheep, the only thing that is new at all about any of his "ideas" is that they are at their core un-American. There that should pick this thread up a little. Bunker down prepare for the onslaught of ignorance as the worshipers file in!
He is just figure head of the moment for that ideology. But you are right on.

8182KSKUSH · #6 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 01:27

Those are some funny ass pics!

JaggedEdge · #7 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 02:41

1984 here we come!!! The man scares the shit out of me. He is either a Socialist or Fascist but I can't determine which one. I have to agree with Kush, I think he is nothing more than the voice behind a darker organizations ideals.

JaggedEdge · #8 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 02:47

d130_2.jpg

**stinkyattic** · #9 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 09:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by killerweed420

We already have this thanks to Bush and his chronies. Its called Blackwater and others.

IMHO you have hit the nail on the head. Obama is, no doubt, acknowledging the political clout that those types of firms (I'm thinking Halliburton as a top example) have already in this country, and that without guaranteeing that they will not be forced to be significantly downsized with decreased government contracts after the war, the presidency will be that much harder for him to gain. In non-wartimes, police, 'public safety', and prisons are top choices for military type contractors to involve themselves with, and Halliburton is already involved in building 'quarantines' where infected individuals my be held indefinitely if they are thought to be infected with something contagious and incurable... but that won't EVER be used to hold dissenters against their will without charges, of course!

KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M - MarketWatch
Secular Front: Halliburton to build mass detention centers in the US

daihashi · #10 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

IMHO you have hit the nail on the head. Obama is, no doubt, acknowledging the political clout that those types of firms (I'm thinking Halliburton as a top example) have already in this country, and that without guaranteeing that they will not be forced to be significantly downsized with decreased government contracts after the war, the presidency will be that much harder for him to gain. In non-wartimes, police, 'public safety', and prisons are top choices for military type contractors to involve themselves with, and Halliburton is already involved in building 'quarantines' where infected individuals my be held indefinitely if they are thought to be infected with something contagious and incurable... but that won't EVER be used to hold dissenters against their will without charges, of course!

KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M - MarketWatch
Secular Front: Halliburton to build mass detention centers in the US

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really confused by your post in relation to the original artcile posted. Hit the nail on the head?

It sounds as though you're saying that Obama is just going to cater to these corporate entities like the rest of the politicians but at the same time you don't directly call him out on it but kind of shuffle around it by saying

"and that without guaranteeing that they will not be forced to be significantly downsized with decreased government contracts after the war, the presidency will be that much harder for him to gain."

Are you saying that Obama is like every politician (no argument here.. 100% agreement from me) in that he's going to cater to big business and his criticism of other officials such as Bush or McCain are almost hypocritical?

Or did I miss the nail altogether here?

**confused**

**stinkyattic** · #11 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 13:16

I think it has everything to do with the original post.

What I was trying to get at is that yes, in our system as it is, in order for a politician to get elected, he or she has to have at least a positive relationship with big business, and I think Obama is simply another politician working within the same framework as others before him.

Security and security-related contracts are businesses, obviously; the promise to create more security related jobs will earn him, if not outright support from these businesses/contractors, at least satisfaction that they will not be forced to downsize after the war has ended, resulting in stock losses and personnel cuts.

So taking it that last step to call him out for planning to do exactly what he is criticizing his opponents for, but in perhaps less obvious ways, yes, I certainly see a level of hypocrisy in that.

Everything I have stated in this and the last post is a very strong example of why I find 'politics' so distasteful.

daihashi · #12 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

I think it has everything to do with the original post.

I did state I was confused.

and thank you for the clarification. Now I understand what you were trying to say. It takes my brain a little while to get the gears moving lately since I've been recooperating the last month or so.

Good post

Stoner Shadow Wolf · #13 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by stinkyattic

I think it has everything to do with the original post.

What I was trying to get at is that yes, in our system as it is, in order for a politician to get elected, he or she has to have at least a positive relationship with big business, and I think Obama is simply another politician working within the same framework as others before him.

Security and security-related contracts are businesses, obviously; the promise to create more security related jobs will earn him, if not outright support from these businesses/contractors, at least satisfaction that they will not be forced to downsize after the war has ended, resulting in stock losses and personnel cuts.

So taking it that last step to call him out for planning to do exactly what he is criticizing his opponents for, but in perhaps less obvious ways, yes, I certainly see a level of hypocrisy in that.

Everything I have stated in this and the last post is a very strong example of why I find 'politics' so distasteful.

I would like to ask you if you realize what you are saying indicates that Defense contractors are the real source of terrorism?

everything that can be used to create a good world must have opposites.

What is the anti-politics?

WE are. the PEOPLE.

death is a must if AMERICA is going to be brought back to life.

This isn't America anymore. it never was. we started the idea of America, but so far no congress or president has run with the idea of AMERICA. rather, they all have simply become corporate pawns, leaders, and scum.

When, how, where are human beings going to fight for America?

im tired of waiting.

**stinkyattic** · #14 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

I would like to ask you if you realize what you are saying indicates that Defense contractors are the real source of terrorism?

I would not go so far as to say that, and I don't think that pinpointing one single source of terrorism is possible.

Certainly I believe that defense contractors and terrorists alike are susceptible to the same arms races that formal military organizations are, and play off of each other. The same can also be said for the police vs. criminal arms races. As new technology reaches one, the other scrambles to counter it and trump it.
Also, the presence of a extramilitary security force in a region, using Blackwater as an example, can certainly be seen as incendiary when viewed from the perspective of a resident of that region who does not appreciate the presence of an occupying force that does not answer to 'normal' diplomatic relations, in the way that the presence of a non-police militia group may be unsettling to the other residents of a community. However, that does not make Blackwater a terrorist organization in and of itself. There are certain legal tests to determine whether a group may be considered a terrorist organization; we would have to apply those tests to certain incidents that an extramilitary force is involved in before putting that label on them.

Beyond that, however, I think your statement is off the mark.

Stoner Shadow Wolf · #15 (**permalink**) Jul-17-2008, 16:14

oh, no no no no no, i was not pointing out any single source, but one of many.

i meant the source of terrorism in America...

i honestly dont see what ANYONE else has to GAIN from terrorizing America more than defense contractors.

Torog · #16 (**permalink**) Jul-19-2008, 07:03

Howdy Y'all,

From the article:

"In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "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.""

And consider this:

"Are we talking about creating a police state here?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?"

I think that Obama best explain himself pretty soon on this idea of his,as it sounds like Orwell's '1984' on steroids.

It seems to me,that Obama is seeking to put into place,a massive goverment expansion,sort of a nanny-police state..what will this 'force' enforce or do,that isn't already being done ?

Will they run off the gangs ? Enforce political-correctness ? Look for un-American activities ? Enforce immigration laws ?

Have a good one ...

PS: I know one thing-I dang sure don't want the boy that's crapping on the flag,to be a part of any 'civilian defence force' !