Barack Obama's Civilian Army

http://www.glennbeck.com/ ^ | August 28, 2009 - 1:01 ET | Glenn Beck

[Lucky9teen]

Thursday's show, I believe, it's the most controversial of all the shows this week — and maybe ever.

I will give you some facts, some history but also some of the future.

The reason Thursday's show is the last before Friday's solution, I wanted you to see who was advising the president and what they are doing, before I could ask you to look at this phrase from Barack Obama and think he meant it literally:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I don't know how anyone will respond to the facts I am going to present, because they really haven't responded to any of our questions or challenged any of the facts in our last few shows other than "Hey, don't call him a 'czar!'"

But I can't make this piece of the puzzle fit, unless this piece is about building some kind of thug-ocracy.

All week we've been asking tough questions — here's one more, Mr. President: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is "just as strong, just as powerful" as the military?

Here's why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?

It's clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist. A civilian national security force on the border is called The Minuteman and the attitude from this administration — as well as the Bush administration — is that they were "vigilantes." So it's not for the border.

It can't be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren't even at war against Islamic extremists anymore. Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

So, who's left? Is it possible we are seeing the beginnings of another enemy?

Mr. President, is your civilian national security force to protect us from things the Missouri State Police, your own Homeland Security and the liberal Southern Law Poverty Center have come out and said were a threat: militia groups; tea party goers; folks with "Don't Tread on Me" flags; me; Sarah Palin?

Think about this: Is it unreasonable to think this government would ask you to spy on your neighbors, in light of these recent stories:

— Flag.gov e-mail asking for tips on "fishy" behavior

— Cookies on your computer that track whenever you've been on a government Web site — this used to be illegal but that was changed

— The government is using outside companies to track and contact you. Are they gathering information on you? I know that on "cash for clunkers" they didn't trust the dealers.

To me, all of this sounds like a sci-fi movie, but again I have to ask the reasonable question, in these unreasonable times: Who will the civilian national security force protect us from?

Maybe a better question to ask is, Mr. President: Do you know of a coming event?

Or maybe we should ask Joe Biden, who said:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

THEN-VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN: Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.... Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said: Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Is this civilian national security force just preparing for what Joe Biden predicted?

Who builds an army against an unidentified, unrecognized threat? Because we can't answer that question — or any of the others just proposed — then it's up to us to look for clues.

Maybe we have to start with the company whose CEO is a close financial adviser to the president of the United States, who helped write the health care bill and cap-and-trade bill and who has billions of dollars at stake: Jeffrey Immelt.

Immelt has been appointed by president to the board of directors to the New York Federal Reserve. Does he have any information? Let's look for what they may be saying the threat will be that we will need a civilian national security force against.

It would seem to me the network that sells "Yes We Did" dolls, mugs and t-shirts and is obviously extraordinarily close to the president in seven different ways — is it possible to watch their network and their news, to see if they have any inside information as to what this threat may be? Immelt's network seems to be the leading network in predicting a lot of trouble, but they're not alone:

(BEGIN VIDEO MONTAGE)

ED SCHULTZ RADIO SHOW: Folks, these people are psycho. That's what they are. Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.

FRANK RICH, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: I'm just old enough, I was a kid, I remember I woke up in 1963 to the horrible events in Dallas. Even as a kid, I happened to be growing up in Washington, D.C., it was palatable to me all this hate talk about Kennedy and this sort of crazy fear.... But there were a lot of threats. There was a lot of stuff going on that in tone resembles this.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER, D-CALIF.: All of this is a diversion by the people who want to, frankly, hurt President Obama. And by the way I saw some of the clips of people storming these townhall meetings. The last time I saw well-dressed people doing this, was when Al Gore asked me to go down to Florida when they were recounting the ballots, and I was confronted with the same type of people. They were there screaming and yelling, "Go back to California! Get out of here!" and all the rest of it.

CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC: "A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside, wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip.... The Associated Press reports about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms.... There are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists.

(END VIDEO MONTAGE)

Is it reasonable to ask the question — based on these clips — do they think that a good portion of the American people are the enemy? They are such a danger we need a civilian national security force as well-funded and well-trained as the military?

That's who they think the enemy is and, once again, the media has it completely wrong.

So who is the real enemy?

"Common Sense" has been No. 1 for the last 10 weeks. One of the last chapters is "The Enemy Within" — I wrote it months ago. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out — let me give you this quote:

"It's not just the political class who has mastered the art of deception. There are other potentially deadly masters who will seek to exploit your frustration and sense of desperation. Many will warn you of government tyranny; they'll talk of secret societies, vast conspiracies, shadow governments, and the need for violent action. I urge you to stay away from these individuals and those ideas."

We've showed you the radicals in this administration. Now I'll show you the radicals outside the administration who are being used and will be used by the media and by this administration:

There was the Obama Joker poster creator; the right tried to take advantage of this and added the word "socialist" under it. But the creator of the poster is a Kucinich supporter who doesn't like Obama because he's not left enough.

