Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 701612)

Nothing in the article you posted about National Guard.

The accusations you implicate, IMO, are insulting to millions who lost their lives in the Holocaust ... we'll discuss why ... later.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 701612)

Nothing in the article you posted about National Guard.

The accusations you implicate, IMO, are insulting to millions who lost their lives in the Holocaust ... we'll discuss why ... later.

Originally Posted by scotty (Post 701610)

Details of this come out during the campaign and quickly disappeared. This will in essence make all local law enforcement fall under the same rules as the National Guard. Those rules are: National Guard is a local state run militia that can be activated in the event of an emergency by the federal government as directed by the federal government.

In other words, Obama will be able cry "wolf" and take authority over our local police. Sound familiar ? This mirrors the same system Hitler put in place as a prelude to the creation of the SS.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090208/...obama_security

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 701616)

How you are able to infer all of this from this one article shows your obvious bias and propensity for hysterics.

He won ... game over ... try again in 2012

Originally Posted by Cindy (Post 701618)

Good grief, what are you 10 years old?
:nahnah

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 701616)

How you are able to infer all of this from this one article shows your obvious bias and propensity for hysterics.

He won ... game over ... try again in 2012

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 701627)

My wife's family is Jewish. One thing that a lot of non-Jewish people never notice is how often so many compare their political adversaries to "Hitler". Jews get tired of hearing it because people have compared Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, etc. to Hitler...and NONE of them come close to being as evil as Hitler. Now, to compare Obama to Hitler is to essentially downgrade Hitler's evil to that of an average American politician. That's offensive to some Jews, especially a sizable number of the Jewish community who voted for him.

Now, on another note, most Western countries around the World including Britain, Israel, Canada, Italy, and many, many, many more have a process whereby local law enforcement can be placed under the authority of the national government, especially in the event of a national emergency.

None of this is unexpected. I'm all for diligence and keeping an eye on this kind of thing...but this is par for the course in the post-9/11 world we live in.

I think we should be weary of those who cry wolf. Think about it... a lot of the same people who are crying wolf with Obama right now unconditionally supported the Bush Administration's Patriot Act and the preemptive invasion of Iraq which was based on highly questionable intelligence. If you ask me, that's far closer to being despot than anything we've seen to date.

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 701627)

My wife's family is Jewish. One thing that a lot of non-Jewish people never notice is how often so many compare their political adversaries to "Hitler". Jews get tired of hearing it because people have compared Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, etc. to Hitler...and NONE of them come close to being as evil as Hitler. Now, to compare Obama to Hitler is to essentially downgrade Hitler's evil to that of an average American politician. That's offensive to some Jews, especially a sizable number of the Jewish community who voted for him.

Oh for the love of Pete will ya'll get over yourselves !! There is no comparison like this being made on this thread ! Wow, the attempt to build a city on a garden plot here is just amazing.

Now, on another note, most Western countries around the World including Britain, Israel, Canada, Italy, and many, many, many more have a process whereby local law enforcement can be placed under the authority of the national government, especially in the event of a national emergency.

None of this is unexpected. I'm all for diligence and keeping an eye on this kind of thing...but this is par for the course in the post-9/11 world we live in.

Exactly, but, what you speak of is already in place. It was put into place within the policies of the Homeland Security Department. So why this ?

I think we should be weary of those who cry wolf. Think about it... a lot of the same people who are crying wolf with Obama right now unconditionally supported the Bush Administration's Patriot Act and the preemptive invasion of Iraq which was based on highly questionable intelligence. If you ask me, that's far closer to being despot than anything we've seen to date.

Originally Posted by scotty (Post 701636)

And this is just more :blah in a direction that is not intended here. I could care less about everyones political asspirations based on what little knowledge they have of true government operations. (and yes , I know you work for the federal government, still does not hold water as I have seen your post in this area before)

I had no problem with the Patriot Act, as far as Im concerned, those who truley believed that the government is listening to them whispering sweet nothings to there girlfriends are right up there with the UFO loonies. If your not discussing bomb building then they didnt care less about your phone calls to grandma.

And start another thread if you really want to rehash Iraq because your statement above is right off the script from last weeks "The View"..

If Bush ever pushed a policy to have a federal police force I would have been calling him on it too.

