A Civilian Security Force just as well funded as the military? Here in America? That is exactly what Obama wants and he is not ashamed to tell you about it!
Well, after all you do need to keep the proletariat … um …. I mean middle class in line. First you promise them something to gain power, say fictitious middle class tax cuts. However when you don’t deliver, you will need some forces to to keep the prolet… middle class in line. A federally controlled domestic police force is just the thing.
Something so ambitious needs a catchy name, dontcha think? How about say … Gestapo … or …. Stasi …. or Committee for State Security (roughly translated Комитет государственной безопасности?) or something catchy ike that?
All joking aside, did you get that folks? Obama wants a federally controlled domestic police force funded the same as the military. Oh my … Is it any wonder that gun sales are up in Florida?
Ht to Gateway Pundit.
October 30, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Oy. Scary indeed. And with a Homeland Security department already established, all it would take is a little increase in funding.
If you’ve never seen “Other People’s Lives”, I suggest you rent it. About life in East Berlin, early 1980’s.
October 30, 2008 at 2:15 pm
There is a lot of bad stuff coming from Obama but this is one of the worst I’ve heard and is what frightens my husband and I the most. It fits well with his blacklisting of reporters/stations who ask questions he doesn’t like, etc.
Perhaps he should change his name to Castro or Chavez.
October 30, 2008 at 2:16 pm
What is he talking about? A new security force, or increased funding for existing federal police? Not clear from that clip. But I imagine it would’ve been much bigger news if he’s proposing an entirely new federal police force (As if we don’t have enough already… Did you know that even the EPA has armed officers??? Shocked me, too, when I found out.)
October 30, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Oh come on…he obviously just advocating a militia based on the second amendment and those citizens will get funding from the government to buy weapons.
[end sarcasm]
In all seriousness, I’ve been thinking about getting a gun for personal security. Now it appears if I don’t I’ll be going down as a martyrdom instead of going down defending the martyrs.
Since I probably don’t have the fortitude to be a martyr, seems the second option is my best bet.
October 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm
It’s enough to make one wonder if the notion of a “citizen’s militia” needs to be revisited by towns across the country. Such was the basic premise behind the right to keep and bear arms, and even today, the Governors of the Several States all have the power to gather an “unorganized militia” of all able-bodied men between 18 and, uh, whatever. This is beyond the power over their National Guards, which can be Federalized at any time. Many states have State Militias in addition to this, which report to the Governor.
All told, it’s a scary thought. But living here in Washington and seeing the plethora of law enforcement bodies all over the place, especially since 9-11, this is something that could really happen.
October 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm
How is this different from the Bush administration’s plan to deploy soldiers in the U.S., flying in the face of the Posse Comitatus Act?
http://www.alternet.org/rights/102220/is_posse_comitatus_dead/
This is one reason why conservatives should have spoken out about the drastic increase in the size and scope of the federal government under Bush – because it could be put to ill-use by the Democrats. The ridiculous centralization of power under the President will now be used by Obama. Thanks, GOP.
October 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm
but the kgb was already used in Russia, needs new catchy name, hmmm. OCM Obamae cultae Malitiae
October 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Obama wants a federally controlled domestic police force and McCain wants a 700 foot border fence. Not sure I like where either stand on some of the key issues.
http://mypakragames.com/games/we-the-decided
October 30, 2008 at 6:53 pm
“This is one reason why conservatives should have spoken out about the drastic increase in the size and scope of the federal government under Bush…”
It didn’t start with Bush. It started long before that, when FDR decided the Government could solve everybody’s problems, and Kennedy decided for even more. All our entitlement programs of the last fifty years have led to this. Every time we asked for a slice of the federal pie for our congressional district — even something as innocent as a road project — we helped this along.
Bush is just an easy target because he’s unpopular.
October 30, 2008 at 7:09 pm
It didn’t start with Bush. It started long before that
This is a good point that bears repeating. The criteria for the “federalization” of goods and services have never been made clear. Economics gives us some guidelines (public goods, market externalities, imperfect information, etc.), but instead of using these reasonable, rational standards, we the people resort to our emotions in deciding how best to provide these goods and services. Now, at the smallest hint of trouble, we demand that the federal government “do something.”
