posted July 16, 2008 01:13 PM            

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives 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."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

What does it mean?

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?

If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?

So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.

At this point all I can do is enlist your help – and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.

Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?

The questions are endless.

But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.

Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?

I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.

Help me out here. What am I missing?

posted July 16, 2008 03:31 PM            

How anyone can vote for him is beyond me. Actually, what really upsets me is what I have other Military wives. The minorities (or at least a significant number of them) are voting for him simply because of the color of his skin. Their reason? "Because we have had to vote for White presidents all this time and it is time to vote for a man of color, specifically our color".

When pressed about how they feel about his politics or what he can do for the country.. well, they are silent. To me it is just as racist to vote for a candidate because of his / her color as it is to vote against them based on their color.

posted July 16, 2008 04:41 PM            

12:49 - He calls for more military recruitment: 65,000 Soldiers & 27,000 Marines

15:25 - Expand Americorps to 250,000

16:12 - Calls for creation of EnergyCorps

16:27 - Enlist veterans to provide veteran's services

16:35 - Open foreign service to open consulates that have been shuttered.

16:38 - Double the size of the PeaceCorps

16:43 - Summarizes what this call to service means by comparing it's value to the more traditional means of ensuring our national security.

Just another sound bite taken out of context.

He continues his speech with more ideas about improving the means people have to serve our country.

Barack Obama: Call to Service in Colorado Springs, CO

posted July 16, 2008 05:12 PM            

I have yet to find someone that is honest enough, that is able to challenge him, like we do McCain, or call him on is inexperience.. instead.. it is like Borgs... we must follow the line... we must vote for him because if not we are racist... that is what the mothership is telling us.... forget all the facts.... we must just follow....

posted July 16, 2008 05:46 PM            

O'Bomber is not talking about beefing up the Peace Corp, or beefing up the US military forces. He's talking about a "civilian security force" that's as powerful, strong and well funded as the United States military in all it's different services.

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

O'Bomber is taking a page out of Hitler's playbook with the Nazi Gestapo.

I can well understand why O'Bomber doesn't want to talk to anyone about what he said.

"Your papers please"

posted July 16, 2008 07:05 PM            

quote:

---

I have yet to find someone that is honest enough, that is able to challenge him, like we do McCain, or call him on is inexperience.. instead.. it is like Borgs... we must follow the line... we must vote for him because if not we are racist... that is what the mothership is telling us.... forget all the facts.... we must just follow....

---

I hope this isn't referring to me. I know very little about Obama. What I do know about is Republicans propagating essentially wrong information.

quote:

---

Clearly acoustic, you are incapable of reading with comprehension.

---

posted July 17, 2008 12:39 AM            

Suggesting the US needs a national civilian security force...as strong and well funded as the United States military smacks of Hitler's Nazi Gestapo tactics.

"Your papers please"

posted July 17, 2008 02:17 AM            

quote:

---

Obviously, you don't read with comprehension acoustic and don't understand the meanings of words either.

---

posted July 17, 2008 09:45 AM            

O'Bomber has that revolutionary zeal which only grips those with a Messiah complex...which O'Bomber has.

O'Bomber is talking about whipping up a secret internal security force in the US. To do what acoustic? To tattle on their neighbors, family, friends and associates? To check everyone's papers to see if they're all in their assigned places...doing what the government has assigned them to do and charge them with sedition or disloyalty if they're not?

The very words "National Civilian Security force is descriptive of what O'Bomber thinks is going to be necessary to revolutionize America. But, to change the most successful, most powerful, most influential nation which ever existed on earth...into what..exactly? A Soviet style gulag?

"Your papers please"

Michelle O'Bomber has visions of O'Bomber as a Messiah figure too.

"And Barack Obama will require you to work.

He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage.

Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed..."

This little Marxist elitist dope isn't going to succeed in his demands that Americans do a damned thing.

Your previous blunderous bilge that Congress RULES America shows exactly the kind of limp wristed, flaccid minded personality you really are.

posted July 17, 2008 02:56 PM            

quote:

---

O'Bomber is talking about whipping up a secret internal security force in the US.

