[Rushtalk] Published: 6 hours ago (03 Feb 2013)

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Mon Feb 4 23:29:31 MST 2013

         Farah's scenario has a ring of 
plausibility. We'll soon see, I feel............

At 10:14 AM 2/4/2013, Paf Dvorak wrote:

>Why is government stockpiling guns, ammo?
>Exclusive: Joseph Farah examines Obama's plan 
>for 'civilian national security force'
>Published: 6 hours ago (03 Feb 2013)
>Read more at 
>Is the U.S. government getting ready for a war we don’t know about?
>And, if that’s why Washington is stockpiling 
>massive amounts of ammunition (hollow points, by 
>the way), why is Homeland Security doing the 
>buying instead of the Defense Department?
>I have some theories.
>Many of you will remember 
><http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/69601/>a story I 
>broke a long time ago – about presidential 
>candidate Barack Obama’s little-noticed 
>announcement that, if elected in 2008, he wanted 
>to create a “civilian national security force” 
>as big, as strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.
>Here’s what he actually said at a campaign stop 
>in Colorado July 2, 2008: “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.”
>Could what we see happening now in the 
>Department of Homeland Security be the beginning 
>of Obama’s dream and our constitutional nightmare?
>We’ve learned more about Obama’s vision since 
>then. Maybe it’s time for a review:
>    * He made the campaign promise to build this 
> $439 billion domestic army, but all references 
> to the initiative were inexplicably deleted 
> from the copy of his speech posted on his 
> website while others mysteriously disappeared 
> from transcripts of the speech distributed by 
> the campaign. That was strange – and ominous.
>    * At the time, I had never heard anyone use 
> the phrase “civilian national security force” 
> before. But I did a little homework and found 
> out where it originated. It was first proposed 
> by then Bush administration Defense Secretary 
> Robert Gates. 
> <http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/72659/>On that 
> basis alone, I accurately predicted that, if 
> elected, Obama would name Gates as his own 
> defense secretary. Needless to say, when that 
> appointment came to pass, no media outlet 
> bothered to interview me about my foresight.
>    * Still during the campaign of 2008, I 
> suggested that what Obama had in mind might be 
> something very sinister indeed – perhaps 
> <http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/70160/>“some kind 
> of domestic Big Brother program.”
>We never heard another mention of Obama’s 
>“civilian national security force” again. Not in 
>2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.
>But that brings us up to 2013 and the highly 
>unusual stockpiling of firearms and ammo by 
>Homeland Security – firearms and ammo that Obama 
>would like to deny to ordinary citizens who are 
>not members of his domestic army.
>Well, I hate to say it, but I may have predicted this, too.
>a Halloween column last fall, I stated that, if 
>re-elected, Obama would “declare a full-scale war on his domestic opposition.”
>I wasn’t joking. I was deadly serious – so 
>serious, in fact, that I did something I pledged 
>I would never do: Vote for Mitt Romney. It was a 
>matter of self-defense and self-preservation. I 
>said then that a second term of Obama might mean 
>we would never see another free and fair 
>election in America. (I’m not even sure we saw 
>one in 2012.) I suggested due process would go 
>the way of the horse and buggy. I said I 
>expected Obama would move to shut down or 
>destroy all independent media. I even speculated 
>that his biggest critics would eventually be 
>rounded up in the name of national security.
>Think about it.
>Why does the civilian Department of Homeland 
>Security need billions of rounds of ammunition?
>This is the agency that is responsible for 
>policing the border. But it doesn’t.
>This is the agency that is responsible for 
>catching terrorists. But it doesn’t.
>So why does Homeland Security need so many 
>weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?
>Maybe this is the “civilian national security 
>force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, 
>just as well-funded” as the Defense Department.
>These words – “civilian national security force” 
>– have haunted me ever since I first read them.
>Obama has never explained what he meant.
>He’s never been called to account for that remark.
>Doesn’t this sound like police-state talk to you?
>The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. 
>That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. 
>In 2007, the U.S. defense budget was $439 
>billion. No one knows what the budget is today 
>because Congress stopped passing budgets when Obama took office.
>Is Obama serious about creating some kind of 
>domestic security force bigger and more 
>expensive than that? Is this part of his second-term agenda?
>He has also set up, 
>I have reported, a new homeland security 
>bureaucracy to operate under his own direction.
>I think it’s worth recalling here that just over 
>a year ago both houses of Congress unwisely 
>passed the defense reauthorization bill that 
>killed the concept of habeas corpus – 
>legislation that authorized the president to use 
>the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely 
>detain American citizens without charge or trial.
>That legislation would empower a lame-duck Obama 
>to use all of the power of the federal 
>government – constitutional and unconstitutional 
>– to target his political enemies.
>If any Republican, conservative, independent 
>journalist, pro-life activist, returning 
>veteran, gun-rights activist, constitutionalist, 
>Bible believer or critic of Obama thinks they 
>will be safe in a second term under this 
>would-be despot, they had better think again – real fast.
>The “civilian national security force” is not 
>here to protect any of them. It’s here to 
>destroy the opposition. It’s here to destroy 
>liberty. It’s here to destroy the Constitution.
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130205/f2db5a10/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 90c0f0.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 39400 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130205/f2db5a10/attachment-0001.obj 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list