Thread: Dollars Lining Up For 'Civilian Nation Security Force'?

Hope this was not posted. I did a check.

Video on the source link at bottom.

Dollars lining up for 'civilian national security force'?
Report cites Frank's proposal to cut military 25%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 06, 2008
11:15 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Sen. Barack Obama

President-elect Barack Obama raised questions during an election campaign stop in Colorado Springs when he asserted the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force, but few of those questions have been answered.

But now one report is proposing a possible solution for part of the equation: From where would the money for such an organization come? Democrats in Congress now are floating the idea of cutting U.S. military spending by 25 percent, or $150 billion a year, and according to a report from blogger Jay Tea, that could be used for the new "security force."

The idea to cut the military, proposed by Rep. Barney Frank, already is being opposed by Republicans.

(Story continues below)




Frank, D-Mass., recently told a newspaper the Pentagon will have to start choosing the cuts from its weapons programs because he wants to slash more than $150 billion from the estimated $607 billion in defense spending already approved for fiscal year 2008.

U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., argued America now is fighting terror worldwide, including active wars in Afghanistan and Iran, and that has stretched the capabilities of the military already.

He warned cutting funding in such a drastic way would be irresponsible.

"You know if we don't make the right decisions about the military nothing else will matter will it? Because if we don't have a free country then you know what do these other programs matter at all? That's the number one responsibility," he said.

The blogger, however, saw the plan linked this way: "Representative Barney Frank, apparently not content with his role in wreaking havoc on the nation's financial system, has announced that he will push for a 25 percent cut in defense spending. This could actually work hand-in-hand with one of Obama's proposals for a 'civilian National Security Force,' which he said would be as well-funded as the military. If the defense budget is slashed, then it makes it easier to fund a new organization at the same level."


On the FamilySecurityMatters.org website, blogger Peter Gadiel lamented the lack of information about Obama's plan and its accompanying implied threat.

"Such an outfit would be worse than useless in any foreign action. Its only possible use could be for domestic purposes. Since we already have police forces, and the National Guard what could a 'Domestic National Security Force' possibly be used for? Suppressing dissent? We simply do not know," he wrote.

It was in a July speech in Colorado Springs that Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

A video of his comments is here: Video on link at bottom.


Obama spokesmen have declined to return WND calls requesting an explanation.

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"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?" Farah wrote. "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?

"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?" Farah wrote.

His call generated intense Internet discussions.

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "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? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

Obama's Colorado Springs speech was about a "call to service."

WND also reported Obama's "Universal Voluntary Public Service" program promoted on his campaign website.

According to an editorial in Investor's Business Daily, Obama plans to use an existing group called Public Allies as a model for his national effort.

"Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas," said IBD. "They plan to herd American youth into government-funded re-education camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of 'social change.'"

The organization itself doesn't seem that alarming. It describes itself as serving communities "while developing better leaders for tomorrow." Young adults are placed in "community leadership" posts with various agencies and given weekly "training." They get $1,800 plus health and child care.

But IBD warned the real mission is something else.

The aim, the editorial said, "is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about 'social change' through threats, pressure, tensions and confrontation – the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul 'The Red' Alinsky."

Jerome Corsi, a WND columnist and the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-seller "The Obama Nation," agreed. He said the overall intent of the program is much the same as the goals of William Ayers, an Obama colleague and unrepentant radical who worked with the Illinois Democrat on funding public education programs.

"Remember, Obama has followed Saul Alinsky's ultimate advice," Corsi explained. "Saul Alinsky said radicals like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman could not organize a picnic. Alinsky told his radicals to cut their hair, buy business suits and run for public office," he said.

"Ayers and Obama are both aimed at producing radical socialist change from within – working today to radicalize our institutions, instead of bombing them. Alinsky considered this approach to be much smarter because it was more likely to produce lasting 'change' and less likely to produce a backlash. In other words, the Alinsky-trained radical could apply more easily the Machiavellian technique of lying by denying they were pursuing radical goals if they appeared to be members in good standing of the establishment they were trying merely to 'change,'" Corsi said.

IBD cited statistics from Public Allies itself, in which it boasted "our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to … engage in protest activities." The organization explains it already has dispatched 2,200 community organizers to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and other cities.

IBD said taxpayers already fund half of Public Allies' expenses through President Clinton's AmeriCorps, and Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing billions.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=80298

It would appear that Obama and Co. are well aware that they would not get the present military to carry out their agenda. Therefore, it just makes sense that they would see it as necessary to eliminate, or reduce, our present military, replacing it with those that they have trained who will do their bidding.