---

posted July 17, 2008 07:57 PM            

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

posted July 21, 2008 05:50 PM            

July 21, 2008
Obama Campaign issues Dress Code for Female Reporters
Rick Moran

It appears that Team Obama didn't want to offend any Muslim sensibilities on his trip to the Middle East. The campaign issued a dress code for female reporters last week that showed just how patronizing and condenscending these arrogant jamokes can be.

Reporters traveling overseas with Sen. Barack Obama were thrown a bit of curve last week when the campaign emailed a "dress code" for Israel and Jordan. Aides had passed along as a courtesy the list that they had distributed to their staff to follow. But some of the tips raised a few eyebrows, particularly among the female reporters.

"Do not wear green." (Explained later as the color of Hamas)

"Do not wear nail polish."

"Women should only wear a limited amount of jewelry."

"Shoulders and arms must be fully covered (no strapless tops, no tank tops, no short sleeve shirts.)"

"Closed-toe shoes, women should also wear stockings."

At historical and religious sites, a suit or slacks should be worn, shoulders and arms must be covered ("no strapless tops, no tanks tops no short sleeve shirts"), shoes might need to be removed, and women may be asked to cover their heads and "should be prepared with a scarf/pashmina," the email stated.

Perhaps the Obama campaign would like to dictate what color panties female reporters should show up for work in.

Ed Morrissey sees the arrogance inherent in such a "dress code:"

First, wouldn't women traveling to the Middle East already understand at least some of this, especially the journalists? This gives more than just a faint whiff of paternalism, lecturing professionals about how they should comport themselves. All appearances to the contrary, the media entourage does not work for Team Obama. One might think that the women of the press would get offended by treating them like schoolchildren or idiots.

And some of this is downright strange, especially in Israel. Israeli women don't wear nail polish and open-toed shoes? Apparently, they don't like jewelry, either. Do they care if women wear stockings or not, and why should the Obama campaign care?

I suppose if any of this offends the women in the press, the proper response would be, "Just get over it, sweetie."

Ed is correct. Most if not all of those reporters who are accompanying Obama on his trip (except Katie Couric who is as clueless a talking head who ever graced a TV screen) know full well how to show respect and the proper dress is certainly part of this. Did they really expect a female reporter to show up in a tank top at a mosque? Or a photo op with Maliki?

I suppose we should expect all Americans to be getting our own little memos from time to time from Obama. No doubt there will be a national data bank of email addresses and every once and a while, we will receive word from on high what is expected of us as Americans.

Just more creepiness from a man and a campaign that seems to revel in exercising power.

posted July 22, 2008 03:49 AM            

quote:

---

So acoustic, are you attempting to say O'Bomber never said these words?

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives 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'm saying that he said those things in a very specific context that is only tangentially related to actual security.

posted July 22, 2008 10:30 AM            

Words? Just words? A civilian national security force, Just Words?

posted July 23, 2008 08:50 AM            

And what conclusions can be drawn and should be drawn when virtually everyone in O'Bomber's past, his gurus, friends, associates and spiritual guru are hardcore socialist Marxists?

And what conclusions can be drawn and should be drawn when O'Bomber spouts Marxist economic drivel at every opportunity in his effort to bring everyone into the fold of government sponsored Marxist socialism?

And what conclusions can be drawn and should be drawn when O'Bomber's wife tells us plainly that O'Bomber isn't going to permit this or that and IS going to require we do this or that. This is the straight Marxist political doctrine of force as practiced by communist nations which killed up to 200 million of their own citizens and O'Bomber wants as large and well funded so called "National Civilian Security Force" as the entire combined military forces of the United States. Notice, O'Bomber said "National Security Force". That's in addition to Homeland Security, the FBI, US Marshals, DEA, BATF, Secret Service and all the other alphabet security agencies which already exist.

Is O'Bomber expecting trouble when he attempts to turn the United States into the United Socialist States of America?