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 701639)

Bro, the point is, this was already in works long before Obama. Obama's just the man of the hour who's going to go with one of the plans that's been discussed for the past few years.

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 701639)

Bro, the point is, this was already in works long before Obama. Obama's just the man of the hour who's going with one of the plans that's been discussed for the past few years. Things like this weren't just thought up yesterday by the Obama Administration. Plus consider how much many of these agency heads have been pressuring the White House to streamline their domestic security and law enforcement processes since 9/11. Obama isn't the only one pushing this agenda. This has been in the works and is supported by many high level agency heads.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 701641)

Obama's words: "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.

Originally Posted by scotty (Post 701646)

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 701647)

The bigger question is, "Why is it necessary?" If there is a civil war in this country, and it is surely heading in that direction, civilians will protect themselves with their own firearms. If it is outside interference, Americans always rally and the military enlisting rises. There is no need, IMO, for a civilian force.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 701641)

You are right, it did start with the Clintons. The government funds half of Public Allies through Clinton's Americorps. Obama wants to have it fully funded and expand it to a national program. It is estimated to cost about $500 billion.

Obama's words: "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 701654)

You're exactly right. A lot of people don't have a clue. Even the majority of the policies found in the Patriot Act were drafted under President Clinton as a response to the first WTC attack in 1993 and were opposed by the GOP. Very little of the Patriot Act was from the Bush Administration. Even the controversial wiretapping processes were part of Clinton's package. Many don't know that it was the Republican Congress that rejected and defeated Clinton's domestic security policies, challenging them on Constitutional grounds, and accusing President Clinton of trying to distract Americans from his scandalous affair with Monica Lewinski when he launched cruise missile attacks to kill bin Laden and disrupt al Queda. Clinton even sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, providing better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans in Congress because of opposition from the NRA.

It's all a mess.

But the point is.... much of this has been in the works long before Obama.

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 701654)

You're exactly right. A lot of people don't have a clue. Even the majority of the policies found in the Patriot Act were drafted under President Clinton as a response to the first WTC attack in 1993 and were opposed by the GOP. Very little of the Patriot Act was from the Bush Administration. Even the controversial wiretapping processes were part of Clinton's package. Many don't know that it was the Republican Congress that rejected and defeated Clinton's domestic security policies, challenging them on Constitutional grounds, and accusing President Clinton of trying to distract Americans from his scandalous affair with Monica Lewinski when he launched cruise missile attacks to kill bin Laden and disrupt al Queda. Clinton even sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, providing better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans in Congress because of opposition from the NRA.

It's all a mess.

But the point is.... much of this has been in the works long before Obama.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 701656)

You are correct, BUT Obama has been a tool for them. As you see he set up the Public Allies deal in 1992.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 701633)

Not exactly a cry of "wolf", Aquila. It is a known fact that Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies which he started in 1992. It is a non-profit group and he plans/planned to use it as a model for a national service corps.

He calls the program, ""Universal Voluntary Public Service". The program promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies.

The contention is that we have military and local law enforcement, which makes this program suspect and a precursor of the ideology of Hitler's youth program.

I would also like to point out that 70% of it's recruits are "people of color".

Not a cry of "wolf" by any means.

Originally Posted by scotty (Post 701659)

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 701672)

Serious, the DANGER that some are hysterical about can not happen.

There are too many "safeties" in place to prevent it, right now.


Besides, maybe if the government had something similar to what President Obama is attempting to establish, Hurricane Katrina operations would not have gone so badly and their police would not have abandoned their city.


And how does the "color" of the people recruited for this matter?

Could it be that those recruited are the ones who respond?
Could it be that those recruited are coming from the inner city ghettos and deep south shanty towns that haven't seen significant economic growth since the days of sharecropping?

These are areas where "people of color" reside-- areas that need significant development and financial investing in a way that benefits those who need the most help.

And so where is the harm in any of this?

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 701672)

Serious, the DANGER that some are hysterical about can not happen.

There are too many "safeties" in place to prevent it, right now.


Besides, maybe if the government had something similar to what President Obama is attempting to establish, Hurricane Katrina operations would not have gone so badly and their police would not have abandoned their city.


And how does the "color" of the people recruited for this matter?

Could it be that those recruited are the ones who respond?
Could it be that those recruited are coming from the inner city ghettos and deep south shanty towns that haven't seen significant economic growth since the days of sharecropping?

