He advocates a domestic security force equally funded as the military.
Any ideas what their missions will be?
Here’s a few ideas;
Take your guns.
Investigate and detain domestic insurgents.
Personal security for selected political figures.
Enforce the fairness doctrine.
[quote]pwilliams wrote:
He advocates a domestic security force equally funded as the military.
Any ideas what their missions will be?
Here’s a few ideas;
Take your guns.
Investigate and detain domestic insurgents.
Personal security for selected political figures.
Enforce the fairness doctrine.
[/quote]
Settle down. We have as much or more to fear from authoritarian Republicans. Witness the last eight years. If we lose our rights it will be because the courts take them and people don’t care enough to vote the other way, not because of some American Gestapo.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
American Gestapo.[/quote]
American Stasi. Get it right. 
Would this be part of the Department of Homeland Security?
What Obama doesn’t realize, as he has evidently never read the Constitution and the National Security Act, is that we in these United States already have a “domestic security force.”
It’s called “the militia.”
“The militia of the United States shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, except as hereinafter provided, not more than forty-five years of age…”
Or as Tench Coxe more eloquently put it:
"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves… Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…
The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
And I hope we’re all smart enough here to realize that Tench was using the word “sword” figuratively to mean weapons in general.
He implies it would be a new agency.
With the liberocracy of congress and POTUS, which may be unchecked by only one change on the Supreme Court, I expect they will rapidly grab for as much power as possible.
In the near-term, the MSM can influence the sheeple and spin in to seem logical and reasonable. In the mid-,ong term, the hold they have on the public education system via the teachers union and the university system will rewrite events to spin it and indoctrinate.
[quote]pwilliams wrote:
He implies it would be a new agency.
With the liberocracy of congress and POTUS, which may be unchecked by only one change on the Supreme Court, I expect they will rapidly grab for as much power as possible.
In the near-term, the MSM can influence the sheeple and spin in to seem logical and reasonable. In the mid-,ong term, the hold they have on the public education system via the teachers union and the university system will rewrite events to spin it and indoctrinate.[/quote]
You guys should see the textbooks we have at school. The bias on them is unbelievable. And not in favor of anything European. It portrays Asian civilization as the end all be all goal of the world.
Imo.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
“The militia of the United States shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, except as hereinafter provided, not more than forty-five years of age…”
[/quote]
Why haven’t the layabouts secured the damned border yet?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
pwilliams wrote:
He advocates a domestic security force equally funded as the military.
Any ideas what their missions will be?
Here’s a few ideas;
Take your guns.
Investigate and detain domestic insurgents.
Personal security for selected political figures.
Enforce the fairness doctrine.
Settle down. We have as much or more to fear from authoritarian Republicans. Witness the last eight years. If we lose our rights it will be because the courts take them and people don’t care enough to vote the other way, not because of some American Gestapo.[/quote]
I have not heard of a Republican proposing a civilian security force as powerful as the military.
Allegedly Obama just proposed this.
Why do you pretend to be a conservative?
[quote]Vroom wrote:
Why haven’t the layabouts secured the damned border yet? :p[/quote]
The damned border stretches from Washington to Maine! There aren’t enough able-bodied men in America to secure that.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
You guys should see the textbooks we have at school. The bias on them is unbelievable. And not in favor of anything European. It portrays Asian civilization as the end all be all goal of the world.
[/quote]
Uh huh. The writers of those textbooks have evidently never been to Asia.
Aside from some women, some food, and some of the natural features of the place, Asia sucks.
The video where bho references a “civilian national security force as well funded as the military” is linked on drudge. Shockingly disturbing but I don’t know exactly what he means. If anyone has followed his campaign and political very life closely, can they elaborate?
As i see it, it is either a gigantic waste of money on some type of domestic peace corps or a federal paramillitary force with a million troops(if it is to be in the same league as the military). Political hackery aside, Shouldn’t we know what this statement means before he gets elected?
The video where bho references a “civilian national security force as well funded as the military” is linked on drudge. Shockingly disturbing but I don’t know exactly what he means. If anyone has followed his campaign and political very life closely, can they elaborate?
As i see it, it is either a gigantic waste of money on some type of domestic peace corps or a federal paramillitary force with a million troops(if it is to be in the same league as the military). Political hackery aside, Shouldn’t we know what this statement means before he gets elected?
[quote]JD430 wrote:
The video where bho references a “civilian national security force as well funded as the military” is linked on drudge. Shockingly disturbing but I don’t know exactly what he means. If anyone has followed his campaign and political very life closely, can they elaborate?
As i see it, it is either a gigantic waste of money on some type of domestic peace corps or a federal paramillitary force with a million troops(if it is to be in the same league as the military). Political hackery aside, Shouldn’t we know what this statement means before he gets elected?[/quote]
One of Obama’s friends and neighbors runs a civilian organisation that provides security, they call themselves The Nation of Islam.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
One of Obama’s friends and neighbors runs a civilian organisation that provides security, they call themselves The Nation of Islam. [/quote]
This stuff would be funny if some of you guys didn’t actually believe it. That just makes it sad.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sifu wrote:
One of Obama’s friends and neighbors runs a civilian organisation that provides security, they call themselves The Nation of Islam.
This stuff would be funny if some of you guys didn’t actually believe it. That just makes it sad.[/quote]
Um, dude, it’s actually true…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sifu wrote:
One of Obama’s friends and neighbors runs a civilian organisation that provides security, they call themselves The Nation of Islam.
This stuff would be funny if some of you guys didn’t actually believe it. That just makes it sad.[/quote]
I think Sifu was exaggerating for effect.
In all seriousness, surely you think Obama’s statement demands explanation?
The nation has been doing contract security work. If not them who else are they going to hire, Blackwater? I think Obama will want to go with what he knows.
Either way this is something to take seriously. All his life Obama has been against the 2nd amendment, then when it became a political liability he changed his mind. Combine that with this new issue of him wanting to setup domestic paramilitary organisations and there is a lot to be concerned about.
Vroom if you would take the time to study history they would see that the Democrats have a terrible history of hostility towards the bill of rights.
Obama is not a person who spent his most impressionable years in America learning about why the American constitution is written the way it is. Obama spent a very important era of his childhood growing up in a military dictatorship. Becaue of this he has a different view of authoritarian government.
Well it would be something for Ayers to do. After all he is experienced with the operations of para-military groups.
Let’s face it this would be horrifying if any other politician proposed this but for the messiah it just gets added to the pile and the libs don’t give a shit.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
pwilliams wrote:
He advocates a domestic security force equally funded as the military.
Any ideas what their missions will be?
Here’s a few ideas;
Take your guns.
Investigate and detain domestic insurgents.
Personal security for selected political figures.
Enforce the fairness doctrine.
Settle down. We have as much or more to fear from authoritarian Republicans. Witness the last eight years. If we lose our rights it will be because the courts take them and people don’t care enough to vote the other way, not because of some American Gestapo.
I have not heard of a Republican proposing a civilian security force as powerful as the military.
Allegedly Obama just proposed this.
Why do you pretend to be a conservative?[/quote]
Coming from a relentless GOP apologist, the people who have critically wounded conservatism in this country, that’s rich.
The Bush Administration has trampled on Americans’ rights since 2001. I take these real abuses far more seriously than speculation and vitriol about the next president. Having no love for Obama does not require buying into every conspiracy theory about him.