Herr Obama's Security Service
Barack Obama's recent call for "civilian national security force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the nation's military didn't sound any better than it did in the original German.
Does that perhaps explain why those comments are being suppressed by a compliant media? Update: Anyone know what a "conbatant" is? Snark at excitable Andy's spelling error aside, his defense of Obama is an original one, essentially, "Bush is Hitler, Obama is only Himmler." Why, that's just far more reassuring isn't it? [Comments closed due to spammers]
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:57 AM
Comments
1
Obama's only responding to the recent Supreme court decision, now that it's been recognized that a "well organized militia" is permitted to have guns.
How else can we permit people to have guns, if such a militia doesn't exist? Sheesh...
How else can we permit people to have guns, if such a militia doesn't exist? Sheesh...
Posted by: redherkey at July 17, 2008 11:04 AM (kjqFg)
2
I'm glad this is getting continuing coverage in the blogosphere. We posted about Obama's "civilian national security force" about 10 days ago and are amazed that this story remains mostly unreported.
http://exurbanleague.com/2008/07/07/dont-worry-mr-godwin-has-been-notified.aspx
http://exurbanleague.com/2008/07/07/dont-worry-mr-godwin-has-been-notified.aspx
Posted by: Exurban Jon at July 17, 2008 11:08 AM (N0doa)
3
I bet they are supposed to wear brown shirts.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 17, 2008 11:21 AM (jseGi)
4
Coming after so much talk about volunteer community service organizations, it's possible that Obama is not talking about any sort of military or police force but rather is just using puffed-up language to imply that such organizations protect our national security just as much does our military. But given all his messianic and fascistic rhetoric, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: pst314 at July 17, 2008 12:23 PM (OA547)
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 17, 2008 03:08 PM (vTJkv)
6
You would have prefered what, Mr. Nolan, a link to the Komityet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti? The People's Commissariat for State Security? The Stasi? You're the historian so tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought I was being nice in choosing the state security force with the least amount of blood on its hands.
Obama's closest, earliest and longest-running influences are New Left Marxists, old school communists, and radical bomb-throwing (literally) progressives that subscribe to ideologies that gave birth to some of the most horrific agents of "state security" ever known.
When someone of his pedigree starts talking of creating a national security force as powerful, strong and as well-funded as the most powerful military in the history of the world, it is time to be very concerned about his intentions.
Obama's closest, earliest and longest-running influences are New Left Marxists, old school communists, and radical bomb-throwing (literally) progressives that subscribe to ideologies that gave birth to some of the most horrific agents of "state security" ever known.
When someone of his pedigree starts talking of creating a national security force as powerful, strong and as well-funded as the most powerful military in the history of the world, it is time to be very concerned about his intentions.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 17, 2008 03:34 PM (xNV2a)
7
Hi, Mr. Owens. I probably shouldn't have said boo, because I really don't know what Senator Obama is talking about. Neither did the writer over at HotAir, who managed, at least, not to bring up images of the freakin' Gestapo.
Truth be told, I often don't know what the young senator from Illinois is talking about.
I'm not exactly on fire for Obama. Sure, he's articulate. Sure, he's charismatic. And, yeah, I suspect his heart is in the right place. But he's so damn untested.....
In any event, I just can't buy into the image of Obama being a dangerous lunatic Marxist.... and no matter what oddball things are said in a speech here and there, I know sure in hell there ain't gonna be any Gestapo in the United States of America no matter who becomes President.
Incidentally, if any recent politician has begun to bend this country into neo-fascist territory, it would be Bush, not Obama.... but even as much as I dislike Bush (and I say that as a guy who ALWAYS voted Republican before George W. came along), I always find it ridiculously over the top when Leftists tried to pin the President as a Nazi.
Anyway, I'm gonna stop buggin' you with comments as irrelevant as these! Have a great day!
Best,
Keith
Truth be told, I often don't know what the young senator from Illinois is talking about.
I'm not exactly on fire for Obama. Sure, he's articulate. Sure, he's charismatic. And, yeah, I suspect his heart is in the right place. But he's so damn untested.....
In any event, I just can't buy into the image of Obama being a dangerous lunatic Marxist.... and no matter what oddball things are said in a speech here and there, I know sure in hell there ain't gonna be any Gestapo in the United States of America no matter who becomes President.
Incidentally, if any recent politician has begun to bend this country into neo-fascist territory, it would be Bush, not Obama.... but even as much as I dislike Bush (and I say that as a guy who ALWAYS voted Republican before George W. came along), I always find it ridiculously over the top when Leftists tried to pin the President as a Nazi.
Anyway, I'm gonna stop buggin' you with comments as irrelevant as these! Have a great day!
Best,
Keith
Posted by: KeithNolan at July 17, 2008 03:55 PM (vTJkv)
8
I looked back in the archives to see if you were a small government libertarian.
Funny, you weren't too concerned when the current president was claiming the power to lock U.S. citizens arrested in the USA forever, without a hearing or a right to a lawyer.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/207264.php
Or the power to spy on all communications in this country.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/212498.php
Seems to me you would be all in favor of a Gestapo.
