Barack Obama's $439 billion secret

It has been a week since I blew the whistle on Barack Obama's secret $439 billion plan for a mysterious initiative called the "civilian national security force."

We don't know any more about this plan than we did when Obama announced it July 2 in a speech, with the relevant part covered by almost no media with the exception of the Chicago Tribune and Congressional Quarterly.

Does Barack Obama really intend to push the idea of spending as much on the State Department as America currently spends on defense? This should be the No. 1 question he is asked at every campaign stop until we get a coherent answer.

No wonder Obama wants to nearly double every tax and add new ones. He wants a civilian national security force. Oh, and for civilians without weapons.

Can you say "dictator"?

Source


[edit on 21-7-2008 by jetxnet]

This is definitely an issue that he needs to address in more detail. I'd like to know what he thinks the National Guard does? Maybe he wants a paramilitary organization that only answers to him at the taxpayers expense. The term Dictator does come to mind..





[edit on 21-7-2008 by LLoyd45]

Yeahp, it's making more sense now and believe my first hunch was correct. This guy wants to become a dictator.

A police force in the magnitude he suggests is only about enforcing Martial Law.

Citizens will be powerless if enforced as they will not have weapons.

Obama can command the police force to do what he wants, the military is mostly overseas.

The last 7 years, the US has gone without a Terrorist attack. Several have been foiled.

Obama literarlly wants to control other peoples lives. His campaign is reflecting this more and more.

As you said earlier, too many people are blindly eating it up.

You can make the Star Wars analogy. Senator Palpatine got power through loopholes and while promising change. He promised Unity and gained power right under everyones nose and consolidated control in the form of a dicatorship.

The American people should be very concerned.



[edit on 21-7-2008 by jetxnet]

Ah, I can see it all now:

INTERIOR, OLD BEN’S HOME a ramshackle adobe room of an older survivalist, homemade furnature and wool blankets cover the walls from were they have been drying providing some coolness to the hot dry air. OLD BEN is talking with LUKE

OLD BEN: Here, your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn’t hear of it.

LUKE (admires the T-handled batton. Swinging it and twirling it about in his hand using the short handle) You knew my father?

OLD BEN: It is called a TONFA STICK. A more elegant weapon from a more elegant time. Not as clumsy or random as a TASER. Yes he was an old school SKULLTHUMPER like myself. Before the dark times, before the martial law. He was good driver and a good friend. We fought in the Revolt together.

LUKE: My father wasn’t in the Revolt. He was a truck driver that died in the third LA Riots.

OLD BEN: That’s what your uncle told you. (Inspired) You must master the TONFA and learn the ways of a SKULLTHUMPER if you are to join me to WASHINGTON.

Epic tale continues through two more movies and prequel trilogy that was sub par due to whiz-bang effects over substance of engaging story, unsympathetic characters and poor acting.

Actually that is a rather disturbing thought of reducing military spending and forcing states to up their budgets with federal assistance that can be withdrawn on a whim to bolster their police forces. However, when I had applied to the academy to join the Ohio State Patrol they were very specific in telling me that they were a paramilitary organization and stressed those two word to gage my reaction.

I was rather blasé about that because I had been in a paramilitary organization before and said as much. Which peaked their interest highly. Yes, the SCA (Society for the Creative Anachronism) is a paramilitary organization with friendly status as well since some groups teach shield wall tactics to riot geared officers. The interviewer was disappointed and said “ah yes, of course…the SCA, yeah.” Like I was going to tell him a tale of being in an unknown Ohio Militia type group or Hell’s Angels or something of that nature.

BAH, so into the parody and setting my story that I forgot my point...The Constitution specifically state that the President is Commander In Chief of ALL armed forces. It doesn't spell out just the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. Also that Congress is responsible for funding and furnishing arms for the militias, which would include State National Guard units when used by the federal level like in Iraq or after Katrina. By upping and funding local law enforcement, a President Obama would be CIC of them as well provided they called themselves a "paramilitary organization" or was defined as such by the federal government, by such funding assistance.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Ahabstar]

I listened to the speech. He was not talking about a black peoples domination army. He was talking about opening embassys, and increasing things like employment for the Peace Corps and Ameri Corps.
The dollar amount seems to be a fiction thrown in by you folks for effect.

