Obama’s Civilian National Security Force Be Afraid Very Afraid

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force
By Lee Cary

Barack Obama’s recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer’s sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.

Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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.” (emphasis added)

The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

“People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.”

The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled “The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama’s Plan For America,” Obama’s “Service” section runs a close second to “Education” in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs’ statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.

He plans to double the Peace Corps’ budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps – there a corps – everywhere a corps corps.

So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service “will be a central cause of my presidency.” He couldn’t be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.

The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a “giant police force.” It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it’s silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.

Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It’s Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist’s mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,

“Now I know what the cynics will say. I’ve heard from them all my life.”

Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the “cynics” for constructive criticism.

It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature “corps,” as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It’s a message like the one America’s home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.

“Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans…”

That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.

Voters haven’t paid much attention to his “Service” plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the “civilian national security force” would be just as “well-funded” as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, “billions and billions” of dollars. Here’s how.

The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut “tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.

Let’s imagine “tens of billions” in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his “civilian national security force” to be “just as well-funded” would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.

Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon’s reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That’s $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.

In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he’s never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it’s not clear if math means anything to him at all.

Note: the author has experience in community organizing. For example, he organized one of the earliest Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, in continuous service for over 30 years. He trained over a hundred Illinois non-profit organizations to resettle Vietnamese Refugees. He assembled three dozen congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, in continuous operation for 25 years. He was an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state’s Commission on Human Rights was being drafted.


Snopes: Reliably Liberal and Liberally Unreliable

Snopes: Reliably Liberal and Liberally Unreliable

I’m not sure if I ever posted the German brothel story — a story about women being told they might have to take jobs as sex-workers (i.e., whores) or lose welfare benefits — but if I did, I guess I have to note that Snopes “debunks” the story.

But a sharp-eyed reader of NRO’s The Corner debunks that debunking, and notes that Snopes is hopelessly left-leaning.

I think the same. I remember reading one “debunking.” It concerned Hillary Clinton’s volunteering to work for the criminal defense of a Black Panther accused, I think, of murder.

Snopes claimed, basically, that the story wasn’t true. Except, when you read the “debunking,” all the facts of the story were stipulated as being true. Snopes basically added “context,” arguing how important it is to give murderers the best defense and all that jazz, and, on the basis of this “context,” “determined” the story to be “false.”

Except, you know, the story wasn’t false. What Snopes was really claiming was that while the facts were true, it would be “false” to draw any negative inferences about Hillary Clinton from those facts.

Ummm, Snopes? Go F— yourself. “True” means true and “False” means false. You’re supposed to be fact-checking, not interpretation-checking.

Snopes does that with an awful lot of political stories. Time and time again, it brands stories “false” not because the facts alleged are proven to be untrue but because Snopes just sort of doesn’t like the cause the facts have been enlisted in serving.

So, read Snopes at your own risk. For urban legends and email scams, it’s a great site.

For anything having to do with politics, it’s a lefty spin-site.

Thanks for both tips to NickS.

Al-Qaida sites show support for Obama Monitor says terrorists wants Democrat to pull troops so they can ‘claim victory’

Al-Qaida sites show support for Obama
Monitor says terrorists wants Democrat to pull troops so they can ‘claim victory’

Posted: November 01, 2008
12:00 am Eastern

By Ryan Mauro
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


The call this week by an al-Qaida leader for Allah to “humiliate” President Bush and the Republican Party in Tuesday’s election was not the first tacit endorsement of Democrat Barack Obama by the terrorist network.

A contributor to a major al-Qaida website last week said the terrorist group will “let the Democrats win the presidential elections, and Obama will take it,” according to Joseph Shahda, an Arabic translator who monitors radical Islamic websites.

Obama’s “goal is to withdraw from Iraq” over a period of time, but “he will be forced to withdraw his forces from Iraq at a much earlier time,” said the Oct. 23 post, written under the name “Wissam” on the Al-Hesbah website. Shahda first posted his translation on the popular forum FreeRepublic.com.

Shahada told WND the Al-Hesbah website is one of four main al-Qaida-related forums.

“Overall there are many more posters on these forums who want McCain defeated, because they want Obama to withdraw the U.S. troops from Iraq so the terrorists will claim victory,” Shahda said.