Funny, you weren't too concerned when the current president was claiming the power to lock U.S. citizens arrested in the USA forever, without a hearing or a right to a lawyer.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/207264.php
Or the power to spy on all communications in this country.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/212498.php
Seems to me you would be all in favor of a Gestapo.
Posted by: galoob at July 17, 2008 04:20 PM (GFaLW)
9
The WorldNutDaily crew is at it again. If you look at the transcript of the speech, and listen to the YouTube audio, it's clear that Obama didn't follow to the letter the speech as drafted throughout the entire speech. It's not uncommon at all that the "transcript" printed in daily newspapers is actually the prepared text distributed to the media BEFORE the speech itself.
And if you read the draft of the speech and listen to the audio in context, it's more than likely that Obama was referring to putting as much money into civilian channels as military channels to secure our nation;s defense. As in: There are diplomatic ways to try to secure America's security that don't necessarily require sending in the military to wage war. Both military and civilian resources need to be available to achieve a comprehensive security.
But hey, go ahead and assume the worst, and imagine little brownshirts wandering all over the American terrain, if that's what gets you off.
At least Obama realizes that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore,so we won't be sending military or civilian forces over to Eastern Europe with a 1990s road map. Will McCain?
And if you read the draft of the speech and listen to the audio in context, it's more than likely that Obama was referring to putting as much money into civilian channels as military channels to secure our nation;s defense. As in: There are diplomatic ways to try to secure America's security that don't necessarily require sending in the military to wage war. Both military and civilian resources need to be available to achieve a comprehensive security.
But hey, go ahead and assume the worst, and imagine little brownshirts wandering all over the American terrain, if that's what gets you off.
At least Obama realizes that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore,so we won't be sending military or civilian forces over to Eastern Europe with a 1990s road map. Will McCain?
Posted by: diogenes at July 17, 2008 04:35 PM (PMlL4)
10
Diogenes (you are so misnamed) are those brown shirts going to be in all 57 States? Czechoslovakia did once exist. Where are the 7 new states coming from? I listened to the speech he gave (video on Hot Air). There is no mistaking what he said. He advocates a separate security force armed and funded equal to the U.S. Military. Why? To insure you keep your thermostat a the prescribed temperature and that your children are learning Spanish? Will Bill Ayers be in charge?
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 17, 2008 05:28 PM (J5AYY)
11
The context of the speech was comparing/contrasting the $$$$ we spend on the militaryt vs. the $$ we spend on the diplomatic service. Try to be at least a little intellectually honest. Obama's being torn up for being too liberal, and yet he slips a reference of putting together a new brownshirt brigade into a speech, in isolation? He never mentioned it before, and he hasn't mentioned it since?
Obviously, if you have your mind made up that Obama is the Antichrist, you'll never give him the benefit of any doubt, but get real.
By the way, the 57 states comment was obviously in error. But, if you take a look at the primary schedule, I believe there might have been 57 primary contest, when you factor in Guam, Puerto Rico, Washington DC et al. "Czecholoslovakia" (when you repeatedly say it) isn't a slip of the tongue. Not knowing the difference between Shias and Sunnis is not a slip of the tongue.
Obviously, if you have your mind made up that Obama is the Antichrist, you'll never give him the benefit of any doubt, but get real.
By the way, the 57 states comment was obviously in error. But, if you take a look at the primary schedule, I believe there might have been 57 primary contest, when you factor in Guam, Puerto Rico, Washington DC et al. "Czecholoslovakia" (when you repeatedly say it) isn't a slip of the tongue. Not knowing the difference between Shias and Sunnis is not a slip of the tongue.
Posted by: diogenes at July 17, 2008 05:44 PM (PMlL4)
12
Diogenes, you yourself need to "get real."
50 states + Guam + US Virgin Islands + American Samoa + "Democrats Abroad" + DC does NOT equal 57.
Simple math should not be beyond you.
The lengths some people will go to defend the Obamamessiah... sheesh!
50 states + Guam + US Virgin Islands + American Samoa + "Democrats Abroad" + DC does NOT equal 57.
Simple math should not be beyond you.
The lengths some people will go to defend the Obamamessiah... sheesh!
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 06:28 PM (e+Bm0)
13
And Puerto Rico makes 56. My hunch is that there may be one more out there that we haven't accounted for, which would make it 57. But it's not worth anybody's time to figure it out, is it?
Posted by: Diogenes at July 17, 2008 07:10 PM (PMlL4)
14
At least Obama realizes that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore
Perhaps he should clue in Sam Nunn(D-Georgia), the guy who has been mentioned as a possible Obama VP; he thinks Czechoslovakia still exists too.
Then again, Obama likes to refer to "Mesopotamia" so I wouldn't exactly rate him as a geography expert.
Perhaps he should clue in Sam Nunn(D-Georgia), the guy who has been mentioned as a possible Obama VP; he thinks Czechoslovakia still exists too.
Then again, Obama likes to refer to "Mesopotamia" so I wouldn't exactly rate him as a geography expert.
Posted by: Pardo at July 17, 2008 07:22 PM (MQVqX)
15
Actually Obambo said he had been to "57 states and still had one left to go" which means you need to account for 58 total states and territories.
But hey, we shouldn't be picking on Barack, I mean the guy was a community organizer and that is experience enough to be POTUS.