Which is to say employing people who make the world better, rather than blowing simply blowing up anything in your way.

This thread is the wildest misconstruction yet. You should be ashamed of these grandstand terror tactics. Do you believe you can so easily control peoples minds? Do you think we will listen to such disinformation and not bother to listen to the speech. There is a dandy Obama speech, in it's entirety I recommend listening for yourself to anyone who may have been mislead by the terrorist propaganda in this thread.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Cyberbian]

In seriousness, I don't think either canidate is worth two farts in the wind. Neither has the power of command and manipulation to task Congress with cleaning up their act and working for the American People for a change instead of just a few people and themselves.

Neither canidate has a strong voting record of working in the intersts of the people or for the betterment of the country. And as far as campaign speeches of more promises of the moon and stars and everything else, both are currently senators and neither has introduced legislation to fix "all the problems that they can magically fix as president" when they can only advise not present legislative drafts to be considered.

One of the biggest problems with the office of the presidency is that far too many contenders only view the position as a capstone for a political career. Neither McCain nor Obama are ready to presnt solid leadership along the lines of FDR's first term, if the ecconomy does tank after Bush leaves office. Whomever taes the oath between these two will be thought of almost as "highly" as Hoover by history and the American opinion.

What we truely need is a president that would address Congress the following day with Pat Nixon holding a fresh ream of paper and stating "As you all know Mrs. Nixion husband is the only president to ever resign his office. She is here today to and out blank sheets of paper to anyone in this room that is unwilling work for the betterment of this country and the people who are our employers. Resign now and nothing will be said nor will ill will be thought of you if you feel you are unable to perform your duties. There will be a 30 minute recess for you to ponder your commitment and conviction of your efforts to your office and to the people you represent."

Bring me that canidate and that one will have my full support, even if errors are made at least the person tried. Far more than what we get now. One other thing, make him/her young enough to forgo a second term to hold in reserve to fix what future administrations and session of Congress will screw up if they have a sucussful first term. Just a "now don't make come back here" but if the need arises, I can return." kind of deal.



[edit on 21-7-2008 by Ahabstar]

what is 439 billion compared to McCains 1 trillion dollar conquest?

Lets keep the war in Iraq full steam
Lets go to work with Iran

and anyone else who might think we're wrong. Lets war them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd take 439 billion, over a few trillion, any day of the week

Obama for POTUS. 2008

Lets keep the war in Iraq full steam

Why do you guys keep saying stuff like this? Its OBVIOUSLY a distortion.

Mccain and all of us want out as soon as possible, but McCain doesn't want to do it before the Iraqis are ready. You are such a hypocrite.

Originally posted by jetxnet

You can make the Star Wars analogy. Senator Palpatine got power through loopholes and while promising change. He promised Unity and gained power right under everyones nose and consolidated control in the form of a dicatorship.

The American people should be very concerned.


[edit on 21-7-2008 by jetxnet]

The Star Wars/Palpatine/Anakin jab was directed at Bush and his cronies and their policy of "if you're not with us you're against us" which leaves no ground for neutrality. It's such extremes that are the prelude to a dictatorship. After all, is it not Bush who's trying to use loopholes to do as he pleases, all in the name of safety just like Palpatine did?

Also, there are no sources outside of the US/UK that claim foiling any new attacks. It's always the same, let's raise the terror color coding to red because, well because we think there's going to be a terrorist attack. nothing happens because they're all hunches and then they claim "See! nothing happened! We sure foiled that attack" And when you ask them "where did you get this info?" they respond by saying "a credible source" or "a prisoner at Gitmo that burst under pressure," as if that automatically makes it credible.

Originally posted by Dronetek

Lets keep the war in Iraq full steam

Why do you guys keep saying stuff like this? Its OBVIOUSLY a distortion.

Mccain and all of us want out as soon as possible, but McCain doesn't want to do it before the Iraqis are ready. You are such a hypocrite.

Right, and what do McCain and Bush say when they hear that the Iraqi government wants us out of their country by 2010? "Well that can't be! They were misquoted, they're not ready, we can't leave! THE SURGE IS WORKING!!"

Catch up on yesterday's news, al-Maliki wants us out of his country by 2010, That sounds oddly familiar...Perhaps Obama's 16-month exit plan? But sure, what do the Iraqi's know about their situation...

