A Civilian National Army?

The first time I heard Obama say we need a "Civilian National Securities Force, " in a speech in Colorado Springs, June 2008, I got an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach...

THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.

Say what??
We have regional police departments, sheriffs, state police, FBI, CIA and National Guard. We have the Army, Navy, Air Force & Marines. What is Obama talking about? Why would a person that has clearly stated he would make significant cuts in our defense budget turn around and say he wants this Civilian Force to be just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. Why? It can't be for national security, coming from a person with no interest in securing the borders. He gave this speech in June of 2008. I waited, I checked around, I listened to the radio and I never heard anything else about it.

OK.... so on another day, some time in the fall, I was reading Newsweek online and I came across an article called, "Year-end Whoppers." The story is located at http://www.newsweek.com/id/176836, although it would not allow me to link to it without becoming a subscriber.

When I began reading the article, I was shocked to find that Newsweek claimed:

"It is also not true that Obama said he'd seek to create a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force," as claimed by Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia shortly after the election. Broun said that's "exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did." But it turns out, he was echoing misinformation that had been circulating for months on the Internet and through anonymous chain e-mails. It was a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service."

It is perfectly clear that he obviously did not say he is going to create a "Gestapo-like" civilian national security force, it is also just as clear that he was not talking about "doubling the Peace Corps," when he referred to this civilian army. If I was uncomfortable after the first time I heard him say it, I felt sick after reading Newsweek's bit of misinformation. I kept asking myself if this could really be happening here. I don't know how many people access Newsweek online but it is a pretty popular magazine.
Let me be clear: I do not make it a habit to read Newsweek, I think it is a rag. But at the time that I discovered this article, I had been following a link to an unrelated story. After reading it, I thought of all the people that had attacked me about my questioning of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign, and realized that this typical, mass approved, media outlet was an excellent example of what created the delusion half the country bought. I don't know which is worse, the fact that Newsweek published something false about Obama, or that mostly no one else in the mainstream media is talking about it at all.

Unfortunately the story gets worse still. I continued to search for more details on Obama's definition of a Civilian National Securities Force. Instead, I found out:

1. Every major media outlet receives a transcript of Obama's speeches.
2. The reference to the Civilian National Securities Force was removed from the transcript of the Colorado Speech.

worldnetdaily.com says:

The stunning comments from Democrat Sen. Barack Obama that the United States needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar United States Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have mysteriously disappeared from published transcripts of the speech.
In the comments, Obama confirmed the U.S. “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.”
Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting a comment on the situation. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.

A copy of the transcript of Obama's "Call to Service" speech that was given to the media maybe obtained here on the Wall Street Journal website.

hotair.com had this to say:

Obama needs to clarify what he means by “civilian national security force”, and how it would be funded. After all, we have a panoply of federal security agencies already: FBI, BATF, DEA, and more, plus the National Guard on the state level. Where would Obama get the money to fund it at the same level as the Pentagon? What would its mission be, and where would it get its authority? What would be the lines of jurisdiction?

I really hope that people will start to realize how little they can depend on "flipping on the TV to get the news" if they actually want to know the truth of what's going on. I no longer rely solely on the mainstream media, where so-called "journalists" are clearly partisan and make no attempts to disguise their preferences, such as MSNBC's Chris Matthews:

"On November 6, 2008, after the election, he (Chris Matthews) stated on the MSNBC television program "Morning Joe," that "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work...this new Presidency work." When asked whether that was his job as a journalist, he stated "Yeah, that's my job."

I'm not saying that everyone needs to do all that I do when attempting to get the real story, but try to be a more active participant, as opposed to passively sitting in front of the TV and absorbing everything as the gospel, just because someone on TV said it.

As it stands now, the voting majority of this country is being played, because they elevated race and political correctness, above all common sense, morality and practical judgement, and the rest of us are being dragged right along with them under the leadership of the man they call "Mr. President." I previously have not commented on Barack Obama for reasons I'll get into later. But the time has come where I feel obligated to speak on certain parts of the vast amount of information I have gathered during my intensive study of Barack Obama this past 14 months.