View Full Version : OBAMA'S CIVIL DEFENSE FORCE, OR NEW AMERICAN GESTAPO
I posted this on 1911.
I heard Obama talking about this prior to his "Coronation". "All 18-25 year old will be required to do 3 months of mandatory training and then serve in the Civil Defense Force that in Obama's words "needs to be as strong as the US Military".
Link to podcast below where Rahm Emanuel speaks to that leftist Rag the NY Times.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e4qG6UIr8z
Need I say more? WTH have I been doing for 20 years in the Army? Guess he'll fire us and have the Black Panthers or Nation of Islam take over? LOL
Gutshot John
01-22-09, 18:37
Uhm no. The Gestapo was a very different type of organization.
Thank you for offering it up though.
Have you seen the "average" 18-25 year old lately? Most are not inclined to make much effort towards anything. Could you see some kid who was poorly raised, was part of a gang, and has no education doing much more than causing trouble for the people who are now in charge of them? Sure, it sounds scary but the reality doesn't pan out too well...
we also run into some possible constitutional issues as well.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
As far as the draft, I think it was a very different set of circumstances for service in an armed force protecting other citizens against a perceived foreign threat.
texasrangers
01-23-09, 01:41
No it wasn't. Freeing the slaves is not why the North invaded the South. This is from Abraham Lincoln's inaguaral address:
"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;"
It's in the second or third paragraph.
The thirteenth amendment, contrary to SCOTUS decisions otherwise, was not only to ban slavery, but to ban conscription, which is, in its purest sense, is involuntary servitude. This is because Lincoln, in his infinite, despotic wisdom, enacted the first conscription this country had ever seen (along with suspending habeas corpus and putting Martial Law into effect.) The man just couldn't stand losing all the profits from souther tariffs, so he invaded, got his ass kicked, changed commanders, got his ass kicked some more, and was eventually forced to start enslaving people to fight in his hellish army of aggression. All the states that seceded from the Union, by the way, had absolutely every right to do so. That being said, slavery is an abhorrent institution and I am very glad it was abolished, but that is not what the 13th amendment is solely about. Sorry if it got off topic, but I feel the points I made are interconnected.
Have you seen the "average" 18-25 year old lately? Most are not inclined to make much effort towards anything. Could you see some kid who was poorly raised, was part of a gang, and has no education doing much more than causing trouble for the people who are now in charge of them? Sure, it sounds scary but the reality doesn't pan out too well...
I've thought the same thing. Unless all this civil defense force is going to do is sit around playing xbox and editing myspace / youtube pages, I don't see it going anywhere...
citizensoldier16
01-23-09, 07:33
The thirteenth amendment, contrary to SCOTUS decisions otherwise, was not only to ban slavery, but to ban conscription, which is, in its purest sense, is involuntary servitude.
That may be the case, but like you said, SCOTUS says otherwise. Reference BUTLER v. PERRY, 240 U.S. 328 (1916). I'm a proud Libertarian, but I do agree that required military service in a time of DECLARED war is not only acceptable, but should be viewed as the duty of every American.
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." ~Gen. Douglas MacArthur
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 07:52
Compelled military service is NOT slavery. Slavery is by definition about PRIVATE ownership of a slave and compelling labor for profit.
Military service is neither permanent, profitable nor private.
Nothing in the 13th forbids military conscription and neither the founding fathers, nor the people that crafted the 13th would have seen it in that way.
Obama is talking about a Civilian force that is equal in power and just as well funded as the Armed Forces. In fact, Barack and wife have already started such a group, and it has been around since 1992.
It's called Public Allies, and there are chapters in all 50 States. It's a 13 month long paid training program which teaches you how to be a Community Organizer. In fact, there are three chapters in New Mexico already; Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Taos.
Community Organizing was first created by Saul "The Red" Alinsky back in the 1960s.
Obama has certainly read Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, which discusses the evolution of the bomb throwing anarchist from dirty hippie to elected official. Obama's Public Allies group teaches this sort of thing.
See if you can GOOGLE Obama's July 2nd speech in Colorado Springs when he discussed the Civilian National Security Force. At one time you could find it on YouTube.
