Obama's National Police

[Guest]

The scariest thing I have heard from Obama's lips are his call for a civilian National Police Force. He included it in a recent speech but you won't find it in the transcript of that speech. No wonder. National Police? Be afraid, very afraid.

I spent many years in law enforcement. I served for a decade as an associate professor of criminal justice. The prospect of a national police force should be frightening to anyone who values freedom, liberty and democracy. One of the tenants of oppressive ideologies is to seize law enforcement powers through a national police force or by nationalizing the police. George Orwell's Big Brother is late but he has arrived.

The part of the speech that has been edited out of the transcript is at about the 16:45 minute on the bar at the bottom. Slide the button to that mark unless you want to hear the whole speech.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69784

This link will soon be disappearing when the Obama legal team gets it.

[Guest]

Cabo, did you read my thread titled "comment, please?" I am curious about your take on that article.
I know regular army/marine troops were used to quell the 1968 riots.

[Guest]

Yes...isn't this what Bush is doing right now...perhaps he stole Obama's idea?

:cus: Go ahead Cabo....yell....get it out...it's ok....I can take it!

Sorry...Cassie is being a little Sassy today....

;););)

[Guest]

The scariest thing I have heard from Obama's lips are his call for a civilian National Police Force. He included it in a recent speech but you won't find it in the transcript of that speech. No wonder. National Police? Be afraid, very afraid.

I spent many years in law enforcement. I served for a decade as an associate professor of criminal justice. The prospect of a national police force should be frightening to anyone who values freedom, liberty and democracy. One of the tenants of oppressive ideologies is to seize law enforcement powers through a national police force or by nationalizing the police. George Orwell's Big Brother is late but he has arrived.

The part of the speech that has been edited out of the transcript is at about the 16:45 minute on the bar at the bottom. Slide the button to that mark unless you want to hear the whole speech.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69784

This link will soon be disappearing when the Obama legal team gets it.

We already have on the federal side as sworn law enforcement:

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
Customs and Border Protection
Elements of the Coast Guard
Secret Service
TSA Federal Air Marshalls
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Drug Enforcement Administration
U.S. Marshalls
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
US Park Police
and I'm sure I just forgot a few more during this "senior moment."

We need another layer to these ? ? ?

Sen. Obama spent years as a Constitutional Law professor. I would love to hear how he plans to get around 10th Amendment issues to accomplish this.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=SteveZ;163704]
and I'm sure I just forgot a few more during this "senior moment." QUOTE]



A VILLAGE moment Steve....sounds more fun doesn't it? Sorry about the highjack....:shocked:

[Guest]

Hi Sam, I have been trying to scale back my occasional long winded posts... then you go ahead and ask me a question I could write a book on. I will try to be mercifully brief.

I believe it is dangerous under any circumstance to use the military in a law enforcement capacity. I oppose the concept on the same basis I oppose Obama's national police force. The history of Posse Comitatus and its slow metamorphosis into Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization could fill a book.

Personally, I am a states rights advocate. Accordingly, I believe that the emergent contingencies that would require extraordinary means should be done through the National Guard and/or State Police. Presently, I do not believe they have the resources of our military. I would like to see a transition that would involve developing the potential of these agencies through the allocation of more resources and training.

I understand the deployment of that Brigade to homeland defense efforts. The author of the article you posted said,

"There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans."

That being said, I believe it is a bad precedent to use military forces for domestic law enforcement. Obama's National Police are equally threatening to democracy as we know it.

p.s. Sam, I was in the middle of the 1968 riots and attended a nationwide critique in San Luis Obispo, California afterward. I have no recollection of the Army or Marines being active. The National Guard was heavily deployed. If I'm misinformed, please let me know.

[Guest]

Hi Sam, I have been trying to scale back my occasional long winded posts... then you go ahead and ask me a question I could write a book on. I will try to be mercifully brief.

I believe it is dangerous under any circumstance to use the military in a law enforcement capacity. I oppose the concept on the same basis I oppose Obama's national police force. The history of Posse Comitatus and its slow metamorphosis into Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization could fill a book.