Then there was that clip on MSNBC: The racist white person (according to MSNBC) who brought a rifle to the Obama town hall — wasn't even white! He was black.

In Denver, Maurice Joseph Schwenkler and an at-large accomplish smashed in windows at the Democratic Party HQ in Denver. Both parties accused Schwenkler of supporting the other, but he's a "trans-gendered anarchist" who belongs to the radical anarchist protest group Denver Bash Back.

While the radicals in the White House may not be connected to the radicals just mentioned, they are connected by the fact that they are radicals.

Remember, Obama adviser "czar" Jones created STORM who believes: "Revolutionaries need to be militant in street actions. As leaders in the fight for liberation, we should be role models of fearlessness before the state and the oppressor."

These are the sort of tactics some of Obama's "czars" know best.

So when we've got a president creating a "civilian force" as strong as the military and an admitted far-left radical in the White House doing this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS 'CZAR': Actually, my job is not so dissimilar than my job was before.... What I do, can I make it simple, I'm basically a community organizer with the federal family.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

How else am I supposed to read this? I'm happy to hear any other explanation than "don't call him a czar."

[Lucky9teen]

Why would Obama need a "civilian army"? What is there to protect against that the US Military can't do?

More and more it seems as if Obama really is taking after Hitler, IMO.

Watch Beck tonight and see what he suggests we do about it.

[Grunthor]

First O wants a “civilian defense force” as powerful as the military.

Next he combines with ACORN, a criminal group, and moves the census (for the first time) under the auspices of the White House. Now we even hear that he plans to use our children aganst us.

Next he declares that the White House will be directly responsible for performing interrogations.

Now consider this....the Dems, with all the power they now hold, and all the hate they had for it....have yet to repeal the Patriot Act.

Sleep tight now.

[griswold3]

“Still hope you can contain them?” - Cabaret

[Lazamataz]

Obama is, in fact, Hitler.

And we will need to throw him off, since there is no nation capable of defeating us.

Luckily, he has alienated both the military and police.

[paulycy]

[MrB]

On another thread, some guy named “J Franks” wrote an article poo pooing the idea.

“It can’t happen”
“That’s not what he meant”
“It’s not really a threat”
etc.

He was even defending the “non-existant” threat in his comments section after the article.

[cayuga]

Why would Obama need a "civilian army"?

For the same reason Hitler needed the SA and SS----to take and keep control.

The commie in the White House must be stopped. It is probably too late.

[MrB]

It’s not too late.

“Snickety Snack” go the bolts of 100,000 rifles in civilian hands.

[Marty62]

WHY do they need Government Health Care?
Why do they need a TSAR sub-government?
Why do they need a criminal organization to do the Census(ACORN)?
Why do they need access to you IRS records for Health CARE?
Why do they Need to crush free speech?

Anyone that doesn’t understand the nature of FASCISM, should run-not walk to the History of the 1930’s.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

BECK IS OUR PATRICK HENRY!

[GonzoGOP]

I would love the Joint Chiefs to stand up and say NO. The constitution does not allow for the existence of such an Civilian Defense Force. And that the formation, arming and training of such a force would constitute a "Domestic Enemy". Further that the US Military, under its constitutional obligations, would disarm and disperse any such a force, by means judged appropriate under the circumstances.

Drawing the line in the sand, before the CDF is formed or funded, would probably give pause to a good many politicians. Many may give Obama what he wants if they are see it as just another pork project. Few would do so if they knew in advance in meant civil war. This alone is likely to prevent the CDFs formation. No Obama army, no fight.

Of course they won't do it. So in the end Obama will have his CDF and America will see fighting in its streets.

[TheDailyChange]

Just what exactly is Obama’s AGENDA regarding the establishment of a civilian national security force, and WHY do we need one when we have our MILITARY?

[GBA]

Assimilation...yes, we can.

[manic4organic]

Last night’s show scared the sh*t out of me. I asked my wife “Do you still wonder why I want more guns?” I’ll be tuning in tonight. I urge everyone to do the same and also join a local Tea Party, 9/12 Project group or the like if you haven’t already.

[fso301]

Watch Beck tonight and see what he suggests we do about it.

Well, elections have consequences. Hussein did say he wanted this Sicherheitsdienst before the election. Not much that can be done about it until 2010. Even then, given how good OKC was to Clinton's presidency, expect some sort of OKC repeat circa late 2011 or early 2012.

I hope all the purist Republicans who stayed at home Nov 2008 because their ideologically perfect candidate wasn't running are happy.

[myself6]

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

[MissMagnolia]

Check out Drudge - the headline is there is a bill out there to give Obama emergency control of the internet.

[Joe 6-pack]

"BECK IS OUR PATRICK HENRY!"

ACORN are our red coats...

[BenLurkin]

I know that on "cash for clunkers" they didn't trust the dealers.

Yes, well......who would?

[ErnBatavia]

What we have is an Obama “regime”, not an Obama “administration”...