These are areas where "people of color" reside-- areas that need significant development and financial investing in a way that benefits those who need the most help.

And so where is the harm in any of this?

Originally Posted by scotty (Post 701682)

It could be we are just racist,

why else would PO state such a terrible thing.



Is that really where you think we are at in this day and age ? Especially here on this forum ?

Originally Posted by scotty (Post 701682)

It could be we are just racist,

why else would PO state such a terrible thing.



Is that really where you think we are at in this day and age ? Especially here on this forum ?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 701685)

There are safeties in place and this program appears to be growing?

I see the harm because of the chanting - “Obama takes on racist America!,”

What is that about?

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 701686)

Bro, we can't paint with a broad brush. Where I live there isn't much racism at all. But in Lebanon Ohio, we have the county seat of the KKK... the area is very old school. There are large pockets of racial hate scattered throughout America and scattered haters even in more liberalized cities.

I think it's so silly how so many people paint so broadly and make very thing sound so simple when most situations are quite complex.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 701690)

Would it be a bad thing if the government was to say that all of our citizens must participate in some form of service upon graduating from HS?

Yes.

Would it be bad for our government to give her citizens more options than just the military or the poorly funded Americorps program?

No

Originally Posted by scotty (Post 701695)

.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 701701)

Scotty ... the only proper and reasonable response to this ... is ...

join the militia movement ...

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/images/militia1.jpg

http://www.biglittlebooks.com/images...%20Fawcett.gif

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 701701)

Scotty ... the only proper and reasonable response to this ... is ...

join the militia movement ...

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/images/militia1.jpg

http://www.biglittlebooks.com/images...%20Fawcett.gif

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 701706)

Background on the SS -
Schutzstaffel

The SS was formed in 1925 as a personal guard unit for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler ("Die Schutz-Staffel der NSDAP" [Shield Squadron of the NSDAP]). Under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler between 1929 and 1945, the SS grew from a small paramilitary formation to become one of the largest and most powerful organizations in Nazi Germany. The Nazis regarded the SS as an elite unit, the party's "Praetorian Guard," with all SS personnel (originally) selected on the principles of racial purity and unconditional loyalty to the Nazi Party. In the early days of the SS, officer candidates had to prove German ancestry to 1750. They also were required to prove that they had no Jewish ancestors. Later, when the requirements of the war made it impossible to confirm the ancestry of officer candidates, the proof of ancestry regulation was dropped.

In contrast to the political wing of the SS, the black-uniformed Allgemeine-SS, the military wing, the Waffen-SS, evolved into a second German army aside the regular one, the Wehrmacht, operating in tandem with them. The Waffen-SS gained a reputation for barbarity; its units helped wipe out resistance in both the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Warsaw Uprising, and perpetrated the Malmedy massacre during the Battle of the Bulge in 1944.

The SS was distinguished from other branches of the German military, the National Socialist Party, and German state officials by its own rank structure, unit insignia, and uniforms. The all-black SS uniform was designed by SS-Oberführer Prof. Karl Diebitsch and Walter Heck (graphic designer) and made by Hugo Boss, some workers being prisoners of war forced into labor.[1] (The SS also developed its own field uniforms, including the first widespread use of camouflage.)

As the Nazi party monopolized political power in Germany, key government functions such as law enforcement were absorbed into the SS, while many SS organizations became the de facto government agencies. To maintain the political power of the Nazi party, the SS was given authority to establish and run the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the security and intelligence service, and the Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo), the secret police, effectively putting the SS above the law.

Himmler, the leader of the SS, was the chief architect of the Final Solution. The SS Einsatzgruppen death squads, formed by Himmler, murdered many civilian non-combatants, mostly Jews, in the countries occupied by Germany during World War II. Himmler was responsible for establishing and operating concentration camps and extermination camps in which millions of inmates died of systematic mass gassing, inhumane treatment, overwork, malnutrition, or medical experiments. After the war, the judges of the Nuremberg Trials declared part of the SS, the SD, a criminal organization responsible for the implementation of racial policies of genocide and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS

Originally Posted by scotty (Post 701708)

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 701700)

Well I disagree with you.

In fact, most conservative-minded people I know would disagree with you as well.

If everyone served our country in some way, I think there would be much less disrespect for America, our laws and way of life, by our own citizens.