Personally, I am a states rights advocate. Accordingly, I believe that the emergent contingencies that would require extraordinary means should be done through the National Guard and/or State Police. Presently, I do not believe they have the resources of our military. I would like to see a transition that would involve developing the potential of these agencies through the allocation of more resources and training.

I understand the deployment of that Brigade to homeland defense efforts. The author of the article you posted said,

"There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans."

That being said, I believe it is a bad precedent to use military forces for domestic law enforcement. Obama's National Police are equally threatening to democracy as we know it.

p.s. Sam, I was in the middle of the 1968 riots and attended a nationwide critique in San Luis Obispo, California afterward. I have no recollection of the Army or Marines being active. The National Guard was heavily deployed. If I'm misinformed, please let me know.

Great post Cabo and your thread sent me to do some reading. I have been saying all along that a Sen Obama presidency is the last link to socialism in this country and you said it well......."That being said, I believe it is a bad precedent to use military forces for domestic law enforcement. Obama's National Police are equally threatening to democracy as we know it." Armed National Police is just a scary thought.

But in addition in doing some reading on Sen Obama's own website I note that he wants this national police FUNDED as well as our own military. Now, more socialist ideas.......we are going to protect our selves from our selves and cut the spending on protecting us from outsiders ? That, of course, is a short sighted and black and white version, but where is all this money coming from that he wants the federal government to take care of ?

Thanks for the thread.....not something I was eventhat aware of but National police is just another way of enforcing socialism !

[Guest]

Great post Cabo and your thread sent me to do some reading. I have been saying all along that a Sen Obama presidency is the last link to socialism in this country and you said it well......."That being said, I believe it is a bad precedent to use military forces for domestic law enforcement. Obama's National Police are equally threatening to democracy as we know it." Armed National Police is just a scary thought.

But in addition in doing some reading on Sen Obama's own website I note that he wants this national police FUNDED as well as our own military. Now, more socialist ideas.......we are going to protect our selves from our selves and cut the spending on protecting us from outsiders ? That, of course, is a short sighted and black and white version, but where is all this money coming from that he wants the federal government to take care of ?

Thanks for the thread.....not something I was eventhat aware of but National police is just another way of enforcing socialism !

I whole heartily agree with the posts that I've read so far on this thread:agree:

[Guest]

Cabo, I will have to do some research. If memory serves, the military was used in Washington DC.

[Guest]

Cabo, I just googled 1968 Washington riots and believe that not only were regular army used, but US Marines were also called in.

[Guest]

In his speech, he called it a "civilian national security force" that "needs to be just as just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded" as our military because we cannot rely on our military alone to achieve national security objectives.

Wow! Why hasn't this made the news? I haven't even heard this on FOX.

[Guest]

The scariest thing I have heard from Obama's lips are his call for a civilian National Police Force. He included it in a recent speech but you won't find it in the transcript of that speech. No wonder. National Police? Be afraid, very afraid.

I spent many years in law enforcement. I served for a decade as an associate professor of criminal justice. The prospect of a national police force should be frightening to anyone who values freedom, liberty and democracy. One of the tenants of oppressive ideologies is to seize law enforcement powers through a national police force or by nationalizing the police. George Orwell's Big Brother is late but he has arrived.

The part of the speech that has been edited out of the transcript is at about the 16:45 minute on the bar at the bottom. Slide the button to that mark unless you want to hear the whole speech.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69784

This link will soon be disappearing when the Obama legal team gets it.

Sorry, I'm confused. Isn't this the same bill George W. Bush signed in 2006, that was revised in 2008? Why is the called Obama's National Police? Why isn't this called Bush's National Police?

[Guest]

Sorry, I'm confused. Isn't this the same bill George W. Bush signed in 2006, that was revised in 2008? Why is the called Obama's National Police? Why isn't this called Bush's National Police?
__________________________________________________ ___________-

Hoping you can supply some more information on this 2006 bill that you say is already law (signed by Bush in 2006)...link or something ?