But hey, we shouldn't be picking on Barack, I mean the guy was a community organizer and that is experience enough to be POTUS.
Posted by: Thomas Churlington III at July 17, 2008 07:26 PM (MQVqX)
16
You're right, I forgot Puerto Rico. My error.
Diogenes, you were the one attempting to defend the 57 states comment... so you tell me which is the 57th state.
Or, you could just admit that you goofed, that the Obamamessiah goofed, and leave it at that. But you don't have the intellectual fortitude or honesty to do that, do you?
Diogenes, you were the one attempting to defend the 57 states comment... so you tell me which is the 57th state.
Or, you could just admit that you goofed, that the Obamamessiah goofed, and leave it at that. But you don't have the intellectual fortitude or honesty to do that, do you?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 07:55 PM (e+Bm0)
17
If you're going to play games like this, guess what the first use of 'homeland security' was? Where did that concept first show up? Try googling Heimatschutz:
At the end of the First World War Heimatschutz groups appear in Austria to protect German culture. In 1930 these groups become part of the Austrian government. In 1933 become part of the Vaterländische Front (Front of the Fatherland). When Austria was annexed by Germany in 1938 the Vaterländische Front was disbanded and the Heimatschutz groups became part of the SA and later the SS.
I did laugh out loud when I first heard the term.
At the end of the First World War Heimatschutz groups appear in Austria to protect German culture. In 1930 these groups become part of the Austrian government. In 1933 become part of the Vaterländische Front (Front of the Fatherland). When Austria was annexed by Germany in 1938 the Vaterländische Front was disbanded and the Heimatschutz groups became part of the SA and later the SS.
I did laugh out loud when I first heard the term.
Posted by: stefan at July 17, 2008 08:11 PM (gm6mQ)
18
Your concern is duly noted - & about 5 years late.
Can you say "Blackwater"?
Go on, say it.
BLACKWATER.
They're most definitely NOT a rhetorical point in some pol's speech - they exist, they're not legally limited the way regular cops or soldiers are - & they ought to frighten the hell out of you. They've already acted in a manner either violent or coercively intimidating to law-abiding Americans, including US troops in Iraq. Where was your outrage in 2005 or 2007?
Can you say "Blackwater"?
Go on, say it.
BLACKWATER.
They're most definitely NOT a rhetorical point in some pol's speech - they exist, they're not legally limited the way regular cops or soldiers are - & they ought to frighten the hell out of you. They've already acted in a manner either violent or coercively intimidating to law-abiding Americans, including US troops in Iraq. Where was your outrage in 2005 or 2007?
Posted by: jim at July 17, 2008 08:12 PM (Kyveh)
19
Holy cr-p! Confederate Yankee (is that better, you delicate Confederate, you?) suddenly cares about government power, an aggressive lawless executive, and the erosion of civil rights. Someone check the temperature in Hades (is that also better for you? wouldn't want to offend your delicate ears).
Posted by: Ted at July 17, 2008 08:14 PM (HX0Df)
20
I think Obama meant to refer to the number of primary contests, and it's not surprising that he didn't know the exact number. Remember that some states (like Texas) had two contests, a primary and a caucus. We can spend our energy second-guessing a harried and stressed out candidate or we can talk about something meaningful.
Posted by: RBZ at July 17, 2008 08:15 PM (06B2Q)
21
We can spend our energy second-guessing a harried and stressed out candidate or we can talk about something meaningful.
Or we can do what CY wants: talk about how Obama's LIKE A NAZI!! OMG
It's fun!
Or we can do what CY wants: talk about how Obama's LIKE A NAZI!! OMG
It's fun!
Posted by: Ted at July 17, 2008 08:17 PM (HX0Df)
22
Do you ever watch Obama and ask yourself why he's in the race? What really drives him?
Watch him with the volume turned off. He's really not that good. Pan left, look up. Look like Christ. Pan right. Look up. Look like Moses sharing the message of God. Look right. Wince. Look left. Wince. Back and forth, never connecting with anyone in the audience like Reagan or Kennedy would. Poseur all the way, and not an exceptional one at that.
His command of issues is about that of a penny stock "merchant banker" we put in jail after running four companies into the ground through blatant market manipulation and fraud. This fellow would study a real CEO for a day or so, and then adopt his mannerisms and language at about 90% the effectiveness. If you knew the material, you knew something was always slightly off. Probe them (if you ever could get past their evasiveness and other con techniques) and you'd eventually find no substance. Just a phantom. If you chased them on an issue, they'd ink up the water like an octopus, leaving you grasping at nothing. Misdirection, shifting the issues, absurd counter attacks, etc. were all common. Idiotic comments about citizen armies may be just some of that intended to get us arguing about something he'll only later deny and claim we're kooks for suggesting it. It's remarkably nonunique and pathetic for a presidential candidate, but he has no leadership qualities, no experience and only a marginal intelligence. What else is he going to do?
The good news about most of those types is that they're easily bought off, seeking mere millions. The bad news is those who discover these fools as puppets to do their bidding. I'm curious if we'll find connections to Soros or some other exceptionally intelligent yet ruthless type behind this mediocre poseur.