The Oct. 23 post also called for launching a “crushing strike” after the election.


Shahda explained that all al-Qaida press releases, videos, audios and speeches are first posted on the terrorist forums.

He noted that a Q&A session in January with al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was based on questions posed by contributors to the four major websites.

In the video released Thursday, an al-Qaida leader believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Abu Yahya al-Libi, declared, “O Allah, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him.”

Libi also called for the wrath of Allah to be brought against Bush, equating him with past tyrants, according to Reuters.

The title of a Washington Post story Oct. 22 suggested the forums indicated significant al-Qaida support for John McCain.

But the story, “On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain,” cited only one posting declaring a Republican victory would benefit the terrorist network.

“Al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming election,” the Post quoted from the website posting, which also stated an attack around the time of the election could help McCain win.

“It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida will then succeed in exhausting America,” it said.

But Shahda said many postings on the Al-Hesbah website mocked the Washington Post article.

“Members were making fun of the Washington Post for not distinguishing between a member’s opinion and an al-Qaida official statement,” he said.

Shahda said that in addition to the Oct. 23 post stating al-Qaida will let Democrats win, there have been previous comments on al-Qaida-linked Internet forums speaking in favor of Obama that the media has not covered

McCain pokes fun at campaign on ‘SNL’

McCain pokes fun at campaign on ‘SNL’
Nov 2 01:41 AM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) – Republican John McCain poked fun at his presidential campaign’s financial shortcomings and his reputation as a political maverick in an appearance on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.”The presidential hopeful made a cameo appearance at the beginning of the show, with Tina Fey reprising her memorable impersonation of McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

McCain, who is trailing Democrat Barack Obama in most battleground state polls, also appeared during the show’s “Weekend Update” newscast to announce he would pursue a new campaign strategy in the closing days of the campaign.

“I thought I might try a strategy called the reverse maverick. That’s where I’d do whatever anybody tells me,” McCain said.

And if that didn’t work, “I’d go to the double maverick. I’d just go totally berserk and freak everybody out,” the Arizona senator quipped.

Earlier in the show, McCain and Fey, portraying Palin, said they couldn’t afford a half-hour campaign commercial on network television like Democrat Barack Obama aired earlier this week. They said they’d sell campaign products on the QVC shopping channel instead.

Among other things, McCain advertised a set of knives to cut through pork in Washington. His wife, Cindy McCain, briefly appeared to advertise “McCain Fine-Gold” jewelry, a play on the campaign finance law McCain authored with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

Fey, as Palin, advertised a set of “Joe” dolls commemorating Joe the Plumber, Joe Six Pack and her Democratic rival, Joe Biden.

The pretend Palin also pulled out T-shirts saying “Palin 2012” and said she wouldn’t be returning to Alaska after the election.

“I’m either running in four years or I’m going to be a white Oprah,” she said.

The Obama Bubble Could Cost the Democrats

The Obama Bubble Could Cost the Democrats

By James Lewis

Obama’s stealth campaign has now been exposed by the New Media as just another assault on power by the old-fashioned radical Left, beefed up with race-baiting demagoguery. As a result of constant New Media exposés, the Leftwing media are now discredited and widely distrusted, and teetering on the edge of a death spiral. The New York Times’ debt securities now have junk bond status from S&P.

The same ideological suicide could happen to the Democratic Party itself.


The Obama campaign, with its many incestuous links to “small ‘c’ communists” and Islamic fascists, could end up discrediting the entire Democratic Party — if Americans realize they’ve been Suckered Big by the slickest demagogue since Bill Clinton. When ordinary people find out how extreme the America-hating inner circle of Democrats really are, many of the  rank and file might just walk out in disgust. They certainly should. We’ll soon see in states like Pennsylvania.


The Obama Bubble is entirely based on telephone polls to voters who’ve been told they are racist monsters if they don’t vote for O. Under those circumstances people just don’t talk freely. That’s what intimidation did in the old Soviet Union, where it was impossible to find out the truth about the coming wheat crop because everybody lied. Polls mean nothing in this climate of media intimidation.