Thanks

[Guest]

Sorry, I'm confused. Isn't this the same bill George W. Bush signed in 2006, that was revised in 2008? Why is the called Obama's National Police? Why isn't this called Bush's National Police?
__________________________________________________ ___________-

Hoping you can supply some more information on this 2006 bill that you say is already law (signed by Bush in 2006)...link or something ?

Thanks

Samhass posted in "Comments, please.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/index.html

http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

[Guest]

Samhass posted in "Comments, please.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/index.html

http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/


Not sure but this is, I believe, an addition to the Patriot act as a result of the fiasco in Katrina for one. Not sure I support it anyway,but this is nothing like Sen Obama has proposed...this is a quote of his from July of this year...

"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....what bothers me personallly is ....."just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Imagine he has proposed CUTTING the military but then proposes this.

I may have it misunderstood but this is what he said....a force "just as poweful, just as strong, just as well-funded" in comparing to our military !

[Guest]

I find Bush's bill much more frightening.

Also, I don't think Obama wants to cut the military, he just wants to use them in a wiser way. We are stretched so thin.

"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." if it is true.

I, personally, don't see anything wrong with this quote. However, with the economy, many things will be put on hold.

[Guest]

I find Bush's bill much more frightening.

Also, I don't think Obama wants to cut the military, he just wants to use them in a wiser way. We are stretched so thin.

"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." if it is true.

I, personally, don't see anything wrong with this quote. However, with the economy, many things will be put on hold.


Let me understand what you are saying and I want to be very careful in putting words in your mouth....

you are ok with having a armed national police force with the same funding as the current military ?

[Guest]

Bucco, I will admit I have not researched this enough. But if you're talking about another layer of National Security, I'm all for it. It's always been a fear of mine that we would be hit between 2007 and the end of 2009. Just my own theory from what I've read about previous attacks. This is why, I personally, never gave Bush much credit for protecting us.

So, I really shouldn't comment without researching this more, but as I said, if it makes us more secure, adding one more layer, I'm all for it.

[Guest]

I find Bush's bill much more frightening.

Also, I don't think Obama wants to cut the military, he just wants to use them in a wiser way. We are stretched so thin.

"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." if it is true.

...

.
Germany used to have one - the Schutzstaffel
Russia used to have one - the Cheka
The USSR used to have one - the NKVD
Japan used to have one - the Kempeitai

The thought of such an entity at the disposal of the Executive Branch is chilling.

[Guest]

Germany used to have one - the Schutzstaffel
Russia used to have one - the Cheka
The USSR used to have one - the NKVD
Japan used to have one - the Kempeitai

The thought of such an entity at the disposal of the Executive Branch is chilling.
Scares the S**T out of me also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

If you look in history, every country that implemented a "national police force" directed by the executive leadership, this was step one to a dictatorship. I could not find a single example where that was not the case. I am sure there are some and someone will find it and say it works, but I found 22 examples of where it lead straight to a government coop and a dictator put in place. ANYONE who thinks this is a good idea doesn't deserve the right to vote.

[Guest]

Then what is your response to Bush's bill? This is not an Obama thing.


http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

You don't find this frightening? :22yikes:

[Guest]

Then what is your response to Bush's bill? This is not an Obama thing.


http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

You don't find this frightening? :22yikes:

Now....you find it frightning that the US Government now does not have to wait for a state....say LA during Katrina....to ask for help if there is some terrorist activity (or deploy National Guard in case of emergency) ?

BUT you are ok with armed national police equal to the military and funded the same ?

[Guest]

Chels, there is no comparison to the issues you suggest. It is quite simple. The Bush "bill" you refer to calls for the use of armed forces, ie. our military, under exigent circumstances in a domestic law enforcement role.

Obama, in his own words if you listen to the clip I posted in the original post, quite expressly calls for a full time civilian national police. I am not an advocate of either ,but, Obama's concept of a national police is far more sinister for largely the reasons pointed out by 12ridehd.

[Guest]

Hitler installed a national police force. How well did that work out !!!

