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.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

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 ?

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.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

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.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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?

Originally Posted by chelsea24

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?

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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



Spooky

Originally Posted by The Great Fumar

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



Spooky

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

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

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.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.

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

Originally Posted by cabo35

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!