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."

[Travis McGee]

You got it.

[Travis McGee]

You’re on it.

[I got the rope]

Please add me to your list

[Joe Brower]

I don't have to tell you, Trav, that when a society is continually simmering like ours is in the present day, there is no way of knowing or predicting what will serve as the spark, or when/where it will be.

All one can do is make ready, stay frosty.

[Travis McGee]

It’s just a matter of when and where. Personally, I think it’ll be a Reichstag Shooting, like the stadium massacre in my first novel. The statists really do need to defang that pesky 2nd amd.

[Nebr FAL owner]

Actually it would be constitutional as part of the “unorganized militia “ the problem for Obama is whether his organization can find a officer in overall command who would basically tell them to remain in barracks or face charges of mutinee.

[LTCJ]

Do you honestly think that if Gettysburg Day 2 had gone the other way and the army of Northern Virginia had marched on Washington they would not have "Removed" Lincoln? Take a look at the percentage of active duty West Pointers who went rebel, it is over 50%.

I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis. There was never any intent by the South to overthrow the Federal government or remove Lincoln. The idea of moving on Washington was intended to force a peace and recognition of the Confederacy. And as for the officer corps, those "going south" did so to their own states not the Confederate Army. The labels "Civil War" or "War of the Rebellion" stuck as a consequence of the outcome of the war, not because they were accurate.

If, God forbid, things should now develop into armed conflict to restore the national government, it would be the USA's first true civil war. And development of a "civilian security force" would mark the Crossing of the Rubicon in the minds of most of those I served with, I believe.

[GonzoGOP]

The idea of moving on Washington was intended to force a peace and recognition of the Confederacy

And that is the important phrase. How do you force recognition without the threat of force? In other words you recognize the Confederacy or we remove your administration and replace it with something that will recognize the Confederacy. The removal of the Lincoln administration was not a primary aim of the Confederacy. However, given the opportunity they would have done it in order to achieve their primary aim. Remember a Confederates headed by John W Booth did attempt to remove the Lincoln administration as a last attempt to gain Confederate independence. Although the group only succeeded in eliminating Lincoln himself.

[MrB]

I’ve pondered the question, regarding a possible CWII, or RWII,

that a number of states could secede and simply go into a defensive posture - ignoring and thwarting all federal dictates within the states’ boarders,

and defending themselves from federal action,

but never taking any forceful action against the fedgov or the remaining states.

What would you think would happen if such were the policy of the seceded states?

[GonzoGOP]

What would you think would happen if such were the policy of the seceded states?

Depends on the states in question, and what ordinance they capture on the way out. They need to have some way of stopping Obama from simply rushing them with the military that remains in federal control, and his CDF. A few nukes will do that nicely. The airfoce and navy nukes are too mobile to fall in to rebel hands unless the military was in in the break away from the beginning. But the ICBMs in Oklahoma, Nebraska and Montana would be almost impossible to transport away. And by their very design they are hard to knock out with a conventional strike. Nothing says "don't tread on me!" like an brace of armed LGM-30s pointed at LA, New York and DC.

Baring WMD the rebels need a combination of factors. An armed population, from which to draw their guerrilla forces. Something they can sell, they will need to buy guns and more importantly friends in other countries. Lots of space, so they can trade ground for time. And Military bases from which they can capture the weapons to begin the fight in the first place.

Geography is also important. If they have access to Canada or a good port they can survive by trading with the rest of the world. If they can be cut off then it is just a matter of time before Obama brings them back under control.

States that could pull it off.
1) The mountain states, especially Montana. Nukes and impassible terrain make them a good candidate. Also rugged individualism is alive and well there.

2) Texas, lots of space to trade for time. Sell oil to get weapons brought in through Mexico. Has a tradition of being an independent country at one time and rebelling once already.

California, all the requirements, but they won't go for ideological reasons.

Hawaii: Probably the best chance of any state to pull it off. Far away from everyone else. Has been an independent country once, there are still people alive who remember not being part of the US. Lots of military equipment to be looted in the opening day. Japan and China would benefit big from an indipendent Hawaii so might limit what Obama could do about it. Probably won't go for ideological reasons.

Alaska: Second only to Hawaii in chances to pull of rebellion. Has gold and oil to trade for whatever they need. Closer to Russia and Canada than they are to the US. If they can somehow close their ports, (Russian/Japanese/Chinese fleet pays a courtesy call to newly independent Anchorage) there is no way for lower 48 forces to deploy there without the consent of another country. Can you see Obama trying to get permission from the Canadians to move several divisions across their territory to go suppress people who only want to be left alone. Besides, some of those hills aren't even mapped. How are you going to dig the rebels out of them.

[MrB]

My question was more general...

So you’re saying that you think the fedgov would militarily invade a state or states that told them “you’ve got no juice here”.
Even if said states offered no threat nor acted in any threatening way.

[GonzoGOP]

So you’re saying that you think the fedgov would militarily invade a state or states that told them “you’ve got no juice here”.

1) Obama's personality does not appear to be one that can let insults pass without repercussion.

2) States that are resource rich cannot be allowed to exit the country as he needs to loot them to pay his bills. One reason that Hawaii has the best chance of a break away is because Obama could afford to let Hawaii's tourist dollars go. The oil fields of Texas and Alaska not so much.

3) Most importantly of all historic precedent. What did Washington (Pennsylvania) and Lincoln (South Carolina) do when states tried to break away? Doesn't every president want to be like Washington and Lincoln, I mean except for the Ford's Theater thing. Sure Washington put down the whiskey rebellion without firing a shot. But he still mustered the army and sent it into the state in question.

Obama will go full bore Sherman on anybody who dares to oppose him. Unless that is they have some way to dissuade him from doing so.

[MrB]

Funny about the resources thing.

This bunch has pretty much forbidden the use of the resources of the USA.

They’d probably act in order to PREVENT the break-away states from using those resources.

[GonzoGOP]

Funny about the resources thing.
This bunch has pretty much forbidden the use of the resources of the USA.

Note that they have not forbidden them outright, they have forbidden them unless they get a big cut. Carbon credits for the oil industry. Fees to have some green group under their control certify that the coal mine is cleaned up properly. And the EPA needs to get their cut. They have never said you can't have fossil fuels, you just have to pay Al Gore & Co for the privilege of using them. The nuclear industry screws up their global warming scam so they are not allowed to participate, but if they could skim money from it believe me nuclear power would be back big time. But if Texas and Alaska were to break away and start selling their oil without all those taxes on it, well that just won't do. And could you imagine what would happen if Wyoming broke away and started to sell Powder River coal without paying their carbon credits? Who would pay for the carbon taxed coal from Southern Illinois and West Virginia. Their senators would not be pleased.