[Guest]

OK, did my homework. I watched the 26 min video, looked into Joseph Farah and his wife that run this website and sorry but this is an extreme right wing site and the Farah's have a very sketchy background indeed.

In the video, Obama is using national security as an umbrella phrase. This entire thread is a complete spin. For anyone that watches this video in it's entirety and also checks out this website, they will see that this is a completely bogus, alarmist thread.

I though have checked it out for myself earlier and not relied on the partisan
posters.

[Guest]

does ss ring a bell...........



Spooky

[Guest]

does ss ring a bell...........



Spooky


Yes Fumar! Spanish Springs! Hahahhaha :1rotfl: Can you get a bigger font?

Sorry, nowhere in that clip are the words "National Police" ever mentioned.

[Guest]

Nice try Chelsea, but in Obama's own words on the video at 16:40 minutes, he supported a civilian national security force...you must have missed that...or you have selective recall omitting things that don't agree with your partisanship. In case you would like to check it again, he said, from his own lips, on the video:

"We've got to have a civilian national security force that is just as strong, just as powerful and just as well funded" The context, check it out, was referencing as compared to the military. I took this quote verbatim off the video and you say he never said it. Did I mention it is at 16:40 minute mark?

Shades of the SS as the Great One pointed out.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69784

It doesn't matter who runs the website, what matters are the words that spew from Obama's lips on the video. You attack everything and deny Barack Hussein Obama's words. Thanks for the opportunity to post it again.

edited by Cabo35 on 11/3/08 to change "police force" to "security force". Chelsea was correct in this regard. Thank you Chels.

[Guest]

Nice try Chelsea, but in Obama's own words on the video at 16:40 minutes, he supported a civilian national police force...you must have missed that...or you have selective recall omitting things that don't agree with your partisanship. It's hard to believe you would misrepresent and deny the words "national police" are there. Anyone who listens to the video will hear them. In case you would like to check it again, he said, from his own lips, on the video:

"We've got to have a civilian national police force that is just as strong, just as powerful and just as well funded" The context, check it out, was referencing as compared to the military. I took this quote verbatim off the video and you say he never said it. Did I mention it is at 16:40 minute mark?

Shades of the SS as the Great One pointed out.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=69784

It doesn't matter who runs the website, what matters are the words that spew from Obama's lips on the video. You attack everything and deny Barack Hussein Obama's words. Thanks for the opportunity to post it again.

He says "civilian national security force" nowhere does he say National Police. This all pertains to national security! And I'm all for it! And excuse me, it does matter who runs the website. This is tantamount to propaganda!

[Guest]

Chels, there has been a lot of controversy about this tape whether you believe it or not. I stand corrected on the distinction between national police force and national security force. Semantics.

I will edit my post accordingly.

[Guest]

...on the list of major issues to be considered in making a choice for President?

Is it up there with the national debt, the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, an energy policy, rebuilding the regulatory structure of our financial industry, healthcare, education, Social Security....etc.?

Maybe a President Obama would ge some Democratic lawmaker to sneak in a national police force amendment on some more important bill. No one would notice, I'm sure.

C'mon. If you don't want to vote for Obama, don't vote for him. But why are we wasting our time bantering about whether, if he were elected, Obama would create a new American Schutzstaffel.

This seems to be an extension of the GOP campaign strategy of avoiding a discussion of the issues in favor of jabbing away with negative and inflammatory accusations. It's kind of like Governor Palin's answer to a question in the VP debate, something like, "Thanks for asking your question, but I'm going to stick to the the answer I want to give." If it really were a debate, the judge would disqualify her for being unwilling (or unable) to answer the question posed. Why don't we debate some real issues?

Of course, that's assuming we're doing it just for fun and practice because everyone's mind is already made up.

[Guest]

...on the list of major issues to be considered in making a choice for President?

Is it up there with the national debt, the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, an energy policy, rebuilding the regulatory structure of our financial industry, healthcare, education, Social Security....etc.?

