Dollars Lining Up for Civilian National Security Force?
From WorldNetDaily.com

President-elect Barack Obama raised questions during an election campaign stop in Colorado Springs when he asserted the U.S. needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force, but few of those questions have been answered.

But now one report is proposing a possible solution for part of the equation: “From where would the money for such an organization come?” Democrats in Congress now are floating the idea of cutting U.S. military spending by 25 percent, or $150 billion a year, and according to a report from blogger Jay Tea, that could be used for the new “security force.”

The idea to cut the military, proposed by Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, already is being opposed by Republicans.

Frank, D-MASS., recently told a newspaper the Pentagon will have to start choosing the cuts from its weapons programs because he wants to slash more than $150 billion from the estimated $607 billion in defense spending already approved for fiscal year 2008.

U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-MD., argued America now is fighting terror worldwide, including active wars in Afghanistan and Iran, and that has stretched the capabilities of the military already. He warned cutting funding in such a drastic way would be irresponsible.

“You know if we don’t make the right decisions about the military nothing else will matter will it? Because if we don’t have a free country then what do these other programs matter at all? That’s the number one responsibility,” he said.

The blogger, however, saw the plan linked this way: “Representative Barney Frank, apparently not content with his role in wreaking havoc on the nation’s financial system, has announced that he will push for a 25 percent cut in defense spending. This could actually work hand-in-hand with one of Obama’s proposals for a ‘civilian National Security Force,’ which he said would be as well-funded as the military. If the defense budget is slashed, then it makes it easier to fund a new organization at the same level.”

On the FamilySecurityMatters.org website, blogger Peter Gadiel lamented the lack of information about Obama’s plan and its accompanying implied threat. “Such an outfit would be worse than useless in any foreign action. Its only possible use could be for domestic purposes. Since we already have police forces, and the National Guard what could a ‘Domestic National Security Force’ possibly be used for? Suppressing dissent? We simply do not know,” he wrote.

It was in a July speech in Colorado Springs that Obama insisted the U.S. “cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.”

Obama spokesmen have declined to return WorldNetDaily (WND) calls requesting an explanation.

Joseph Farah, Founder and Editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it. “If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.

Farah’s call generated intense Internet discussions. The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, “In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it’s a civilian force so how would it go about discharging ‘national security’ issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid for.… The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such ‘youth’ organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?”

Obama’s Colorado Springs speech was about a “call to service.” WND also reported Obama’s “Universal Voluntary Public Service” program [See article in this issue of the MetroVoice entitled Web Faux Pas] promoted on his campaign website.

According to an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), Obama plans to use an existing group called “Public Allies” as a model for his national effort. “Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas,” said IBD. “They plan to herd American youth into government-funded re-education camps where they’ll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of ‘social change.’”

The organization itself doesn’t seem that alarming. It describes itself as serving communities “while developing better leaders for tomorrow.” Young adults are placed in “community leadership” posts with various agencies and given weekly “training.” They get $1,800 plus health and child care.

But IBD warned the real mission is something else. The aim, the editorial said, “is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about ‘social change’ through threats, pressure, tensions and confrontation – the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul ‘The Red’ Alinsky.”

Jerome Corsi, a WND columnist and the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-seller The Obama Nation, agreed. He said the overall intent of the program is much the same as the goals of William Ayers, an Obama colleague and unrepentant radical who worked with the Illinois Democrat on funding public education programs.

“Remember, Obama has followed Saul Alinsky’s ultimate advice,” Corsi explained. “Saul Alinsky said radicals like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman could not organize a picnic. Alinsky told his radicals to cut their hair, buy business suits and run for public office,” he said. “Ayers and Obama are both aimed at producing radical socialist change from within – working today to radicalize our institutions, instead of bombing them. Alinsky considered this approach to be much smarter because it was more likely to produce lasting ‘change’ and less likely to produce a backlash. In other words, the Alinsky-trained radical could apply more easily the Machiavellian technique of lying by denying they were pursuing radical goals if they appeared to be members in good standing of the establishment they were trying merely to ‘change,’” Corsi said.

IBD cited statistics from Public Allies itself, in which it boasted “our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to…engage in protest activities.” The organization explains it already has dispatched 2,200 community organizers to agitate for ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ in Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and other cities.

IBD said taxpayers already fund half of Public Allies’ expenses through President Clinton’s AmeriCorps, and Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing billions.