Watch him with the volume turned off. He's really not that good. Pan left, look up. Look like Christ. Pan right. Look up. Look like Moses sharing the message of God. Look right. Wince. Look left. Wince. Back and forth, never connecting with anyone in the audience like Reagan or Kennedy would. Poseur all the way, and not an exceptional one at that.
His command of issues is about that of a penny stock "merchant banker" we put in jail after running four companies into the ground through blatant market manipulation and fraud. This fellow would study a real CEO for a day or so, and then adopt his mannerisms and language at about 90% the effectiveness. If you knew the material, you knew something was always slightly off. Probe them (if you ever could get past their evasiveness and other con techniques) and you'd eventually find no substance. Just a phantom. If you chased them on an issue, they'd ink up the water like an octopus, leaving you grasping at nothing. Misdirection, shifting the issues, absurd counter attacks, etc. were all common. Idiotic comments about citizen armies may be just some of that intended to get us arguing about something he'll only later deny and claim we're kooks for suggesting it. It's remarkably nonunique and pathetic for a presidential candidate, but he has no leadership qualities, no experience and only a marginal intelligence. What else is he going to do?
The good news about most of those types is that they're easily bought off, seeking mere millions. The bad news is those who discover these fools as puppets to do their bidding. I'm curious if we'll find connections to Soros or some other exceptionally intelligent yet ruthless type behind this mediocre poseur.
Posted by: redherkey at July 17, 2008 08:19 PM (kjqFg)
23
RBZ, I ain't the one that brought it up in this thread. I am just pointing out the absurd lengths you Obamamaniacs will go to in order to defend your Obamamessiah.
And your argument doesn't make him look any better... does he not know the difference between a state and a primary contest?
Are you also unable to just admit that your Obamamessiah has goofed?
And your argument doesn't make him look any better... does he not know the difference between a state and a primary contest?
Are you also unable to just admit that your Obamamessiah has goofed?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 08:20 PM (e+Bm0)
24
The other translation of 'homeland security department' is Reichssicherheitshauptamt, which like the homeland security department was a crisis induced merger of security services, in this case the Sicherheitsdienst, Kriminalpolizei and Gestapo, in September 1939.
Again, naming the homeland security department after to Nazi organization was a bit odd.
And you guys go after Obama's terminology.
Again, naming the homeland security department after to Nazi organization was a bit odd.
And you guys go after Obama's terminology.
Posted by: stefan at July 17, 2008 08:21 PM (gm6mQ)
25
The fact is, Obama is a Nazi and a Communist and a terrorist, he does the fist jab with his wife, he is also hard left and hates the USA. He will outlaw Christianity and the Free Market. Its not too late to cancel the elections, I only trust bush and Cheney to keep order and keep us safe.
Posted by: Gary Ruppert at July 17, 2008 08:27 PM (EkC04)
26
Are you also unable to just admit that your Obamamessiah has goofed?
You're right, moron. We need a president who's filled volumes of books with quotes that make him sound like he's mentally retarded. Awesome! We've already got one!
You're right, moron. We need a president who's filled volumes of books with quotes that make him sound like he's mentally retarded. Awesome! We've already got one!
Posted by: Ted at July 17, 2008 08:28 PM (HX0Df)
27
Here comes the BDS... what is so hard, Ted, about saying, "Obama made an error" or "Obama was incorrect"?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 08:38 PM (e+Bm0)
28
Oh, for the record, all you Obamamaniacs, I have no problem saying Bush was wrong on several occasions... such as Harriet Miers, "comprehensive immigration reform," and other issues.
Can you be that honest about Obama's mistakes? I doubt it.
Can you be that honest about Obama's mistakes? I doubt it.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 08:43 PM (e+Bm0)
29
Also, you do know that Gestapo, short for Geheime Staatspolizei, translates as 'secret state police' and not 'civilian national security force'? I cannot come up with any Nazi agency that translates to 'civilian national security force.'
Posted by: stefan at July 17, 2008 08:43 PM (gm6mQ)
30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008
Scroll down and count the total number of primaries and caucuses. There were 57. So Obama thought there were 58, and he called them "states. instead of "primaries and caucuses." DISQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT!!!
God, you people are morons.
Scroll down and count the total number of primaries and caucuses. There were 57. So Obama thought there were 58, and he called them "states. instead of "primaries and caucuses." DISQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT!!!
God, you people are morons.
Posted by: commie atheist at July 17, 2008 08:46 PM (ihIKc)
31
And you guys go after Obama's terminology.
Terminology? No, I'm not nearly as worried about his terminology as I am his deeply held conviction that the answer to all the world's problems, large and small, is just another government program here, and a slight tax raising over there. He is a man intent on building a government big and powerful enough to give you everything, purposefully turning a blind eye to the fact that a government powerful to provide it all, can take it all... and typically does.
He thinks he is clever enough to make it work.
He isn't.
And you guys go after Obama's terminology.
Terminology? No, I'm not nearly as worried about his terminology as I am his deeply held conviction that the answer to all the world's problems, large and small, is just another government program here, and a slight tax raising over there. He is a man intent on building a government big and powerful enough to give you everything, purposefully turning a blind eye to the fact that a government powerful to provide it all, can take it all... and typically does.
He thinks he is clever enough to make it work.