If so, he's right on that score. There will be trouble with a capital T.

There's an old saying in America. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...it's a duck.

July 23, 2008
Obama's Berlin Moment
By James Lewis

Obama's Premature Inauguration Syndrome is still giving him trouble, witness the mass Obama rally scheduled for Berlin's SiegessSaeule or Victory Column, to celebrate his penetrating insight in foreign affairs. Google's top listing of this Ueberphallic Prussian monument has to be seen to be believed: It is a favorite Berlin gay newspaper, as you can see. You have to admit those Germans have a sense of humor.

What superficial American tourists never understand, of course, is that just about all those magnificent European monuments stand for historical massacres. Even the big cathedrals symbolize the religious wars of the Reformation, which killed more people than anything before Napoleon and the World Wars. The Arc de Triomphe in Paris commemorates Napoleon's imperial invasions of just about all of Europe (with 41 million dead). The Prussian Victory Column in Berlin, before it became a gay icon, was a proud celebration of Prussian victory against Napoleon's invasion of Germany, Spain, Russia, the Low Countries, Sweden, and Egypt. It reminds Germans of the Prussian victory over Napoleon at Waterloo (with Lord Wellington playing a minor role), plus the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and of course World War I. It all adds up to tens of millions of dead people.

Just like one of those embarrassing American tourists, Obama insenitively reminds Europeans of past massacres and the war propaganda and hysteria that marked the Prussian rise to dominance. The German crowds probably won't chant "Hoch! Hoch!" at Obama, as they used to when der Kaiser's Prussian troops went marching by on the way to the killing fields of World War I. But what will they chant? Or is chanting forbidden, along with banners?

As a German politician remarked,

"The Siegessaeule in Berlin was moved from the Reichstag (German parliament) to its current position by Adolf Hitler," Rainer Bruederle, deputy chairman of the opposition Liberal Party, FDP, said in an interview with Bild am Sonntag. He said he questioned, "if Barack Obama has been well advised to use it as the site of a speech outlining his vision of a world of cooperation."

Yes, well. Good taste is not exactly the mark of Obama's rallies so far. The Germans are lucky that Obama isn't opening with the Decemberist rock band playing the Soviet National Anthem, as they are wont to do, the same way his famous "75,000 person rally" opened in Portland, when he beat Hillary in the Oregon Primary. The real Decemberists were secret Russian revolutionaries, whose movement ultimately led to the mass murder of some 100 million unfortunate people during the reign of Marxist regimes in Europe. That ended with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall in the late 1980s, at the urging of Ronald Reagan. But Obamanistas wouldn't know about that.

The history of Europe is all glorified blood, blood, and more blood. Today, Eurosocialists claim to be all about peace. But in fact socialism has been a classic European imperialist movement -- what do you think the Soviet Union was all about? Today Eurosocialism is limited to peaceful imperialism, but not a few decades ago it taught agitators like Pol Pot how to kill, and sent him off to Cambodia to murder three million of his people. As long as the massacres happened far away, European socialists were happy. They still are.

In fact, Eurosocialism still contains all the seeds of classic European imperialism: The endless sense of Europe's superiority over the rest of the world, the preachiness of how the rest of the world must live, the constant efforts to impose global carbon taxes, poverty taxes, and UN rules on subject nations (like the US) for the greater glory of Germany-France-Spain-Britain -- all the classic European imperial powers look at the US with green imperialism envy.

Imperialism never stopped in Europe. It just stopped being violent for a while, because America beat European imperial powers in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. And don't think they don't know it. Why do you think Europeans loved to hate America over the overthrow of Saddam? Saddam's Baathist Party was modeled after Europe's fascist parties, after all.

As Roger Cohen just wrote in the New York Times, itself the very home and soapbox of Eurosocialism in America,

"Barack Obama has already won the U.S. election by a landslide. In Europe, that is. Polls show the French putting the first African-American in the White House with 86 percent backing. Obamania is about as intense in Germany and Britain, the two other European countries the Senator will visit this week."