Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Apr 2, 2009.
Has anyone ever figured out what a Civilian National Security Force is with legitimate evidence?
Senate Passes National Service Bill
Read All About It Here.
What I am looking for is something concrete that shows that "Civilian National Security Force" should rightly be translated as a type of para military organization. While I appreciate the efforts of prison planet and info wars I am looking for a source other than their interpretation.
You might check with O'bama rex's apologist in chief on this Forum to find out the facts.
I've found that prison planet/infowars gives citizens interpretations much closer to reality than the mass media which is owned and operated by, who else but the same people who are pushing the global government agenda. Speaking of which have you heard all the "world leaders" talking about the glorious NWO? Yeah I know who hasn't right? Still think it's all a kookie conspiracy theory?
I have never thought that these theories are "kookie". In fact I have been following this sense 1975. It is the fact that this can consume you to the point of frustration. Frustration with friends and relatives and even alienation of same acquaintances. Frustration with elected officials that will not give an ear to your information.
Short of taking up arms there just seems not much an average citizen can do but watch.
I am reminded of what Jesus said, "These things must come to pass".
Ron Paul would be a good man to get behind but be careful, he may just go the way of Congressman Larry P. MacDonald. If that is the case, then even more frustration.
Sounds like you're saying ignorance is bliss or inactivity is less painful. Certainly a little personal discomfort is tolerable if there is a chance that through some suffering a wrong may be righted.
While I respect Ron Paul's candidness & transparency on talking about the issues, he is not the best choice. To his credit, he is for smaller government. The only problem with him is his stance on moral issues such as a abortion or same sex marriage. He believes that the government should have no say so on these matters. He also supports legalizing drugs.
He is more of an anarchist than a conservative. Again, I do respect him because whenever I have heard him speak & answer questions, he doesn't sound like the kind of person that is trying to win people over with his answers, like Obama or McCain did. He should have run as a Libertarian.
No he believes that the Federal Government should not be involved in those issues. That view is based on a clear and honest reading of the Constitution. He does believe states should be making decisions on those issues.
Exactly...and he's right.
Why should it matter under which parties flag Ron Paul stands? His views wold be the same under any of them. I always figured Ron Paul was one of the few who stood between us and the powerful gangs who rule the Capitol now. We got the big central bank gang, the big corporate gangs like big pharma or is that gigantic pharma now and Monsanto? And we got the big military industrial complex gang and the big energy gang and all the "exclusive elite membership" gangs like the CFR who have members in all the other gangs "advising them" and whipping up "consensus" when ever it's needed to protect and enrich the collective which is the core of the gang mentality and is the opposite of individualism which is the belief of Dr. Paul.
So why would you think he's anarchist?
He got the message out that we don't have to be slaves to the DC power gangs anymore. That's his importance in all this not whether he can win a staged sham election or what party he might belong too.
Rev... I hate to say it but there was never really a question as to what he meant. Leaving out the previous paragraphs is what made his statement remotely questionable. If you listen to his complete statement you will see he fully explained exactly what he planned to do. There was never a question.
Specifically, he was talking about expanding AmeriCorps, Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps. These are actually groups assembled by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11. Obama clearly spoke of expanding these groups and not making his own Nazi army.
Legitimate evidence... How about the actual speech? The overall thought begins at 13:52... but you can cut directly to 14:50 to hear his plan which ends with the statement in question at 17:00...
Here is the text...
The last paragraph of the quote------is the "spooky" paragraph---and sounds like Hitler "babbling on"
Europe didn't fear the regular German army and its "blitzrig" near as bad as what followed in the regular German army's wake!!!!
Panzer units would destroy buildings----but would leave families intact
The SS would destroy families-----but would polish the buildings
I understand how that statement can be made to sound "spooky". That is why it can't be separated from the rest of his statement. To do so it is to imply there is something "spooky" in the statement when clearly there isn't if taken in context.
In that light you would be fearing him increasing say the Energy Corps and their increased efforts to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods.
I admit, I don't know exactly what that entails but I picture a bunch of guys in haz mat suites going in with bio trash bags... I would think that is something we'd want and shouldn't fear... Though I admit, even that can be twisted into some sinister plot...