Originally posted by Daedalus24
Catch up on yesterday's news, al-Maliki wants us out of his country by 2010, That sounds oddly familiar...Perhaps Obama's 16-month exit plan? But sure, what do the Iraqi's know about their situation...

It's too bad that Barack Obama probably won't stick to his 16 month plan. He's simply telling the voters what they want to hear..

reply to post by LLoyd45


I don't think he has anything to gain from breaking his promise. Why he follow a policy that has been tried and tested and is known to have failed?

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


That's just the start. Add up all of his new initiatives, what he plans to increase, all of the things he writes on his plan at his website. A lot of these mention nothing about cost, but have cost involved. He isn't going to save money by taking troops out of Iraq because they will still be in the area and many are going to Afghanistan. Spend, spend, spend. Just like McCain. Two peas in a pod.

reply to post by jam321


I agree.

But woudl you rather have Obama spending most of it here at home for us

or McCain afar spending it all on them?


I guess when you answer that question - you'll decide who you will vote for

Home vs War with Iraq, Iran, and anyone else who has a problem with the U.S.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Personally, it comes out the same no matter who is elected. I feel that we are still going to be spending heavily outside the US. All of these are according to Obama's plan on his website.

continue War in Afghanistan=$
Residual force in Iraq (residual undefined)=$
Troops in surrounding area=$
Fight with terrorism worldwide=$
Giving military new capabilities=$
Dealing with Iran=$
Securing nuclear weapons=$
Financial support for Iraq=$
Humanitarian initiative in Iraq=$
Expand our foreign diplomatic service=$
Fight global poverty(look for global poverty act)=$
Expand military (included since military fighting overseas)=$
Stopping genocide in Darfur=$

Plus add all the other money we already give to Israel and similar countries, Nato, United Nations, unexpected disasters, forgiven debts, etc..

Thinking that Obama or McCain will spend most of the money in the US is PRICELESS


Point is no matter who is elected, we will still be spending more or less the same afar for at least the next 4 years.

Let's be realistic. Congress doesn't like to cut spending. Obama will raise taxes on the rich. Congress will raise taxes on everybody with hidden taxes. The Bush tax cuts will die which by itself is a tax increase. And all of this excess money will be ill spent, unaccounted for, and not everybody will benefit. The national debt will increase and in 4 years we will be debating the same issues.

Kinda funny how history keeps repeating itself no matter who is President.

I admire the way you defend Obama and admire the ones who defend McCain but in the end the next President will carry out what his party desire or what Congress will give him, not what the candidate campaigned on. Jimmy, Ronald, George, Bill, George all learned the hard way. Even when Congress does agree with the President, Congress finalizes everything the way they see fit.

reply to post by jam321

I admire the way you defend Obama and admire the ones who defend McCain but in the end the next President will carry out what his party desire or what Congress will give him, not what the candidate campaigned on. Jimmy, Ronald, George, Bill, George all learned the hard way. Even when Congress does agree with the President, Congress finalizes everything the way they see fit.

I thank you.

But for me, its not about defending obama and innocence. Its about saying "even though Obama is a politician, i feel better with him in POTUS than McCain"

there's never been an "ideal" candidate during my life time. No doubt, during the times of the "great presidents" of their era's, they were not regarded as great either. History has made them iconic.

So for me, and in my opinion, to compare and contrast any modern day president to a president of old is not fair.

We dont hear about the crap that Abe Lincoln said, or Teddy Roosevelt did (not that im putting them down.....but they WERE politicians afterall)

so i dont hold them to that standard... the modern guys.

i look at Obama and see someone who wants to fight for me.

To me, thats important.
Because i dont have life handed to me on a silver platter from my parents - like oh-so-many conservatives....and i dont mean that in a demeaning way either. When you're "set" you get to worry about different and larger-scale things.

When you have to REALLY work for a living - life takes on a whole new meaning when it comes to election time

As i've said before, i feel very blessed in that my wife and I do very well for ourselves, but missing more than 2 weeks of work, from either one of us, and we're screwed

Ultimately, when it boils down to the bare minimum, this is why i choose Obama.
To be honest, and hope this doesnt sound selfish, i could really give 2 damns less about Iraq and their citizens until me and my Americans are taken care of first

Regardless of who is running.