Barack Obama showed more of his true intentions the other day. Just who will this new force answer too? An American Gestapo is a sure way to a path of revolution here in these not so United States. Others have called me crazy in the past when I reffered to “Authoritarians.”
“According to Obama, the U.S. “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.” He continued, “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Whoa there, compadre! (That’s a little Spanish there for the man who wants us all to learn it.) Will this “national security force” also wear brown shirts? Oddly enough, it seems that Obama’s campaign realized that wouldn’t fly—the line was stricken from the transcripts given to the media, though it is still in the video posted on YouTube.”
Source: Patriot Post; This was also reported by Gunny Bob at 850KOA
Tags: Constitution, Law, oppression
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 
July 21, 2008 at 11:46
Gestapo? You don’t think you might be going a bit overboard based on a draft version of a speech. It could of course been stricken because thats not what they really meant. Not there would be any reason to infer that such broad rhetoric would mean an organization anywhere near the Gestapo.
Really, you’re just uselessly slanderizing without evidence.
LikeLike
July 21, 2008 at 14:15
Patrick may be using strong language designed to emote a response, but if this is what Obama has in mind, there is certainly an arguement for what he (Patrick) is saying.
There is only 1 reason to have a “civilian national security force,” and that is to get around the law of posse comitatus, which basically says that the military may not be turned against its own people, unless under certain circumstances.
If a civilian national security force was created and turned against the American people, that would certainly equate to the Gestapo in the eyes of many.
My guess it was stricken because someone with 1/2 a brain realized that it is questionably unconstitutional. Which wouldn’t be good for someone who tries to use his constitutional law experience as qualifications for president.
LikeLike
July 21, 2008 at 15:46
Well,
I don’t disagree with Patrick’s opinion, a civilian national security force could be a bad thing. But the fact is that so little information was provided that there is little hope to conclude what Obama would have actually meant by his statement.
I mean, after all a friggin militia is a civilian national security force. While they seem to sometimes host a load of crazies they’ve proven rather harmless in the past.
What I blew up on patrick about, and will continue to do so if the tone of his posts continue as is, is his total lack of accountability for his statements. There was absolutely no reason to compare a hazy one-liner Obama psuedo-gaffe to a secret police force involved in terrorizing the entire population of Europe and actively partook in the hunting down and extermination of millions of Jews.
LikeLike
July 22, 2008 at 08:56
Thanks Pill, and you as well Marc. I think that my choice of words was more than appropriate Marc. Why? Because even the notorious KGB was not fully armed and funded to match the military. Why, other than repression, would we have any need of such a force here? Yes, there is a very good reason that the Posse Comitatus was passed.
All in all, I think any such force would lead to untold oppression, and bloodshed. If not an outright revolt. Would anyone in their right mind want to see another Civil War here in the United States?
LikeLike
July 23, 2008 at 23:57
BTW Pill, after reviewing what I wrote, as well as the cited story. I have decided that Barack Obama may be even more dangerous than priveously thought. They may have dumped his statements from his web sites, but he really screwed up saying those things in front of people here in Colorado.
Rumor has it that a video with very good sound will be released. When it is deemed best to do so.
Have a good one! 😀
LikeLike