He isn't.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 17, 2008 08:47 PM (HcgFD)
32
A "moron" is someone who confuses a "state" with a primary or caucus.
And no, it's not a disqualification... it is, however, very instructive to watch you people rush around and defend the Obamamessiah for what should simply be admitted was a mistake.
You are so deep in the tank for Obama that you cannot bring yourself to admit that he simply is a normal human who makes mistakes!
That's the hilarious part of all of this. If one of you would just say, "Obama made a mistake," you'd prove my entire point in this thread wrong.
But you can't do it.
Hope that Kool-aid is tasty.
And no, it's not a disqualification... it is, however, very instructive to watch you people rush around and defend the Obamamessiah for what should simply be admitted was a mistake.
You are so deep in the tank for Obama that you cannot bring yourself to admit that he simply is a normal human who makes mistakes!
That's the hilarious part of all of this. If one of you would just say, "Obama made a mistake," you'd prove my entire point in this thread wrong.
But you can't do it.
Hope that Kool-aid is tasty.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 08:50 PM (e+Bm0)
33
"The fact is, Obama is a Nazi and a Communist and a terrorist, he does the fist jab with his wife, he is also hard left and hates the USA. He will outlaw Christianity and the Free Market. Its not too late to cancel the elections, I only trust bush and Cheney to keep order and keep us safe."
Man, you should be a comedy writer. that was some of the best fiction i have read in a long time. Good to know, of course, that you don't believe that. Right?
Man, you should be a comedy writer. that was some of the best fiction i have read in a long time. Good to know, of course, that you don't believe that. Right?
Posted by: Fred Jones at July 17, 2008 08:56 PM (FKJRi)
34
Uhhh, C-C-G, buddy? Wanna check to see what I said at the outset?
"By the way, the 57 states comment was obviously in error."
Error = mistake = wrong. At least, in English.
Saying that Russia has recently threatened Czechoslovakia (not once, but twice in the last week) isn't exactly the same.
Not being able to tell the difference between Shias and Sunnis when it's so vital to what's happening in the Middle East is downright criminal.
"By the way, the 57 states comment was obviously in error."
Error = mistake = wrong. At least, in English.
Saying that Russia has recently threatened Czechoslovakia (not once, but twice in the last week) isn't exactly the same.
Not being able to tell the difference between Shias and Sunnis when it's so vital to what's happening in the Middle East is downright criminal.
Posted by: diogenes at July 17, 2008 08:57 PM (PMlL4)
Posted by: commie atheist at July 17, 2008 08:57 PM (ihIKc)
36
CY writes:
"Terminology? No, I'm not nearly as worried about his terminology"
CY you should engage the ideas you don't like instead of claiming that mentioning "civilian national security force" as a short hand for the notion that civilian (non-military) agencies have national security functions somehow even suggests that Obama wants a Gestapo, which is just assuming your conclusion. Where is your problem with what Obama actually said?
For instance, could you tell me which additional fearsome programs Obama is actually suggesting?
As for tax increases, those are coming. Or inflation. Or cutting social security benefits for current retirees and those close to retirement. That's just the way the government budget adds up. Fighting an expensive war and bailing out the mortgage GSEs is going to cost money, and Obama didn't create these problems. He'll just have to fix them.
Seriously, do you think calling people Nazis works to persuade? Do people calling Republicans Nazis strike you as insightful and persuasive? If not, why should it work the other way around?
"Terminology? No, I'm not nearly as worried about his terminology"
CY you should engage the ideas you don't like instead of claiming that mentioning "civilian national security force" as a short hand for the notion that civilian (non-military) agencies have national security functions somehow even suggests that Obama wants a Gestapo, which is just assuming your conclusion. Where is your problem with what Obama actually said?
For instance, could you tell me which additional fearsome programs Obama is actually suggesting?
As for tax increases, those are coming. Or inflation. Or cutting social security benefits for current retirees and those close to retirement. That's just the way the government budget adds up. Fighting an expensive war and bailing out the mortgage GSEs is going to cost money, and Obama didn't create these problems. He'll just have to fix them.
Seriously, do you think calling people Nazis works to persuade? Do people calling Republicans Nazis strike you as insightful and persuasive? If not, why should it work the other way around?
Posted by: Stefan at July 17, 2008 08:59 PM (gm6mQ)
37
Ahh, I do apologize, Diogenes. You did, in fact, admit the error.
Congrats, Commie. You've taken your first step towards being a conservative; admitting Obama can be wrong.
Congrats, Commie. You've taken your first step towards being a conservative; admitting Obama can be wrong.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 17, 2008 09:00 PM (e+Bm0)
38
Clearly, Bob Owens is not aware of the internet tradition of Godwin's law.
Posted by: commie atheist at July 17, 2008 09:01 PM (ihIKc)
39
Quit bothering the Messiah™, he has important work to do. The guy made a decision based on the facts, its just that he decided to research the facts after making his decision. Sorta like the surge.
I would point you to the Obama website for proof but it seems that his staffers have scrubbed his previous disapproval of said surge.
Hope and Change and a Bunch of Other Stuff '08!
I would point you to the Obama website for proof but it seems that his staffers have scrubbed his previous disapproval of said surge.
Hope and Change and a Bunch of Other Stuff '08!
