Obama's Civilian "Security Force"

They were never debunked. The "debunking" you speak of is just refusal to believe what the article says. That's not debunking.

 

Most of that comes from a so-called "transcript" of proposed comments - not those he actually made.

Following are quotations of what he really said with some of my thoughts interjected at appropriate breaks in the chain of comments. Consider it a "right wing" clarification:

Obama said: "... And that's why 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 effort connected to a common purpose."

This is classic political talk for expanding government to solve all the world problems. Who would fund these 250,000 slots? Who would control them? Who would actually benefit from them?

How are we going to ave our planet through AmeriCorps? I suspect there's a huge agenda of environmental regulations on the horizon - not AmeriCorps - that will be advanced as a solution to global warming and every other environmental impact.

What's wrong with "our standing in the world"? Is it that some of our enemies don't like us and some of our "friends" don't agree with us? So what?

Obama said: "People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve."

People are already serving and most don't have any extra time to get involved in some new grand government scheme to manage their free time or direct their volunteer efforts according to a "common purpose". Many who serve want to decide when, where, and how they serve. They'd rather not have Washington involved.

Obama said: "Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer."

That's very true! It is perhaps the only truth in what he said! So if the "American people" are not the problem then who is the problem? Why then was more government advanced as the only way to solve the economic crisis?

Obama said: "So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people."

What does this mean? Who will pay these college graduates to do this work? Don't we already have useful purposes for college graduates to be engaged in? The reason for attending college is to attain fundamental skills that can be applied to useful work for useful benefit. People who do this can serve as examples for young people to follow. The government doesn't need to do anything to make this self evident. Parents have been talking it up for a couple of generations now. Maybe we have too many college graduates with unrealistic goals of such education.

Obama said: "We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country."

This sounds like make work projects with little return on investment. If we want to do something constructive for the energy supply in America we'd build nuclear power plants as quickly as possible and increase our domestic oil and gas production capabilities. These are things that would make big differences! Wind mills in the high plains aren't going to provide electricity for the big cities on the coast.

Obama said: "We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families."

This statement seems incoherent to me! What does it mean? Veterans who've left the military service want jobs in the civilian world. They don't want to work for some dumb meaningless government program. They want to individually provide for their own families and move on with their own lives.

Obama said: "And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy."

Here's some more government growth! All we don't need is more Foreign Service bureaucrats advancing their liberal agenda of global welfare to the far corners of the world. Who would pay for this expansion of the federal payroll and how much would it cost?

Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set."

We don't rely solely on our military. We never have. We use our military when military force is required and diplomatic efforts can not attain the desired results. For that we do and should rely upon them. When we get to that need we better hope they can deliver on it. So what would be different with Obama's plan?

Obama said: "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

What is this "force"? It can't mean the same thing as those items already mentioned. It's not the Foreign Service, the AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, or the other things mentioned. It's something else interjected at this point. What is it? What was he thinking when he was rolling along captivating his gullible audience? Why are these comments omitted from so-called "transcripts" of his speech?

Obama said: "We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities."

Wow! So we'll be able to do what we can already do right now with the Internet and Google! All we need is the government to mess that up!

Obama said: "This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up."

American's are already "empowered" as noted by Obama himself. They don't need government to provide them needs or means to serve their own communities. They can do that right now through their churches and private volunteer agencies. There are many opportunities if people want to go after them.

 

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.

That is what O'bama said. Frankly I don't think there is any doubt as to what he meant and it is not good for this country. We got a foretaste of this at some poles in Philadelphia in the last election.

 

You need to stop quoting President Obama out of context, OR.

 

What exactly is a "civilian national security force"?

How can it be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military?

Who can provide a clear answer to these questions?

If his comments were so innocent it shouldn't be that hard to explain in the context they were made. Substitute any of the other programs mentioned in these lines and they just don't fit.

It also seems it wouldn't be necessary to hide the comments by offering up so-called "transcripts" that purposefully exclude these words.

 

Yes, read the comments within the context of the speech in which they were included.

 

That's one of the points, Ken, the comments don't fit within the context.

What exactly is a "civilian national security force"?

How can it be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military?

Who can provide a clear answer to these questions?

If his comments were so innocent it shouldn't be that hard to explain in the context they were made. Substitute any of the other programs mentioned in these lines and they just don't fit.

It also seems it wouldn't be necessary to hide the comments by offering up so-called "transcripts" that purposefully exclude these words.

 

Deagoon68 has already given a explicit comment on O'bama's remarks in context. The fact is O"bama slipped his remarks in the speech hoping it would not be noticed. A devious Socialist he is talking about a Civilian Security Force as powerful as the Military. Reminds me of Hitler's Gestapo.

Quite whining KenH you applauded my comments on O'bama establishing a Socialist government.

 

I respectfully suggest that your thinking is warped.

 

That statement is an oxymoron KenH but that is to be expected from one raised in freedom yet who embraces Socialism.

 

That statement is an oxymoron KenH but that is to be expected from one raised in freedom yet who embraces Socialism.

Double post for the benefit of Ken!

 

Socialism is quite compatible with freedom. Or do you consider folks such as the British to be in slavery?

 

Wow, did the Queen die?

 

Not at all. Some statements were made without any real support (as usual). I don't accept any of this Gestapo bunk. Actually our last president was much more dangerous in this regard than Obama.

 

If there is no economic freedom eventually there will be no political freedom. Besides England is not fully Socialist. The Soviet Union was!

 

I believe you are even with dragonfly!

 

Like I was saying before, there is no need to get the government involved in creating a "civilian security force". All that a neighborhood needs to do is form a militia.

Militias do everything like crime watches, activate when there is a disaster (tornado, hurricane, etc.), or even assist law enforcement with catching fugitives, or searching for missing persons. I've got no problem with militias. I do have a problem with what has been proposed by President Obama.

 

I consider that we decided to have a government very different than that of England. It seems that it required some convincing to make them understand we really meant it.

 

All I got to say is...

The South will rise again!

Git-r-done...:laugh:

 

Are you claiming that the UK really is a monarchy in fact not just form? Wow. It's the 21st century not the 15th.