O'bamas National Police

[777]

That post was intended for the thread O'bama Worship.

Oh . . . well, I don't want to get in the way of that, just wanted to post something to test out a theory of mine, but it HAD to be on topic. So, this:

A little-publicized Department of Defense Directive (Number 1404.10) establishes a "DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce" and rescinds a prior directive dealing with the emergency use of civilian personnel.

The new 1404.10 cancels the prior directive of the same designation ("Emergency-Essential (E-E) DoD U.S. Citizen Civilian Employees"), which was issued in 1992 under President Clinton. The 1992 directive specifically deals with overseas deployments of civilian personnel. It does not mention terms like "restoration of order" or "stability operations", prominently featured in the new directive.

In fact, those functions are central to the mission of President Obama's new DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce:


Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05...

The 1992 directive mentions the term "overseas" no fewer than 33 times.

The 2009 directive does not mention the term "overseas" in the body of the directive even once.

(partisan) link: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/02/was-candidate-obamas-civilian-national.html

blah blah blah . . . Mein Fuhrer! See ya!!!:wavey:

 

[LeBuick]

Someone had already posted this FACT check article proving this rumor false...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.

 

[matt wade]

777, the text that you posted already shows us that it is not in reference to a "national police". See where it says "ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military"? For this "DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce" to be deployed here in the US, we would need to have combat operations by the military in the US.

 

[matt wade]

Someone had already posted this FACT check article proving this rumor false...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

Yeah...I posted it earlier. OldRegular though decided that factcheck.org must be partisan and so he dismisses what they say.

 

[777]

777, the text that you posted already shows us that it is not in reference to a "national police". See where it says "ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military"? For this "DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce" to be deployed here in the US, we would need to have combat operations by the military in the US.

"National police"??? No, no, no, I don't think this is establishing some Gestapo 2009 force in America - there's always the Posse Comitatus thing to worry about:

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm


That’s why this “civilian defense force” will be created, to get around Posse Comatatus by saying that these are “civilians” not military. Except for the Coast Guard. :wavey:

 

[OldRegular]

No, what's interesting is that you are avoiding the topic.

I'll respond to your derailment anyway. Farah posted his WND article on August 21, 2008. In that article he says that "Last fall Gates began giving a series of speeches about the need to create a more modern State Department and a civilian national security force". Last fall means Fall 2007

The quote you gave from Obama was said on July 2, 2008.

So, are you now trying to tell me that Gates and Obama had some secret meetings prior to Gates making his statements in Fall 2007?

I am not trying to tell you anything you havent already heard straight from O’bama’s mouth. It was you who drug Gates into the conversation.

Joseph Farah from WorldNetDaily may be straight as an arrow but I did not hear Gates make the remarks attributed to him. I did hear what O”bama said. O'bama is president and O'bama stated: " 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."

 

[OldRegular]

Original Post byLeBuick
Someone had already posted this FACT check article proving this rumor false...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec..._national.html

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.

You are wrong LeBuick. Just read the transcript KenH so graciously provided. O’bama had already dispensed with the Americorps [expanded to 250,000] and moved on to something bigger, a National Security force as powerful as the military [which numbers about 1.5 million I believe] and just as well funded.

I know it is hard to believe anything O’bama says but surely you can trust his chief defender on this Forum.

Courtesy of KenH
Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: "[As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] 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.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. 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.

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

Now O'bama does not identify those national security objectives. Curious? Wonder if Hitler did?

 

[OldRegular]

Yeah...I posted it earlier. OldRegular though decided that factcheck.org must be partisan and so he dismisses what they say.

No! I found the video with words straight from O'bama's mouth, confirmed by the transcript provided by KenH.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[LeBuick]

Courtesy of KenH
Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: "[As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] 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.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. 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.

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

OR... Please tell me what I'm missing. Ok, so he says "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set."

However, the rest of this statement is expanding on what that statement means. He's talking about mobilizing voluntarism in this nation to get the work done that needs to be done. Is it the words "civilian national security force" that scares you? If so, our mayor used similar language when he started the neighborhood watch program. It was hardly something to be scared of.

 

[targus]

For this "DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce" to be deployed here in the US, we would need to have combat operations by the military in the US.

You need to read all the words:

Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05...

combat operations by the military
contingencies
emergency operations
humanitarian missions
disaster relief
restoration of order
drug interdiction
and stability operations.

Other than combat operations - can you not forsee any of the other contingencies requiring deployment of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce operating in the U.S.?

 

[OldRegular]

OR... Please tell me what I'm missing. Ok, so he says "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set."

However, the rest of this statement is expanding on what that statement means. He's talking about mobilizing voluntarism in this nation to get the work done that needs to be done. Is it the words "civilian national security force" that scares you? If so, our mayor used similar language when he started the neighborhood watch program. It was hardly something to be scared of.

You are missing the complete statement which is in bold type.

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.

I will underline part of it for your benefit! I have several pair of old glasses laying around just in case!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[LeBuick]

You are missing the complete statement which is in bold type.

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.

I will underline part of it for your benefit! I have several pair of old glasses laying around just in case!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You have to listen to it all in context OR. Instead of listening to that short clip, listening to the entire thought...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw&feature=related

Start listening at 15:20 and let him climax with your sentence around 17:00. You will get a better idea of the entire concept of calling American to service and see what he's talking about is American's helping American's and when he says civilian national security force he is using a metaphor likening Ameri-core, energy core, peace core etc... to a national security force.

This is clearly a message being taken out of context...

 

[targus]

Just musing a little here:

As freedom loving people shouldn't we all have a healthy scepticism when it comes to things like establishing a civilian national security force?

Isn't now the time to ask questions rather than after it is established, funded and our neighbors are conscripted into service?

Is it really wise to just shrug it off because my guy or my party are calling the shots?

 

[targus]

...what he's talking about is American's helping American's and when he says civilian national security force he is using a metaphor likening Ameri-core, energy core, peace core etc... to a national security force.

Metaphor? Not likely.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives."

This is a pretty specific objective.

"Civilian national security force" is also pretty specific.

 

[LeBuick]

Metaphor? Not likely.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives."

This is a pretty specific objective.

"Civilian national security force" is also pretty specific.

Did you listen to it all in context, it's clearly a metaphor...

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe he made a poor attempt at using sensational rhetoric for the purpose of motivating others:

Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.

Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,

"We cannot continue to rely 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." (emphasis added)


The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

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


The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.

He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.

So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.

The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.

Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,

More Here

 

[Aaron]

Why do you continue to propagate this? I already gave you a link that debunks this on another thread.

This is simply a small soundbyte from a larger speech. You need to take the comment in context.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

The context adds nothing to the comment. What is a "Security Force?" Why is it compared to the military? And why must it be "just as powerful" and just as well funded?

 

[targus]

Did you listen to it all in context, it's clearly a metaphor...

So a civilain national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military in order to achieve the national security objectives...

..is a metaphor for what exactly?

Hint - it's not.

 

[LadyEagle]

Exactly. The Obama Kool-Aid is very strong.

 

[OldRegular]

O'bama's comment on the National Police, sorry national security corps, was slipped into his speech on the Peace corps and Americorps just like all that pork was slipped into the $800 billion spending program with malice aforethought.