Posted by: Beth from Oregon at July 17, 2008 09:11 PM (MQVqX)
40
Whaaaaaat? The Tinted John Edwards made a mistake? Perish the thought! I guess Rolling Stone will have to reissue a new mag without the halo around Obama's head.
Wait...am I allowed to criticize the guy or would that make me a racist?
Wait...am I allowed to criticize the guy or would that make me a racist?
Posted by: CaG at July 17, 2008 09:15 PM (MQVqX)
41
Aww Gary Rupert, we missed you!
I can't believe the irony in calling out Obama for big gov't and spending. Wow. Just...wow. Blinded by ideology, I s'pose. Couldn't possibly have happened with ol' Bush in the Whitehouse.
I can't believe the irony in calling out Obama for big gov't and spending. Wow. Just...wow. Blinded by ideology, I s'pose. Couldn't possibly have happened with ol' Bush in the Whitehouse.
Posted by: phewd at July 17, 2008 09:27 PM (cIfHT)
42
turning a blind eye to the fact that a government powerful to provide it all, can take it all... and typically does.
Obama isn't turning a blind eye, he is counting on his blindly adoring brain dead followers to turn a blind eye. You think a man who considers himself "the one" doesn't expect to have iron-clad control once he gains power? He is Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, PolPot, or name your own brutal dictator, doing a good job fooling the fools as a masquerading snake oil salesman.
Obama isn't turning a blind eye, he is counting on his blindly adoring brain dead followers to turn a blind eye. You think a man who considers himself "the one" doesn't expect to have iron-clad control once he gains power? He is Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, PolPot, or name your own brutal dictator, doing a good job fooling the fools as a masquerading snake oil salesman.
Posted by: Sara at July 17, 2008 09:31 PM (Wi/N0)
43
Folks, the Nazi meme started when the conservatives began seeing Obama being able to repeatedly fill arenas and other huge venues with excited fans, before the primary had even ended. They're simply jealous. They wish their own candidate could do that, instead of being barely able to fill a high school gym.
So, when trying to grapple with this enormous and embarrassing disparity they're seeking anything that can turn what appears to be a gigantic enthusiasm gap into something sinister.
We can just sit back and enjoy it, pointing and laughing.
So, when trying to grapple with this enormous and embarrassing disparity they're seeking anything that can turn what appears to be a gigantic enthusiasm gap into something sinister.
We can just sit back and enjoy it, pointing and laughing.
Posted by: Ted at July 17, 2008 10:40 PM (HX0Df)
44
Somewhat on topic. Obama called for the creation of a civilian national security militia equal in power and funding to the U.S. Military as his plans for national security cannot be fulfilled by our military. What about the National Guard? Wonder what Obamameister plans to call this new security aparatus? Security Service (SS) has a nice ring to it. A force to make sure citizens do not make unauthorized trips to Mexico or Canada. I think Bill Ayers should be in charge. He knows what temperature we should keep our houses. We need a security force to make sure no unauthorized person owns or operates a SUV.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 17, 2008 10:53 PM (J5AYY)
45
I disappointing to see that comments on this blog subject seem to be far off the real issues. You can lip-fart all you want about the Nazi Gestapo and the Soviet-controlled East-German STASSI, but that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that Obama has, without doing his mandatory homework, advocated a organization that emulates the Nazi SS, not the Gestapo, and not the Soviet-controlled East German STASSI. I'm still searching for comparable Soviet organizations established by Yousef Vissaronovich Dhugashvili (that monster called Joseph Stalin!).
To the Obama apologists, go back and take the time to listen to what this guy is saying. Is he advocating a organization with the same power, weapons, budget and influence as the current US military? Is he advocating that this organization will be subject to the same ethics standards imposed on the US military? I don't think so. Why do I get the feeling that Obama, whose political career was launched by the criminal terrorist likes of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn (as well as Mike Klonsky) are now showing up in Obama organization activities, but neither the Obamasiah nor his acolytes seem to have the answer. Why???
For those of you on the thoroughly illiterate left, do take the time to read Richard Rhodes' book "Masters of Death" if you want to know what Nazi mass murder was all about. At the same time, read Robert Conquest's "The Great Terror", "Stalin, the Breaker of Nations", and "Harvest of Sorrow", as well as Brent and Naumov's "Stalin's Last Crime' to establish a meaningful perspective on what happened in the 1930 -- 1950 timeframe in the Soviet Union and its East European puppet states. Tell me what was the difference between Stalinism and Fascism? For those of you stuck on the myth that Saddam would never collaborate with Al-Queda fundamentalists, do take the time to read Jan T. Gross's "Revolution from Abroad" to learn about the bat guano associated with how Stalin would have never collaborated with Hitler in 1939. In the end there is no difference between Saddam/Al-Queda and Hitler/Stalin. Got that folks??
To the Obama apologists, go back and take the time to listen to what this guy is saying. Is he advocating a organization with the same power, weapons, budget and influence as the current US military? Is he advocating that this organization will be subject to the same ethics standards imposed on the US military? I don't think so. Why do I get the feeling that Obama, whose political career was launched by the criminal terrorist likes of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn (as well as Mike Klonsky) are now showing up in Obama organization activities, but neither the Obamasiah nor his acolytes seem to have the answer. Why???