Maybe a President Obama would ge some Democratic lawmaker to sneak in a national police force amendment on some more important bill. No one would notice, I'm sure.

C'mon. If you don't want to vote for Obama, don't vote for him. But why are we wasting our time bantering about whether, if he were elected, Obama would create a new American Schutzstaffel.

This seems to be an extension of the GOP campaign strategy of avoiding a discussion of the issues in favor of jabbing away with negative and inflammatory accusations. It's kind of like Governor Palin's answer to a question in the VP debate, something like, "Thanks for asking your question, but I'm going to stick to the the answer I want to give." If it really were a debate, the judge would disqualify her for being unwilling (or unable) to answer the question posed. Why don't we debate some real issues?

Of course, that's assuming we're doing it just for fun and practice because everyone's mind is already made up.


Perhaps folks think it is important that a candidate wants to create a National Police as large, and as strong AND FUNDED LIKE THE PRESENT MILITARY ! I, for one, hope this is a mistake (it is disappearing from various web sites) but if not...it IS AN ISSUE.

I failed to read your chagrin with the multiple threads on Gov Palin and her family...I know you are aware that they outweighed BY FAR any discussion of the issues you mention. Did I miss your objection to that ? Or maybe the unfounded and stupid claim that Sen McCain wants to invade Iran...didnt hear your outrage about that. Or maybe the claim that Sen McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. Did I miss your objection to that one ?

I can only assume by your post and others that the party comes first to you...while I oppose Sen Obama for reasons previously stated I have been open and honest about that fact. Your party love comes through more and more !!!!

[Guest]

Cabo, did you read my thread titled "comment, please?" I am curious about your take on that article.
I know regular army/marine troops were used to quell the 1968 riots.

Samhass, sorry for the delay in responding. I checked your reference and I believe the only place they were used was is in Washington at the Capitol and White House, both Federal buildings. I have no recollection of them being used in any American cities effected by the riots. I think that would have been a vioilation of law. As I said before, the State National Guard was engaged.

[Guest]

Kahuna, I have said before that I have great respect and appreciation for your input on economic,banking and national debt issues. Your expertise as a professional in the banking industry substantially encourages me to defer
to your knowledge and commentary. My 44 year resume was shaped by my experience in the military, criminal justice, government and academia.

Who would have thought that when someone suggested in Congress, that it would be a great and noble idea to fulfill every American's dream of home ownership by extending government backed credit to anyone who applied, it would ultimately result in arguably, the greatest economic disaster in our time. Little things, like a "civilian national security force" have a way of gaining a life of their own when they are not addressed.

You cite a valid list of major issues that we should be discussing. I have participated in those discussions. I respectfully submit that a significant issue missing, but, related to parts of your litany is "the unbridled growth of government" that looms in the future. The Bush administration has been no shrinking violet in this regard. I believe any proposal that includes the nationalization of institutions, like the suggestion that it is a good idea to introduce a "civilian national security force", a euphemism for national police force, should be up there with your list of important issues. I would think that your expressed concern with the national debt would put us of like mind on the mere suggestion of this type of government expansion, notwithstanding the more sinister implications. I disagree with Obama just as I disagreed in a previous post with the Bush administration when it deployed a domestic brigade for "civilian law enforcement" purposes. Maybe you are right that it would never get legs, but I'm not ready to gamble the farm on it. Who would of thought that Bush would assign military to civilian law enforcement functions?

Kahuna, we may share common ground in that I am not particularly happy with the entire slate of candidates who will be voted on in November to lead our country. Perhaps I'm wrong. Politics are personal and shaped by one's life experience. I have with some hesitation, publicly defined my political philosophy as an old democrat whose party left him when they made a sharp turn to the left. Accordingly, I am not part of any GOP spin machine or campaign strategy.

Regarding posting in this forum, I have acknowledged that no one is going to change their votes behind these posts. Count me with those that are in it for the fun and the mental exercise that comes from posters like you, Chelsea, and many others. It also helps keep my own views in perspective. I'm sorry you don't view the Obama suggestion to establish a national security force a significant issue. However, I suspect that you and I probably are not that far apart on the theoretically ominous prospects if it were to be implemented. I'm sure you will let me know if that is an incorrect assumption. As always, I respect and appreciate your thoughtful input.