"Such an outfit would be worse than useless in any foreign action. Its only possible use could be for domestic purposes. Since we already have police forces, and the National Guard what could a 'Domestic National Security Force' possibly be used for? Suppressing dissent? We simply do not know," he wrote.

That's exactly what I want to know......what would they be for, that couldn't be done using the law enforcement we already have? Except they keep cutting them (the numbers) and tying their hands from doing the jobs they are supposed to do.

They will have to show their cards/plans for the new world order and they know very well Americans are NOT going to like that at all. Up to now there has only been some evidence and speculation.

That is a bombshell that they know is going to blow up in their faces and they want to be ready.

Originally Posted by crazybird

"Such an outfit would be worse than useless in any foreign action. Its only possible use could be for domestic purposes. Since we already have police forces, and the National Guard what could a 'Domestic National Security Force' possibly be used for? Suppressing dissent? We simply do not know," he wrote.

That's exactly what I want to know......what would they be for, that couldn't be done using the law enforcement we already have? Except they keep cutting them (the numbers) and tying their hands from doing the jobs they are supposed to do.

If you live in Detroit where many radical organizations have the strongest presence to be seen in the US, you merely have to tune into the radio broadcasts of Al Sharpton, Tavis Smiley, Louis Farrakhan and supporters of radical Muslim groups to understand exactly what they have in mind. Many of the goals of a "Domestic National Security Force" will be purely political in nature, such as:

Sending more Muslims into the public schools to teach conversion to Islam. Assign permanent Security agents to occupy schools that don't teach the right religious or pro-Left ideology. Assign agents to follow, record and harass school employees who do not obey their wishes. Assign Security agents to shut down public demonstrations that do not align with their political goals. Tell school personnel that certain text books will not be allowed because they are "racist" or not in keeping with "Leftist" principles.

Forming "reparations" study groups and creating solutions such as "identifying and occupying racist corporations" and forcing managers to hire more minorities. Assigning permanent agents to block access to companies that do not comply to their demands.

Occupying neighborhoods that are "racist" and forcing house owners to attend "neighborhood diversity discussion groups". If it is felt that the race mix of the neighborhood is not in keeping with the Security Agents' desires, suggest ways that homeowners can fund the transfer of more minorities into the neighborhood. Buying houses within "non-minority" neighborhoods, holding block parties and having agents record the impressions of those home owners concerning their objections to having Security agents close by.

Forming neighborhood watch groups in traditionally white neighborhoods who "record" the comments of neighbors to see if they are "racist" or "hate" speech and should be referred to police.

Create a "police" type unit that takes over traditional policing activities but concerns itself more with confronting citizens who make "racist" comments or who do not express solidarity with the President. Form phone trees and call neighbors to see what their current activities are. If they indicate they are not really doing anything, "suggest" activities such as cleaning the house or yard or cooking for higher ups in the Neighborhood Anti-Racism Security Force. Meet objections with more "suggestions". If you volunteer things won't go so badly for you.

Assigning permanent agents to follow and record the activities of American citizens who "resist". Have Security Force agents follow workers to their place of business and talk to bosses, co-workers about "racial" attitudes.

The above activities are what Lenin did when his Communists took over Russia. After the above activities pretty much ruined the daily life of Russians, Lenin said to "Hell with it" and had his "agents" randomly detain, torture and kill Russians for no reason other than they said something about not wanting to live in a police state! After large numbers of Russians saw their belongings taken from them by the millions and harassed and interrogated, the entire Russian economy collapsed, there was mass starvation and even cannibalism occurred.

The death merchants of Soviet Communism came from pretty enlightened beginnings where Russian philosophers thought they were going to apply the principals of the French Revolution to creating a freedom loving worker state. It always ends up the same!

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... /his1g.htm

Lenin and the First Communist Revolutions

Almost immediately after they seized power, Lenin's Bolsheviks inaugurated an endless stream of economic decrees and policies. These proved to be disastrous, resulting in a horrific famine, depopulation of the cities, and an enormous decline in living standards.

