I know. Black Helicopter Republicans. Obama Derangement Syndrome. Blahblahblah yaddayaddayadda. I have heard it all from the Fair Weather All Will Be OK Theoretical Conservatives. In one ear and out the other.
I have been "waiting and watching" for any "prominent" conservative news outlet to pick up on this but, as far as I know, I am the only one that noticed this tid-bit from the Camp LeJeune address.
[...] There are many lessons to be learned from what we’ve experienced. We have learned that America must go to war with clearly defined goals, which is why I’ve ordered a review of our policy in Afghanistan. We have learned that we must always weigh the costs of action, and communicate those costs candidly to the American people, which is why I’ve put Iraq and Afghanistan into my budget. We have learned that in the 21st century, we must use all elements of American power to achieve our objectives, which is why I am committed to building our civilian national security capacity so that the burden is not continually pushed on to our military. We have learned that our political leaders must pursue the broad and bipartisan support that our national security policies depend upon, which is why I will consult with Congress and in carrying out my plans. And we have learned the importance of working closely with friends and allies, which is why we are launching a new era of engagement in the world. [...]
Ring a bell? I noticed a slight change, however. In the past - days gone by let's MoveOn, yesterday never happened - the Imam of Obam used the phrase, "civilian national security forces". Now, the phrase is "civilian national security capacity". What happened and what changed? How did it go from "forces" to "capacity". Just wondering out loud.
Without stating the obvious reasons and causations, I must ask this question: Why is the media not ranting about this and where are the "holier than thou" conservative bloggers on this? The answer is in fact quite obvious and to answer it and give the reader a clue would be cruel. I will alllow you to use your own imagination. I have written many articles on this Civilian National Security Force (CNSF) issue many times and even had someone make a specific video on this subject. You Tube removed it for some reason. Please check the References section of this post for a link to every single article on this subject that I have published.
In one specific article, The Military Times did an interview with Obama and he pretty much laid to rest the BHR and ODS "debate". You bcan read the details of that interview at my article entitled, "Nobama's Civilian National Security Forces Explained?" Here is a teaser.
Q: You said you don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul, so how are you going to pay Paul? Troop increases are an enormous expense.
A: [...] I should add, by the way, that part of the change that I want when it comes to Army and Marine structures is the mix of training that we're providing and mix of personnel that are in these forces. One of the things I have been so impressed with is the heroic job that our men and women in uniform have done basically on the fly having to train themselves on the spot to function as engineers or function as social workers or function as translators or political consultants. There's just been a whole bunch of work that has been done that we haven't prepared people for. They learn on the job, but if anything Iraq should have given us a template for the kinds of skill sets that we're going to have to provide to our military. And that's true in Iraq. That's true in Afghanistan. That also means, by the way, that we're going to have to, I believe, reconfigure our civilian national security force. In a way that just hasn't been done.
I mean, we still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side in the way the State Department is structured and [Agency for International Development] and all these various agencies. That hearkens back to the Cold War. And we need that wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight. When we talk about reinventing our military, we should reinvent that apparatus as well. We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military. [...]
Go ahead. Parse and Spin That. Remember this?
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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." -- Barack Hussein Obama
With all of the above and the 30+ articles I have written on the subject of what I non-affectionately refer to as the Obama Goon/Truth Squads, please take into consideration the following threory:
Winds of Civil War
[...] Now, before you get too excited, bear in mind that all of this was likely Obama’s goal. To bait us into rebellion. Boiled down, all of these state measures are threats of secession. Recall, if you will, Obama’s obsession to be the 21st Century Abraham Lincoln, and his ominous calls to recreate and rebuild America. Who was Lincoln? Why, he was the man who “preserved” the Union by way of implementing military force against states that had seceded. Lincoln knew full well that he would not be preserving the Union, but that he would be conquering sovereign nations, nations whose cultures and ideologies he would then have to destroy, and then remake, in the image of the North’s, in order to maintain their subjugation. And that is precisely what happened in the aftermath of Lincoln’s war of aggression. He didn’t preserve the Union, he changed it forever and handed unprecedented powers to the Federal Government.
The Lincoln household was most characterized by a dark spirit, an unyielding pall of gloom. He was plagued by mysterious and absolutely crippling headaches. Three of his sons were struck dead before age 20. His wife slowly went insane, the result of a ceaseless, degenerative depression. Lincoln was assassinated.
Now I’m going to run with a theory.
So, what if Obama, Soros and Emanuel understand fully that our current, sudden, violent lurch into Socialism will not be tolerated by many to most of the American people, and that these people may possess sufficient physical concentration in order to secede in large territorial chunks, including those already defined by current state borders? They understand that they will be facing a crisis, right? Well, what is a crisis to the current Marxist regime of Obama other than an opportunity? Based on Emanuel’s stated philosophy, one can conclude that he and Obama seek the greatest crisis that they can possibly create. And this is it. Civil war born of broad secession is the Mother of All Crises, and therefor it is the nirvana of all crises. The current regime seeks civil war just as it seeks oxygen and food. And the actions of Abraham Lincoln provide the precise blueprint by which Obama can achieve all of his life ambitions. They provide the map with which he can navigate to the zenith of personal power, the desired destination of every narcissistic psychopath. Yes, he is a dedicated Marxist, but only insofar as Marxism is his chosen vessel to reach his ultimate goal of Absolute Power. He will defend Marxism until the day he dies, for Marxism is the only means by which he can be king, and being king is the only reason for which he lives.
In order to possess long-term dictatorial powers, Obama must recreate America as a Marxist culture and Marxist economy protected by both a limitless intelligence agency and a paramilitary police force. Once these goals are achieved, the traditional military will be preserved to support similar revolutions overseas, and to defend against foreign threats. (Subduing you is his first goal, but not his ultimate one. His brain his already 150 chess moves past the end of the upcoming American civil war. You are but stepping stones. In his mind, he’s already buried you.) Audacious? Yes. The epitome of change? Yes. [...] go read the rest
You will not regret the read and it is a comprehensive theory but one we can all have concerns about.