For those of you on the thoroughly illiterate left, do take the time to read Richard Rhodes' book "Masters of Death" if you want to know what Nazi mass murder was all about. At the same time, read Robert Conquest's "The Great Terror", "Stalin, the Breaker of Nations", and "Harvest of Sorrow", as well as Brent and Naumov's "Stalin's Last Crime' to establish a meaningful perspective on what happened in the 1930 -- 1950 timeframe in the Soviet Union and its East European puppet states. Tell me what was the difference between Stalinism and Fascism? For those of you stuck on the myth that Saddam would never collaborate with Al-Queda fundamentalists, do take the time to read Jan T. Gross's "Revolution from Abroad" to learn about the bat guano associated with how Stalin would have never collaborated with Hitler in 1939. In the end there is no difference between Saddam/Al-Queda and Hitler/Stalin. Got that folks??
Posted by: Mescalero at July 17, 2008 11:17 PM (Gwatu)
46
Did you even listen to the tape at Hot Air? He's not talking about an armed civilian national security force. He's talking about how the programs that preceded that line will improve our national security. He talks about civilian volunteers for environmental work, helping vets to find jobs, strengthening the Peace Corps, etc. It's not an armed militia. Is there anything that you will not take out of context?
Posted by: Fauxmaxbaer at July 18, 2008 07:48 AM (llghH)
47
"Is there anything that you will not take out of context? "
He's not taking anything out of context. He's putting the world into context - his context. It all makes sense if you start from the premise that conservatism is the one true way and that your job is to lead others into the light - even if it means you have to disregard the old notions of right and wrong.
He's not taking anything out of context. He's putting the world into context - his context. It all makes sense if you start from the premise that conservatism is the one true way and that your job is to lead others into the light - even if it means you have to disregard the old notions of right and wrong.
Posted by: Faust at July 18, 2008 07:53 AM (+dx2l)
48
Do you guys happen to know that one of the few things that our Founding Fathers agreed on is that we should NOT have a standing military?
In fact, the second amendment that you turn into a fetish object, was created specifically to prevent the US from having a standing army, because, the thinking went, if we had a "well-regulated militia" we wouldn't need to have a bunch of generals warming seats in the Pentagon.
So pardon Senator Obama all to hell for suggesting something that the Founding Fathers wanted, but that we as a country have mostly forgotten while military contractors make lawmakers and vice-presidents rich.
Oh, if you want sources for the bit about the Founding Fathers not wanting a standing army, you can start with Madison, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. If you google their names, you'll find out who they are.
In fact, the second amendment that you turn into a fetish object, was created specifically to prevent the US from having a standing army, because, the thinking went, if we had a "well-regulated militia" we wouldn't need to have a bunch of generals warming seats in the Pentagon.
So pardon Senator Obama all to hell for suggesting something that the Founding Fathers wanted, but that we as a country have mostly forgotten while military contractors make lawmakers and vice-presidents rich.
Oh, if you want sources for the bit about the Founding Fathers not wanting a standing army, you can start with Madison, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. If you google their names, you'll find out who they are.
Posted by: PopeRatzo at July 18, 2008 07:58 AM (q6xG/)
49
These far left wing fanatical nut jobs have been calling Conservatives and Republicans Nazi's for years.....decades even. Then one reference here and they all go bezerk. What a bunch of intellectually dishonest Marxists.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 18, 2008 08:09 AM (kNqJV)
50
Do you guys happen to know that one of the few things that our Founding Fathers agreed on is that we should NOT have a standing military?
I wonder if they consulted General George Washington about that, right before they sent the standing military (under his command) to fight the redcoats?
You do realize that the guys in the blue coats were members of our military, don't you?
Good lord......how do you even manage to sign onto the internet?
I wonder if they consulted General George Washington about that, right before they sent the standing military (under his command) to fight the redcoats?
You do realize that the guys in the blue coats were members of our military, don't you?
Good lord......how do you even manage to sign onto the internet?
Posted by: RW at July 18, 2008 08:31 AM (mHiW8)
51
These far left wing fanatical nut jobs have been calling Conservatives and Republicans Nazi's for years.....decades even.
Surely adopting one of those effective left wing nut job tactics is a smart move. Is this the way CY's sort conservatism works now? Any other fanatical left wing nut job ideas CY wants to pick up? Seriously, what makes imitating these sort of silly nut job tactics a good idea?
These far left wing fanatical nut jobs have been calling Conservatives and Republicans Nazi's for years.....decades even.
Surely adopting one of those effective left wing nut job tactics is a smart move. Is this the way CY's sort conservatism works now? Any other fanatical left wing nut job ideas CY wants to pick up? Seriously, what makes imitating these sort of silly nut job tactics a good idea?
