"There's been a buzz on what the President had said on 2 Jul 08 about a "civilian security force" which would be "as large and well funded as the military."
I've seen clips of Mr. Obama actually saying this in his speech."
Right now I think the Democrat's plans to politicize the Census may be a bigger threat - the Census is used to determine how voting districts are laid out, and can have a big effect on which party gets control of a district.
Regarding the topic of a Civilian National Security Force:
My initial thoughts were -
1. Is was just campaign rhetoric & he won't try to implement it
2. Fortunately we didn't elect an emperor, so he can't implement it on his own
3. The Democrats are so busy spending our great-grandchildren's money that they won't have time to implement this
4. If they try to implement this, the public will boo them out of office (remember the amnesty for illegals bill a couple of years ago?)
5. The longer Democrats are in charge, the more likely it is that they'll implement this new force in tiny incremental steps (like the cigarette bans)
A national force like this, used internally, would inevitably be used to make the government stronger - at the expense of citizens rights & liberties. At some point government overreaches so far that we can't cure it with the ballot box, but I don't think we're there yet - in fact I think the Democrats will lose a lot of seats in the next congressional election. I do wish we had an alternative to big-government-Republicans that was actually electable.
On further discussion & reflection, I responded to my friend's points -
"Obama was addressing, among others, veterans. I think Obama is smart enough to try to keep the veterans in his back pocket in case there is an "emergency".
Let us suppose he intends to somehow invoke the law that makes veterans under 65 subject to recall.
Suppose he requires veteans to register with local law enforcement as potential recruits and /or police auxilaries.
Suppose he require civilian employees of law enforcement to become auxilaries.
Suppose he requires younger gunowners to join the National Guard and the others to become police auxilaries. Suppose he requires the younger vets to be in the Guard?
These developments would enforce and uphold the Second Amendment under the well regulated militia clause."
* Veterans are as politically diverse as the rest of the country - trying to keep them in Obama's back pocket is probably futile. Our life experiences let us know when we're being taken advantage of and/or being lied to by politicians.
* Invoking a law that makes veterans under 65 subject to recall would result in a blizzard of law-suits and in massive non-compliance, unless there is really serious problems like a world war (possibly another Crusade).
* Requiring veterans to register with local law enforcement for any purpose would likewise result in law-suits and massive non-compliance, along with people filing false paperwork - registering Bugs Bunny etc.
* A lot of veterans might agree to be police auxiliaries - however this cooperation is more likely if it is a local program (like we have in Phoenix) than a Federal one. Veterans have seen the Federal government up close - in service we learned lifetime lessons about "waste, fraud, & abuse" in government bureaucracies.
* Requiring civilian employees of law enforcement to become auxiliaries might be more successful, especially if they feared for their jobs if they didn't comply. Still, such a program couldn't be kept quiet, and lawsuits & voter protests would follow. We've shown in the last few years that voter protests can move Congress (although offensive legislation usually comes back after several months in stealthier forms).
* I know of no mechanism that could be used require younger gun owners to join the National Guard or anyone to become police auxiliaries. We don't currently have a Draft, but if we did, using it selectively to draft gun owners would almost certainly be tossed out by the Supreme Court, and an administration that tried it would be hard pressed to win the next election. "Rule of Law" may be inconvenient, but it usually works to our benefit.
* It might be possible to encourage or force younger veterans to join the National Guard, but if so, they still couldn't plan to act against the public without those plans becoming coming common knowledge, once again causing lawsuits, protests to Congress, and political difficulty for those seeking reelection.
* The Congress is always on a two-year leash - remember the huge political reversal in 1994 - this has the unfortunate effect that our congress-critters are always campaigning and always indebted to contributors, but it also means that the Federal Government can't turn us into a Soviet state - there isn't enough time to get it done before the next election. (For another view, see We're All Socialists Now)
* Creating a totalitarian society (my view of the threat caused by a Civilian National Security Force) without cooperation of Congress requires that the military take over. While this is easy in some countries, I don't think it can be accomplished in ours. Our military leaders (at all levels) have some lines they won't cross, and remaking their home in the image of what they've fought for generations is certainly one of them.
I know young people who thought some citizens would revolt before Obama was sworn in. In responding to such comments, I realized my life experience shows me that whatever our troubles, this too shall pass. Liberal or conservative, Presidential desires get blunted by the realities of getting legislation passed into law, and bad laws tend to be mellowed by court actions and subsequent legislative modifications.
I personally wish our government was smaller an less intrusive, but I'm comforted by the knowledge that flawed as it is, this is still best country on Earth to live in. (We survived Jimmie Carter, & we'll survive this administration too.)
No comments:
Post a Comment