Thales Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 This is something that needs much more play. Civilian National Security Force: This is the stuff of dictatorships. In America he is proposing THIS? Where is the attendant outrage? Where is the concern for our freedoms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Envision this senario: After appointing a couple of SCOTUS Justices during his term, changing the makeup of the court, revisiting the Second Amendment/Individual right question and overturning it in favor of the "militia" argument, anyone not in his "civilian security force", i.e., Militia, will be required to turn in thier firearms. Leaving us defenseless in the face of government tyranny. Hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 This scares the daylights out of me. I explained why on another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Well, if it really comes to this, it sounds like those of us with guns would have to infiltrate this civilian force and when the time comes, turn on those who joined it for its intended purpose. Then on to their leadership! I don't think it will get this bad anytime soon. Obama will want a second term, so he can't piss everyone off all at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 This speech was taken out of context. It's certainly not a positive message, but one has to view what he was saying before and after. I'll try to find a transcript. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 (edited) This speech was taken out of context. It's certainly not a positive message, but one has to view what he was saying before and after. I'll try to find a transcript. In the sentence before the video starts, he made it clear that he's talking about expanding the diplomatic core (embassies and consulates abroad), and doubleing the size of the Peace Corps . Is this idea stupid and counter-productive? Absolutely. The war on islamic terror should be fought with weapons, not speech and humanitarian aid. Is the video misleading? Without question. He is not talking about a force that would operate on US soil, he's talking about diplomatic and humanitarian efforts abroad. I made the same mistake, when I first saw it on Drudge, about a week ago, but then I found the longer quote, and realized that the video is designed to mislead viewers. Since then, I stayed away from the Drudge Report. Edited November 7, 2008 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Do you have a link to the whole video? Or a quote from it? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 (edited) Do you have a link to the whole video? Or a quote from it? Thanks. http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw minute ~16 Transcript: http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/07/06/...era-of-service/ Possible explanation: (? Apparently the original script was changed) http://volokh.com/posts/1216451854.shtml Edited November 7, 2008 by Clawg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 In the sentence before the video starts, he made it clear that he's talking about expanding the diplomatic core (embassies and consulates abroad), and doubleing the size of the Peace Corps . Is this idea stupid and counter-productive? Absolutely. The war on islamic terror should be fought with weapons, not speech and humanitarian aid. Is the video misleading? Without question. He is not talking about a force that would operate on US soil, he's talking about diplomatic and humanitarian efforts abroad. I made the same mistake, when I first saw it on Drudge, about a week ago, but then I found the longer quote, and realized that the video is designed to mislead viewers. Since then, I stayed away from the Drudge Report. Here is the full talk. The key point is at about 16'50" in: I'm not convinced you're right, but even if you are it still makes me uneasy that he, a supposed left wing dove, wants to create a force as powerful as the most powerful military in the history of man. That is out of the blue and very strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 that he, a supposed left wing dove, wants to create a force as powerful as the most powerful military in the history of man. That is out of the blue and very strange. Whichever way Obama meant it, I would not find it surprising if he ended up creating his own army of loyal liberals to compete with the U.S. military. He has the support of Congress; he has the support of the media; he is about to have the support of the Supreme Court--but he knows he will not have the support of the armed forces, which are still mostly composed of freedom-loving Americans whose goal is to defend the Constitution, not to enforce Obama's unconstitutional changes. In order to gain the absolute power he is lusting for, he will need troops whose allegiance is to him, not to the Constitution. Being a "dove" does not mean opposition to the use of force. It means opposition to the retaliatory use of force to defend one's rights. It means siding with the initiators of force. Becoming an initiator of force is only one step away from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 Brown shirts? Nightwatch? Like I said this thought scares me. It may have been taken out of context, but we need to watch out for this. It doesn't have to be an official government thing either. All it would have to take is Obama (or any future hypothetical would-be dictator, if it isn't Obama) making it clear he will pardon anyone who acts the way he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 Whichever way Obama meant it, I would not find it surprising if he ended up creating his own army of loyal liberals to compete with the U.S. military. He has the support of Congress; he has the support of the media; he is about to have the support of the Supreme Court--but he knows he will not have the support of the armed forces, which are still mostly composed of freedom-loving Americans whose goal is to defend the Constitution, not to enforce Obama's unconstitutional changes. In order to gain the absolute power he is lusting for, he will need troops whose allegiance is to him, not to the Constitution. Being a "dove" does not mean opposition to the use of force. It means opposition to the retaliatory use of force to defend one's rights. It means siding with the initiators of force. Becoming an initiator of force is only one step away from that. Absolutely, I've never believed leftists were against the use of force. They supported the most brutal armies on earth, e.g. the Soviets. What they are against is defending freedom and capitalism. This is why I made a point of asking why does he, Obama, want to increase our power by so much in a CIVILIAN realm, strange and dangerous. Remember, this is a guy who claims our "intrusiveness" around the world is why we are "not respected." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teal3b Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Wow. You guys are awesome! It's a relief to know that not everyone has been obamatized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.