We have a break in the offshore weather forecast at last sooooo....its time to put the computer on hold, get the boat fueled (I'll need to sell some stock on Monday), tackle organized and ready to catch those big tuna.

Thanks.

Have a good day.

[Guest]

Again, this entire thread is right wing propaganda. I, for one, am extremely happy with the Obama/Biden ticket.

http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/politics/obamayes.gif (http://www.millan.net)http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/politics/bidenyes.gif (http://www.millan.net)

[Guest]

Voting for a Presidential candidate over one or two political positions/statements is like buying a car solely because you like the way the trunk (boot, to some!) is configured and the contour of the ash trays (for those who smoke or store loose change in them) is formed.

Sections 2 and 3, Article II of the US Constitution spell out specifically the duties and responsibilities of the President as:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

That's the job! It would be reasonable to believe that the Founding Fathers wrote these with the thought that what was most important was listed first.

As we listen to the campaign rhetoric of what "when elected, I will..." it is very important to remember that the President only has the authority to do what's listed above. That's it! Period! And quite often campaign managers and candidates are betting that many Americans have no real idea as to what authority a President really has when all of these "promises" are made. It like the car salesman who tells you that you are allowed to speed in your new car, and you buy it because the car will do 150MPH, but the state trooper still gives you a ticket despite your cries to the contrary.

In the end, your vote will determine which person will actually have the authority to do all of those things listed above - actually do being the key point. So, skills and knowledge are the basis for how employees are hired anywhere I've ever been, and why should this "hiring process" be any different?

After all the promises have been made, all of the speeches and inspirational rheotoric have been been echoed and enhansed, all the fearmongering and accusations have been levied, and all the salesmanship of others has been appllied, please remember what the job actually allows a President to do and holds the President accountable to do when you mark you ballot to "hire" this employee.

[Guest]

From Obama website -I'm not afraid of having our chemical plants, water systems, seaports protected or being prepared by a team of experts in case of a catastrophe. I would think that would be more reassuring.

"Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.
Nearly seven years after 9/11, our country is still unprepared for a terrorist attack. From improving security for our transit systems and chemical plants, to increasing cargo screening in our airports and seaports, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been underfunded and ignored. The 9/11 Commission gave the government five F's and twelve D's on the implementation of its recommendations. Obama is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and has supported efforts to base homeland security spending on risk rather than pork-barrel politics. He has also introduced legislation to strengthen chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness. As President, Obama will enhance our national resilience to any risk - natural, accidental or terrorist - by ensuring the federal government works with States, localities, and the private sector as an authentic partner in prevention, mitigation, and response."

[Guest]

From Obama website -I'm not afraid of having our chemical plants, water systems, seaports protected or being prepared by a team of experts in case of a catastrophe. I would think that would be more reassuring.

"Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.
Nearly seven years after 9/11, our country is still unprepared for a terrorist attack. From improving security for our transit systems and chemical plants, to increasing cargo screening in our airports and seaports, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been underfunded and ignored. The 9/11 Commission gave the government five F's and twelve D's on the implementation of its recommendations. Obama is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and has supported efforts to base homeland security spending on risk rather than pork-barrel politics. He has also introduced legislation to strengthen chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness. As President, Obama will enhance our national resilience to any risk - natural, accidental or terrorist - by ensuring the federal government works with States, localities, and the private sector as an authentic partner in prevention, mitigation, and response."

This post is right on the numbers. As I said in one of my previous posts I see references to this disappearing from sight, and I hope there has been reconsideration and not a "hiding" of this issue. The quote that got my attention was the one where he said equal to the military with the same funding.

I would, after some more details, endorse Sen Obama's attempt to butress our homeland security, but would be interested in more info on the bills he supposedly has introduced as I was not aware of that ! I would NOT endorse a group as large as our military with the same funding !