Mood:
incredulousTopic: Treason, Democrat style
Read the transcripts of Barack Obama's speech at Colorado Springs, Colorado on July 2, 2008 distributed by the Obama campaign and you won't read every thing he said there. Perhaps one of the scariest things a Presidential candidate ever put in a speech was never written down in those transcripts because he departed from his prepared speech.
In the equivalent of Nixon's "missing seventeen minutes" iin the Watergate tapes - Obama's ad-lib during his speech in Colorado Springs called for an "domestic national security force" with the same trillion-dollar funding as the Department of Defense.
Quoting from WorldNetDaily's "Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech; 'Civilian security force' missing from 'call to service' transcript," July 16, 2008
"Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.
In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."
Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.
The lines are not included in a transcript of the prepared remarks published by the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal.
According to the transcript, Obama was to have said:
"We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy."
But a YouTube video of the speech, at about the 16-minute mark, shows Obama added the following lines:
"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."
I read that and the floor seemed to fall away from under my feet.
The summary of the "missing lines":
Barack Obama wants to set up a secret police force in America.
_____________________
With all the three and four and five-letter agencies we have in this country - FBI, DEA, BATFE (formerly "BATF" - their attempt to go "three-letter," just "ATF" never caught on - "ATF" will always mean "automatic transmission fluid" to any man who does his own oil changes), FEMA, ICE, CBP... and the umbrella under which most of them huddle, Department of Homeland Security, just why does Barack Hussein Obama think we need an entire Armed Forces' worth of MORE COPS?
The answer, of course, is that these guys would have a broader authority than mere "cops."
Barack Obama slipped at Colorado Springs and said something not in his prepared speech, but which he apparently wants to do in his heart - give America its very own Gestapo.
We don't have a national police force - the closest thing we have is a national detective agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, but even the FBI would couldn't win an all out-war with any major American city's police department.
There was a strong tug-of-war between the Federalists and the Nationalists for the future of America - and the vision of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason won out, constraining the power of the Federal Government so that it would have to defer to local opinion on matters close to home.
Consider who prosecutes murder cases in the United States - the state, not the Federal Government. Our state and local governments educate our children, patrol our streets, inspect restaurants, supermarkets and local butcher shops, put out fires - keep the peace and insure domestic tranquility.
That system WORKS precisely because it IS local. Let a police chief get too big for his britches and sooner or later he's an ex-police chief because if he doesn't have to be re-elected, his boss the mayor does.
No one can "disappear" in America the way they have done in places like Chile and Argentina precisely because oversight, checks and balances will eventually cause would-be death squads and local dictators to be found out and thrown in jail themselves. This works even when the local press lays down on its job and stops asking awkward questions.
But let's consider Barack Hussein Obama for a minute and postulate that he IS elected (something I don't believe will happen, because this year the poll makers are cooking the books the way they did before the 1984 Reagan-Mondale and 1988 Bush-Dukakis elections. In both cases, poll makers confidently predicted close races; both times the Democrat candidate was trounced. When polls fail like that, you have to believe that a little wishful thinking was at work, much like Dan Rather's awarding state wins to Al Gore that actually should have gone to George W. Bush.)
The press LOVES Obama. The Congressional leadership LOVE Obama. So two of the most important checks and balances on his power as President should he be elected won't work. And now he has said in a speech that he wants - in his own words - "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military.
WHY, for God's sake? Does Barack Obama propose to blockade US ports with a secret police navy like the one the KGB operated during the days of the Soviet Union? Does he want three divisions of airborne troops to be on stand-by in case he feels the need to enforce his will on a state or local government?
And who will hold Barack Obama accountable for what he does with this civilian national security force? The Supreme Court? When Obama has a press ready to cover up any misdeeds he commits and a pliant Congress to rubberstamp his decisions, nine judges in a marble-fronted building seem like a slender reed if a storm of tyranny should break out in Washington. THEY have no "civilian national security force," should it turn out that Barack Obama intends to use HIS private national police force to shred the Constitution.
The US Justice Department, you see, has had a bad habit under Democratic presidents of seeing, hearing and speaking no evil. Chuck Colson went to jail for divulging details about Defense Department employees to the press for political reasons - but under Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, Linda Tripp's boss at the Pentagon did the very same thing and wasn't even indicted, not even charged with a crime. Democrats seem to have a more flexible view of the law.
Should Barack Hussein Obama's "civilian national security force" be used to occupy a state or municipality to impose his will there in spite of what the local people might think, you would have two police forces contending for control - a situation that could only end badly.
In the most optimistic scenario, the local governments would stand up for their citizens' rights to manage their own affairs - up to and including the outbreak of conflict between Federal and local police forces. Many state governments would activate their National Guards and forbid them to be Federalized under a situation like that - or follow Texas' example and have a separate State Guard which cannot be Federalized as the National Guard can be, because it has no relationship with the US Department of Defense.
That sounds bad enough - it lays the foundation for a second Civil War - but it's not as bad as it could be.
Worse still would be if the local and state governments slunk away with their tails between their legs and Barack Hussein Obama and every other President afterward were able to dictate every detail of every American's existence by virtue of a "civilian national security force" with the same funding, personnel and logistics as the US Department of Defense.
As a nation, we might simply be persuaded to surrender our liberties along with the checks and balances which protect them, and give the occupant of the White House the power to actually do what the press only accuses George W. Bush of doing right now. George Walker Bush is no dictator. He's an amiable fumbler; John Sidney McCain would be a welcome change, a man in the White House with no patience for fools and a sharp temper.
But what is Barack Hussein Obama, that he wants a "civilian national security force" as big as the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps put together?
A dictator in the making?