Posted by: stefan at July 18, 2008 08:35 AM (gm6mQ)
52
Look who else in on the Obama line here...drumroll...Defense secretary Gates:
In the campaign against terrorist networks and other extremists, we know that direct military force will continue to have a role. But over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. What the Pentagon calls “kinetic” operations should be subordinate to measures to promote participation in government, economic programs to spur development, and efforts to address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies and among the discontented from which the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideology. ...Overall, even outside Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military has become more involved in a range of activities that in the past were perceived to be the exclusive province of civilian agencies and organizations. .... As a career CIA officer I watched with some dismay the increasing dominance of the defense 800 pound gorilla in the intelligence arena over the years. But that scenario can be avoided if – as is the case with the intelligence community today – there is the right leadership, adequate funding of civilian agencies, effective coordination on the ground, and a clear understanding of the authorities, roles, and understandings of military versus civilian efforts, and how they fit, or in some cases don’t fit, together.
In the campaign against terrorist networks and other extremists, we know that direct military force will continue to have a role. But over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. What the Pentagon calls “kinetic” operations should be subordinate to measures to promote participation in government, economic programs to spur development, and efforts to address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies and among the discontented from which the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideology. ...Overall, even outside Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military has become more involved in a range of activities that in the past were perceived to be the exclusive province of civilian agencies and organizations. .... As a career CIA officer I watched with some dismay the increasing dominance of the defense 800 pound gorilla in the intelligence arena over the years. But that scenario can be avoided if – as is the case with the intelligence community today – there is the right leadership, adequate funding of civilian agencies, effective coordination on the ground, and a clear understanding of the authorities, roles, and understandings of military versus civilian efforts, and how they fit, or in some cases don’t fit, together.
Posted by: stefan at July 18, 2008 11:47 AM (gm6mQ)
53
More of DoD Secrtary Gates:
America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long -- relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world.
Sounds like Obama: a) civilian agencies are important to our national security strategy and b) they need well-funded. I know, crazy talk.
America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long -- relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world.
Sounds like Obama: a) civilian agencies are important to our national security strategy and b) they need well-funded. I know, crazy talk.
Posted by: stefan at July 18, 2008 12:01 PM (gm6mQ)
54
Not even a very nice try, stefan. Are you that blinded by his Holiness that you can't even correctly read Gates' speech?
Gates was clearly pointing to continued failures at the State Department and CIA that have resulted in the DoD having to pick up the slack for both diplomatic efforts and intelligence gathering. He wants these existing agencies to do their damn jobs, so DoD can focus on doing there's.
Obama, on the other hand, specifically said he wanted a "national security force."
"National" means United States, or domestic in nature, not a international force.
Security means "police."
Unless Obama was uttering "just words," he was advocating domestic state security, such as all the wonderful agencies of the various countries listed in comments above.
That he would make plainly state his intentions to make his SS "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the strongest military in the history of Planet Earth should be a cause for concern for everyone, and not just becuase he's talking of creating another massive bureaucracy and colossal tax burden.
Why does a free nation that already has the FBI, ATF, and DHS on the federal level, SBIs, state police, and highway patrols on the state level, in conjunction with local sheriffs and police agencies, with the backing the Army and Air Force National Guard and Coast Guard units for the most extreme emergencies, need an additional national domestic security apparatus dwarfing all current federal law enforcement agencies, equal in power and scope to the military?
I'm getting a lot of snark from you lefties, but precious few explanations of why a free nation would need such an imposing force useful only against it's own citizenry.
Gates was clearly pointing to continued failures at the State Department and CIA that have resulted in the DoD having to pick up the slack for both diplomatic efforts and intelligence gathering. He wants these existing agencies to do their damn jobs, so DoD can focus on doing there's.
Obama, on the other hand, specifically said he wanted a "national security force."
"National" means United States, or domestic in nature, not a international force.
Security means "police."
Unless Obama was uttering "just words," he was advocating domestic state security, such as all the wonderful agencies of the various countries listed in comments above.
That he would make plainly state his intentions to make his SS "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the strongest military in the history of Planet Earth should be a cause for concern for everyone, and not just becuase he's talking of creating another massive bureaucracy and colossal tax burden.
Why does a free nation that already has the FBI, ATF, and DHS on the federal level, SBIs, state police, and highway patrols on the state level, in conjunction with local sheriffs and police agencies, with the backing the Army and Air Force National Guard and Coast Guard units for the most extreme emergencies, need an additional national domestic security apparatus dwarfing all current federal law enforcement agencies, equal in power and scope to the military?
I'm getting a lot of snark from you lefties, but precious few explanations of why a free nation would need such an imposing force useful only against it's own citizenry.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 18, 2008 12:25 PM (xNV2a)
55
What about Jim's observation about Blackwater, a private mercenary army funded by the taxpayers? Didn't they terrorize Katrina victims? Are they subject to rules of law or military conduct?
Posted by: ignatov at July 18, 2008 12:40 PM (uDJ23)
56
Please don't bowdlerize the original quote. Molly Ivins was referring to Pat Buchanan's speech before the 1992 Republican Convention when she said his speech “probably sounded better in the original German.”
Posted by: bonnie tamres at July 18, 2008 05:48 PM (rQ1Uq)
57
Ivins didn't coin the phrase, bonnie she just borrowed it. I remember hearing it as far back as the mid-80s, and I rather suspect it went back quite a bit further than that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 18, 2008 06:11 PM (HcgFD)
58
CY, to liberals time began the first time they heard or experienced something
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 18, 2008 06:55 PM (kNqJV)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0127 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0073 seconds, 66 records returned.
Page size 45 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.