October 30, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I imagine this state security will be mostly Obama Youth in roaming gangs of beefy young men outfitted with backwards baseball caps and clubs, bearing nicknames like “Stompie.”
— Mack
October 31, 2008 at 12:27 am
This is scary. You have the Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, the National Guard, the Coastgaurd the ATF, an armed EPA…what next?
This guy is creepy. Imagine his inauguration, rev Wright a-prayin’, the Black Panthers fighting with Senator Robert “Exaulted Cyclops” Byrd….
October 31, 2008 at 2:09 pm
It didn’t start with Bush.
No, it didn’t – but Bush did nothing to stop it or even slow it down. In fact one might argue (and convincingly, I think) that he actually sped up the process.
Bush is just an easy target because he’s unpopular.
Yes, but consider why he’s unpopular. It’s not just the mainstream media whipping people into a frenzy.
Obama is just the logical conclusion of something that started with Lincoln. Maybe the GOP will start talking smaller government again after he’s elected.
November 8, 2008 at 9:19 pm
All the signs were there that Obama could not be trusted. I’m shocked that others chose to put a cocain user in office over someone who almost died for our country. The majority sealed our fate!
November 8, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Am I the only one who got a video no longer available message. If I’m not and the video is gone, that is even more scarry!
November 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Seems like many of you are missing the point that President Bush has driven an amazing reduction in Constitutional freedoms (actually read the Patriot Act if you choose), presided over the design and construction infrastructure supporting “big brother” type surveillance of US citizens, and initiated and defended the use of torture (of US and non-US “enemy combatants”).
November 11, 2008 at 5:39 pm
It’s true that Bush did pass the Patriot Act – that took away American’s freedoms. However, he still had to run it by our Congress…and guess what…our Congress passed it! That being said, we still have a chance to reverse that act. Under Mr. Obama’s idea of his own private soldiers…hello?! Does anyone remember Adolf Hitler? A very popular guy in Germany – very persuasive and a dang good public speaker. He promised the German people everything! And what did he do with their government? He turned their state into a communist nation! Doesn’t anyone in America see the writing on the wall? Obama is trying to make himself King Obama. And how else can you do that but by using those ‘elective powers’. He has already said he will bypass Congress for whatever he needs or wants to change. AMERICA….isn’t this what our founding fathers tried to protect us against with THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT? Isn’t this why we are supposed to have checks and balances in our country?! It makes me sick to my stomach to think that by the people’s own hand, they have just destroyed America as we know it.
November 17, 2008 at 3:45 pm
You folks are just nuts! What Obama is talking about is funding our police forces just as well as we fund the military. I’m retired military, and my specialty was Antiterrorism. You fight terrorists with police forces, not with militaries. Look at every other country around the world. They are successful at fighting terrorists with their police forces.
Like with almost everything he says, he is right on point. You folks are just crazy!!
November 29, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Anonymous November 17 is right–he’s talking about funding existing police forces.
Immediately after 9/11 we debated how to fight terrorism. Republicans wanted military strikes, some democrats thought it was a law enforcement problem. They were ridiculed.
Whether or not you agree that terrorism is a law enforcement problem, clearly, Obama’s position is that it is. Nothing secret about it.
Adam
April 9, 2009 at 4:21 am
Ah yes. Gestapo. Secret Police. The Plumbers. I guess you must be right. If I were president of the United states, and I wanted to set up my own personal police force (which if you didn’t know is illegal, and is what got Nixon impeached) I would most definitely announce it to the world!
NOT!
As I just said, creating a private police force, such as the Plumbers during Nixon, is against the law, and nobody would announce it in a public speech. Obama is NOT creating a secret police force, In this speech, he is stating the fact that our CURRENT police force should receive better funding such as that of our military.
Instead of trying to spread hideous rumors with a 20 second clip, why don’t you post the entire speech and let people decide for themselves without your.. Idiotic theory’s.