Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?
The questions are endless.
But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.
Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?

I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national securit...

Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?
The questions are endless.
But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.
Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?

I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.

Help me out here. What am I missing?

Can I get a hand?

How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of
massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than
the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

It is what Obama means by 'unity'. Mobilization. The Dept of Homeland Security was a Democratic idea opposed by Republicans, but later adopted and enacted by Neocons. There is no ominous nature to homeland security except the one invented by conspiracy theorists. On the other hand, an agenda of national mobilization where a 'civilian security force' is just a small part is another thing entirely. Not to mention the utter lack of intelligence it must take to understand that there is noth...

How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of
massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than
the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

It is what Obama means by 'unity'. Mobilization. The Dept of Homeland Security was a Democratic idea opposed by Republicans, but later adopted and enacted by Neocons. There is no ominous nature to homeland security except the one invented by conspiracy theorists. On the other hand, an agenda of national mobilization where a 'civilian security force' is just a small part is another thing entirely. Not to mention the utter lack of intelligence it must take to understand that there is nothing 'civilian' or 'secure' about another government guided entity.

"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."

Seems perfectly straight forward to me. Sinister? Well, only if you believe in an all powerful military with a vested interest in permanent war to insure continuation of the policy that brought down the USSR. At least in the USSR's case they had the excuse of competing with the US in the fortune spent on being a militaristic state.

The US as the single super power has no such excuse. At it had no such excuse. With Bush's war excursions in e...

"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."

Seems perfectly straight forward to me. Sinister? Well, only if you believe in an all powerful military with a vested interest in permanent war to insure continuation of the policy that brought down the USSR. At least in the USSR's case they had the excuse of competing with the US in the fortune spent on being a militaristic state.

The US as the single super power has no such excuse. At it had no such excuse. With Bush's war excursions in every continent on earth, with his war posture against Iran, missiles in Poland supposedly aimed at Iran, not only the Russians and Chinese are worried about US military intentions.

The real elephant in the room on the Irish vote against a closer political EU was the USA!!! Nobody says but it's known that someday the EU might suffering more than US bullying. That's why secret US monies funded a well financed anti-EU 'No' campaign in Ireland.

With the current state of the dollar you'd expect to major decrease in military spending would be the FIRST cut to gain stability. How you avoid that is a serious of paper enemies like Iran and a series of semi mythical al Qaeda type terrorists just to keep the populous scared enough to agree to their own financial destruction with military spending. Obama's notion is likely to counter balance a military unwilling to cease controlling American political life!!!