I admit I’m not to keen on the thought of you, Barack Obama, being the president of these United States of America, but these last couple of weeks every time you and your buddy Joe open your yaps you really weird me out.
You got Slow Joe Biden out there telling us that something major is going to take place in the first six months of your administration. He makes it sound like hell is going to rain down and you, the messiah, are going to save our sorry, needful, can’t do for ourselves, butts.
The conspiracy theorist in me has got his eye’s peeled for a generated crisis.
Then you go out on your stupid infomercial and tell us that you are going to “rebuild the military”, to top it off you add the following:
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
What the crap is that?
Has a kind of freaky “Fahrenheit 451″ sound to it.
Holy hell it sounds like some crazy force of armed civilian code enforcers.
99% of my mind tells me this is not what you mean, but there is that 1% that just isn’t too sure.
As I looked into this further it seems that this IS NOT the first time you have made mention of such a security force. Doesn’t surprise me that the media has made little to no mention of this.
I have found at least four references to you having previously made this same statement, none of those four are from the MSM (surprise).
American Thinker a July, 2008 article.
Hot Air also from July, 2008.
World Net Daily September, 2008.
A second article from World Net Daily.
It’s the last article that will inform us just what might meant by a ‘Civilian national security force’, not that there is much comfort in this possible explanation either.
I am more inclined to believe the take of The American Thinker article which say’s:
It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature “corps,” as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It’s a message like the one America’s home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.
“Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans…”
That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.
The article continues:
Voters haven’t paid much attention to his “Service” plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the “civilian national security force” would be just as “well-funded” as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, “billions and billions” of dollars. Here’s how.
The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut “tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.
Let’s imagine “tens of billions” in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his “civilian national security force” to be “just as well-funded” would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.
Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon’s reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That’s $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.
In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he’s never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it’s not clear if math means anything to him at all.
So maybe my neighbor, who might be a part of this ‘Civilian National Security Force’, won’t shoot me after all, but it doesn’t make our economic future look any brighter does it?
Either way it stinks of extreme socialism…
more commonly known as Marxism.
