Clark's Corner - Memorials

Obama, the Military & National Police

This is from MSNBC-TV (a democrat propaganda agency, as well) of 13 February 2007: "Stumbling out of the gate, Sen. Barack Obama said in his first presidential campaign news conference that the lives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were 'wasted.' He quickly retracted the statement, and later apologized to anybody he offended." Offended? Anybody? One wonders if he understood that he had offended literally millions of Americans or their relatives who had fought or are now fighting the nation's enemies.

This is MSNBC again, on 01 November 2006: "The war of words, tough even for this hard-fought campaign season, came after [Senator John] Kerry told a group of California students on Monday that those unable to navigate the country’s education system 'get stuck in Iraq'." Obama thinks, never mind the meaningless retraction, that the GIs who die have made the ultimate sacrifice for nothing, while Kerry thinks, never mind his preposterous explanation of something about a joke, that those GIs are too dumb to go to school. Words mean something and those spoken spontaneously mean the most since they reveal the actual mindset of the speaker.

Obama and Kerry share the Clinton doctrine known as LTG – Loathe the Military. Obama has not been able to fully admit that the "surge" has worked in Iraq and that great progress is being made there. To do so would be his admission that heroic GIs doing what he has never had to do – face death on a daily basis – have not died in vain. One can only wonder what Kerry might say today, since he testified in 1971 before a Senate committee that American GIs had killed 200,000 (count 'em) Vietnamese civilians a year back in the sixties. He probably doesn't know what he would say, come to think of it, seeing as how he said he voted for the Iraq War before he voted against it, as if that meant anything

These instances should be taken within the context of Obama's constant harping on his intention to bring massive CHANGE to the country. Perhaps the most recent defining aspect of that change accrues to his current effort to be sure he isn't seen as a white person, and certainly not the "typical white person" he has described, using his grandmother as a paradigm, as being fearful of those around her. The other typical whites he has described as paranoid Bible-grasping, gun-toting posses on the lookout for pesky immigrants. He made this non-white affirmation abundantly clear in Berlin during his campaign stop there and elaborated on it last week by making sure everyone knew he was not the same color as those guys on the one- and five-dollar bills – Washington and Lincoln.

The most dangerous aspect of CHANGE, however, has to do with Obama and the military. One remembers the approaches of both Carter and Clinton, to wit, let things slide militarily. Tax and spend in the interests of establishing a socialistic state, in other words, while ignoring the high cost of security. BUT, even that change is not as mind-boggling as the one he mentioned in a session on 02 July in Colorado Springs, where he said: "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."

One wonders what "national security objectives" Obama had in mind when he indicated the need for a national police force to achieve/enforce them, as well as just who he meant in his plural attribution to the source(s) for determining those objectives. In other words, who helped him decide what a national police force would do. One immediately thinks of such terms as KGB (Soviets), Gestapo (Hitler's Germany), and the Stasi (Honecker's communist East Germany). These police establishments participated in the most heinous of crimes against their own people. They were the national police.

The insidiousness of such a thing as a national police force to hold sway over the civilian population is unthinkable, incomprehensible in this country. In socialist/communist societies, this is commonplace, indeed the only way to keep the citizens subservient enough to insure the common welfare of the dictators and their minions who run the governments, including also running the military. Terrorism is the hallmark of "national policing," in which citizens just disappear or live in dread of the three o'clock a.m. knock on the door…and then disappear. The accounts coming out of communist China now that have to do with repression in advance of the Olympics should be chilling enough, not to mention the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 (several hundreds shot dead by the Chinese Army).

Oh…yeah…just what this country needs – a national police force. Did Obama mean that? After all, his remarks were not in his prepared speech. This means he spoke SPONTANEOUSLY, ergo, he said just what was on his mind and has been on his mind and will remain on his mind. The time has come for citizens to take a long, hard look at this candidate, who makes it a stock-in-trade to suggest that he's not like the white guys who have held office…another way of saying it's the black guy's turn. It's the laying on of the guilt-trip, the old "you owe us" mantra of the reparations gang, a kingpin in which is the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Coincidence? Hardly!

National Police Force…Egad! Obama isn't against the use of force, but does he favor military force to keep the peace vis-à-vis the world…or a national police force to keep…what?