Replies

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31747_Obamas_Civilian_National_Security_Force/comments/#ctop

Obama’s ‘Civilian National Security Force’

What exactly is Obama planning to do with a “civilian force” with such an astronomical level of funding?

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

The Department of Defense’s current base budget is close to $500 billion. So if he meant that promise, he plans on a total defense budget of about a trillion dollars.

Obama and the case of the missing 'thesis'
July 24, 2008
By Jim Popkin, NBC News Senior Investigative Producer

excerpt:

The hunt for Obama’s senior “thesis” began with a throwaway line in a newspaper article last October. The New York Times story, on Obama’s early New York years, mentioned in passing that the presidential contender had majored in political science at Columbia and had spent his time “writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament.”

Journalists began hounding Columbia University for copies of the musty document. Conservative bloggers began wondering if the young Obama had written a no-nukes screed that he might come to regret. And David Bossie, the former congressional investigator and “right-wing hit man,” as one newspaper described him, took out classified newspaper ads in Columbia University’s newspaper and the Chicago Tribune in March searching for the term paper.

Bossie came up dry, but said the effort was well worth it:

“A thesis entitled Soviet Nuclear Disarmament, written at the height of The Cold War in 1983, might shed some light upon what Barack Obama thought about our most pressing foreign policy issue for 40-plus years (U.S.-Soviet Relations),” he wrote in an e-mail to NBC News.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219454.aspx
_________________________________________________________

Here is the passage from the New York Times that the above article refers to:

"He barely mentions Columbia, training ground for the elite, where he transferred in his junior year, majoring in political science and international relations and writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament. He dismisses in one sentence his first community organizing job — work he went on to do in Chicago — though a former supervisor remembers him as 'a star performer.'"

Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say
By JANNY SCOTT, October 30, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?ex=1351396800&en=631bf83f428647f9&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
_________________________________________________________

"Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983, and moved to Chicago in 1985 to work for a church-based group seeking to improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment. In 1991, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School where he was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review."
http://obama.senate.gov/about/

_________________________________________________________

Bill Ayers' education:
1987 - Ed.D, Columbia University, Curriculum & Instruction
1987 - M.Ed, Teachers College, Columbia University, Early Childhood Education
1984 - M.Ed, Bank Street College, Early Childhood Education
1968 - B.A., University of Michigan, American Studies
http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers
_________________________________________________________

Bank Street College
Where We Are and How to Get Here:

Bank Street College is located on the Upper West Side of Manhattan at 610 West 112th Street, between Broadway and Riverside Drive.

Bank Street College is located in a bustling family and university neighborhood four blocks from Columbia University
http://www.bankstreet.edu/aboutbsc/visiting.html

If Obama wins (gag) and he makes good on his promise to cut missile defense he should be immediately impeached and thrown out of office. Missile defense is vital at this point in our Country's history. We have enemies that are actively pursuing WMD and missile technology. They hate us. (note to Obama's ego: You can not change that in 4 years.) These enemies are not pursuing WMD and ballistic missile technologies as interesting science experiments. These are WEAPONS PROGRAMS. When you're a starving, nearly third-world country you don't pour that level of resources into a military program unless you expect some payback - you intend to make use of it.

Cutting missile defense now is tantamount to helping our Country's enemies place millions of our lives at risk. As bad as 9/11 was, even a couple of simple dirty bombs on IRBMs launched against our interests, allies, or even homeland, could make 9/11 look like a picnic. 9/11 cost us a few buildings and several thousand lives. A couple of ballistic missiles and even low-yield warheads could take out a few dozen city blocks and tens of thousands of lives. Cutting missile defense in the face of these threats is virtual surrender of our security and ability to control our own foreign policy in these regions. I happen to know a little bit about our missile defense programs, and I happen to live in a prime target area. I sleep just fine at night. If Obama wins and makes cuts, I will be seriously concerned for my family's long term safety.

Missile defense is no-longer an unproven technology. It works, in fact it works quite well. The MSM previously made a big deal over early program failures. You don't hear much about missile defense anymore because all recent tests have been successful. That doesn't play well with the MSM's liberal, anti-President Bush agenda, so they keep quiet. Detractors used to say it was too difficult, couldn't be done, was like hitting a bullet with a bullet. Well, this has been published already, so I can repeat it here: if only it were as easy as hitting a bullet with a bullet. Our "bullets" are so good, they pick their spot on the other "bullet" - in effect, we don't just hit the bullet, we hit the right rifling mark. Yes, it is a difficult, technically challenging and demanding event. But our systems are frighteningly good. As the one Sr. Officer stated (again, in an unclassified briefing), you could park one of our radars in Chesapeake Bay, launch a golf ball over San Fransisco, and we could not only find it, but tell you if it was spinning or not, and in what direction and rotation rate...

"Unproven..." My backside... Maybe that's his out - if he gets elected and finally gets a full, real brief on the capabilities he can turn around and say ok, so it is proven... And just because it works to some nominal level now, doesn't mean we can rest on our success. The other guys are smart too, and driven. They are working hard on technologies, systems, and tactics to overcome our missile defense system. We need to continue to stay out in front of these would-be national terrorists. Missile terrorism is, unfortunately, all too likely in the coming years. It is far easier and less expensive to develop or buy missile and warhead technology to threaten your adversaries than it is to raise a large, powerful conventional army. We can look to more countries to attempt the "quick and dirty" route of missile/WMD terrorism and influence. Therefore we must have viable missile defenses for ourselves and our allies.