But regardless of who is elected on Tuesday, this election represents an amazing gamble for the Dems.  Look at this video, showing Barack Obama slyly giving the hidden finger to Hillary Clinton during one of the primary debates.  His own people burst out laughing when he pulls that very risky piece of teenage bravado. That’s what he means by audacity — and now the entire Democratic Party is stuck with Barack on his death-defying ride to become Emperor Barack I.  Even the Clinton scandals didn’t expose the Democrats to this kind of risk. They will have to live with the consequences for years to come.


The Obama Bubble may be hard to recognize today, when it has been blown up to awesome size, just like the mortgage bubble, the oil price bubble, the dot com bubble, and endless others. 


But it’s happened before: In 1948 Henry Wallace ran for the Democratic nomination. Harry Truman beat him, in good part because Wallace looked like a puppet of Joe  Stalin. Truman went on to reelection and became the first Cold War president.


The Obama campaign is the closest thing to Henry Wallace since 1948.


But there’s more. After 1948 the Democratic Party flipped from Left to Right in short order, and became the Cold War Democrats. The Wallace-Truman contest also began the downward  spiral of the US Communist Party, crashing in the 1950s, when Americans became convinced — quite accurately — that the CP-USA posed a clear and present threat. They call it “McCarthyism” today, but at that time it looked like Joe Stalin on the march with nukes in his pockets. (Those nukes were copied from plans stolen by Klaus Fuchs from the Manhattan Project.) No wonder the American people were afraid of Communist penetration of the State Department. They were right about that, too.


Today, the Obama election campaign has again exposed the whole Democratic Party as a sucker front for the radical Left. Bill Ayers is just the tip of a gigantic anti-American iceberg that now dominates US education, the media and Hollywood, the unions, and militant minorities. Don’t think people don’t know it.


In the 1940s the Wallace campaign looked like a power grab of the totalitarian Left. Today Obama looks the same. Some time soon the American people will understand that again: We’ll see whether Tuesday is the day they show it. But even if McCain loses on Tuesday the voters will still have some time for a course correction as long as the New Media survive to “tell truth to power.” Even in “soft” socialist Britain, Margaret Thatcher was elected when things really got bad.


Like the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge, the Democrats are celebrating premature victory. We’ll see very soon if they have overreached.
James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com.

Video: ACORN & Ayers’ Weathermen Are The Same Group: A Look At How Voter Fraud Is Meant To Establish A Dictatorship


Awhile ago, the socialist power structure in America quietly decided that revolution was out, and that taking over and establishing a socialist dictatorship from within, was in. Bill Ayers was not really talking about the past when he said about his days as a Leftist terrorist, an IED bomber of Americans, that he wished he’d “done more”. He was really signaling that he wasn’t finished since his work thus far had failed. He was going to do more, much more. He was putting his energy into setting up a socialist dictatorship ala Fidel Castro in America, and Barack Obama was both his stalking horse and his candidate. The first proponent of the “working from the inside” strategy was none other than William Ayers himself.

Acorn and Ayers’ terrorist organization, the Weather Underground, were both formed by their parent organization, the radical socialist S.D.S.. Barack’s claims that Ayers was a guy he met a couple of times and barely knew are completely false, straight out lies ( Reverand Manning on Obama: “He is a liar par excellance.”) Together, Obama and Ayers have doled out over one hundred million dollars. The two worked extensively and closely to support the SDS’s Leftist Dictatorship Movement by teaming together on eight, yes eight, not the one you’ve been told of, “charitable” boards in order to dole out huge sums of money to ACORN, now the largest and most powerful Leftist Dictatorship Movement organization in the country. A recent small sampling of just 35,000 people that ACORN registered to vote found that 80% of those “voters” were “garbage”, invented names allowing an indivdual voter to vote many times. Acorn has also worked behind the scenes for the last four years, after Obama was asked to train the Acorn staff, to cause the current financial crisis through a massive nationwide campaign to disrupt the business of banks with intimidation tactics and racial bullying, pushing them, in tandem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into writing an unending amount of bad loans to any minority who had a pulse. Obama still looks America in the eyes and says he has no ties to Acorn, even though he trained their staff, taught classes for them, and recently gave them almost a million dollars. In fact you will, in the video below, see Obama promise ACORN that they will be brought in as part of his transition team.

Obama and Ayers also worked closely as board members to donate money to Bill Ayers’ Leftist “Small Schools Project”.