So one might say that the man who really inspired Soviet economic planning was Ludendorff. His "war socialism" certainly did not shrink from barbarism. It employed slave-labourers. In January 1918 Ludendorff broke a strike of 400,000 Berlin workers by drafting tens of thousands of them to the front in "labor battalions." Many of his methods were later to be revived and intensified by the Nazis. It would be difficult to think of a more evil model for a workers' state. Yet these were precisely the features of German "war socialism" Lenin most valued. (Modern Times)

The primary features of War Communism were:

* Uncontrolled inflationary printing press finance, ultimately leading to hyperinflation and nationwide reversion to barter

* Near universal nationalization of manufacturing; widespread nationalization of retailing

* Stringent price controls upon and forced requisitioning of agricultural products; state monopoly on grain purchases

* Forced labor for civilians as well as the military

The package fit together quite logically. The tax system had broken down, so the Bolsheviks just turned on the Czar's printing pressing to fund their activities. At the same time, the prices of most goods were fixed, so as the money supply increased without limit, the legal prices became less and less realistic. Rationing cards replaced rubles as the means of acquiring goods. But if money no longer bought goods, then what was the point of working? Hence, the imposition of compulsory labor.

If our entire economy breaks down like it did in Russia, how do you think Obama is going to treat American citizens who do not support him politically as opposed to those who do?

What kind of "Volunteerism" would he resort to?

"Such an outfit would be worse than useless in any foreign action. Its only possible use could be for domestic purposes. Since we already have police forces, and the National Guard what could a 'Domestic National Security Force' possibly be used for? Suppressing dissent? We simply do not know," he wrote.

I am even more convenced that Obama and the democrats plan on OPENING UP THE BORDER and this is why they need a "Domestic National Security Force", BECAUSE CORRUPTION FROM MEXICO AND OTHER 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES WOULD OOZE ALL OVER OUR GREAT COUNTRY! There is simply no other explanation for such a force!

Hi CCUSA,

Their plan is to form this civilian security administration to replace the National Guard. They eliminate all federal funding to the National Guard and divert those funds to Obama's new agency.

National Guardsmen, as all DOD personnel, are sworn to defend the Constitution. This new agency will not swear its personnel to defend the constitution, they'll be sworn in to obey the president.

While above the law themselves, they won't be law enforcement; they'll be enforcers of presidential directives coming straight from Obama. They'll function much as the KGB or the old Nazi SS or the Gestapo. They're job is to enforce directives and imprison any who oppose.

Future example: If I post disrespectful messages to a website, disrespectful to Osama Obama, I'll end up in the gulag - no trial.

Originally Posted by H1B, the BEST and the BRIGHTEST

Rubbish! You have nothing but worthless time on your hands to be dreaming up crap like this

How impossible is all this? It's about as likely as the Democratic party confiscating our 401k retirement funds.

C'mon guys Big brother is watching!

Coto wrote

National Guardsmen, as all DOD personnel, are sworn to defend the Constitution. This new agency will not swear its personnel to defend the constitution, they'll be sworn in to obey the president.

And just how do you know this, Coto? I see no link to this claim that you make. Do you have the ability to look into the future, or what?

Originally Posted by Coto

While above the law themselves, they won't be law enforcement; they'll be enforcers of presidential directives coming straight from Obama. They'll function much as the KGB or the old Nazi SS or the Gestapo.

The Nazi SS started out as Hitler's Brownshirts and became full fledged battle groups outside the normal German Army chain of command, they were under the direct control of Hitler. The KGB and Gestapo did not have tanks or heavy armaments but the SS did.

That is why I call the plan the Obama SS.

More about the Nazi SS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS

Hi Rockfish,

Originally Posted by Rockfish

...how do you know this, Coto?

No link yet. Hope to hell I'm so wrong and disgraced, I get thrown off this website.

There has to be a bill payer - diversion of DoD funds to Obama's new agency is likely under the guise of duplicity of missions; remove the Guard from homeland defense and replace it with Obama's new agency. As World Net Daily points out, Barney Frank demands a 25 percent cut in the military budget to fund Obama's new agency.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=80298

Historical occurrences of such internal forces (KGB, SS, etc) are such that ALIPAC members should (as they will) be vigilant for such "threats" against the constitution.

Given Osama Obama's 20 year relationship with hard core leftists, and given his perfect-left voting record, reinforces the need for ALIPAC readers to become aware and vigilant for the eventuality that neighbors may be asked to spy on neighbors (as was the norm in East Germany).

That unthinkable horrors are being allowed to persists (illegal border jumpers and their crime sprees) with congressional unwillingness to stop them, reinforces that unthinkable policies could be rammed down our collective throats.

Yeah, Rockfish, the above is my speculation and thanks for making me qualify the threat as such. Only the basis of such speculation can be linked to; beyond that, I need to be dead wrong. ALIPAC members can make me wrong by (me included) by raising hell with elected officials and by calling BS on the potential motives of "The One."

http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/
http://o.bamapost.com/