OH58D
texasrangers
01-23-09, 12:24
Military service is pretty permanent if you were drafted and sent to Vietnam, and you died. That was a completely illegal and unconstitutional conflict, and 58,000 men did die, for NO GOOD REASON. Do you really think that Ho Chi Minh and the his communist hordes posed a threat to anyone in America? The 13th amendment was enacted to guard against injustices like that. But, like the vast majority of the other protections in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rest of the amendments, no elected leader follows them anymore. Vietnam was also incredibly profitable for our military industrial complex, as are the current conflicts. I stand behind what I said. We have a militia, which is you, me, and every other able bodied man or woman regardless of age in this country for a reason - so if our country is attacked we will defend it. There will be no need for a draft.
variablebinary
01-23-09, 13:24
Military service is pretty permanent if you were drafted and sent to Vietnam, and you died. That was a completely illegal and unconstitutional conflict, and 58,000 men did die, for NO GOOD REASON. Do you really think that Ho Chi Minh and the his communist hordes posed a threat to anyone in America? The 13th amendment was enacted to guard against injustices like that. But, like the vast majority of the other protections in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rest of the amendments, no elected leader follows them anymore. Vietnam was also incredibly profitable for our military industrial complex, as are the current conflicts. I stand behind what I said. We have a militia, which is you, me, and every other able bodied man or woman regardless of age in this country for a reason - so if our country is attacked we will defend it. There will be no need for a draft.
Conscription didnt begin with Vietnam. There is a place and time for such measures, but I dont think there is any need for a draft currently, especially in conflicts like Iraq.
Uhm no. The Gestapo was a very different type of organization.
Thank you for offering it up though.
In response I know what the Gestapo was. As having a Masters degree in history, and stationed in Berlin, I'm aware of what the Gestapo was. It means Geheime Staatspolizei, and was headed by the SS, and organized under the Reichssicherheitshauptamt or head of Reich Security. So how is this different from Obama's Civil force hmmmm?
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 15:38
In response I know what the Gestapo was. As having a Masters degree in history, and stationed in Berlin, I'm aware of what the Gestapo was. It means Geheime Staatspolizei, and was headed by the SS, and organized under the Reichssicherheitshauptamt or head of Reich Security. So how is this different from Obama's Civil force hmmmm?
Simple,
First most people weren't even allowed into the SS let alone the Gestapo. It wasn't UNIVERSAL let alone conscription into a military force. You had to be part of the elite to even be considered.
Second they were a secret police force what Obama is proposing is not a secret, let alone police. The "CDF" as proposed by Obama are basically glorified garbage men. Funding equal to the military?
Perhaps you should check the historiography. :D
Slavery is by definition about PRIVATE ownership of a slave and compelling labor for profit.
There are other definitions:
"slavery
noun
A state of subjugation to an owner or master: bondage, enslavement, helotry, serfdom, servileness, servility, servitude, thrall, thralldom, villeinage, yoke. "
Certainly the master doesn't have to be an individual. Stalin was pretty good at having the state as a master.
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 15:49
There are other definitions:
"slavery
noun
A state of subjugation to an owner or master: bondage, enslavement, helotry, serfdom, servileness, servility, servitude, thrall, thralldom, villeinage, yoke. "
Certainly the master doesn't have to be an individual. Stalin was pretty good at having the state as a master.
The merriam-webster definition does not have to be consistent with the Constitutional meaning.
The state can do things that a private citizen cannot. Drafting citizens to fight does not equate to ownership of their labor for profit.
I posted this on 1911.
I heard Obama talking about this prior to his "Coronation". "All 18-25 year old will be required to do 3 months of mandatory training and then serve in the Civil Defense Force that in Obama's words "needs to be as strong as the US Military".
Link to podcast below where Rahm Emanuel speaks to that leftist Rag the NY Times.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e4qG6UIr8z
Need I say more? WTH have I been doing for 20 years in the Army? Guess he'll fire us and have the Black Panthers or Nation of Islam take over? LOL
I wonder why if we already have a military that it needs to be "as strong as the US Military".
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 15:51
The "as strong as the military" phrase is hokum.
How's he gonna pay for it? Short answer - he can't.
So long CDF.
The merriam-webster definition does not have to be consistent with the Constitutional meaning.
The state can do things that a private citizen cannot. Drafting citizens to fight does not equate to ownership of their labor for profit.
A theoretical argument could be made otherwise but realistically what you have written is true.
The "as strong as the military" phrase is hokum.
How's he gonna pay for it? Short answer - he can't.
So long CDF.
But, isn't there a 5% value added tax waiting in the wings? Could bring in a lot of dollars. And more in a good economy.
You know, when all is said and done I feel sorry for the terrible burden the President has. I hope he is able to provide good leadership during these dangerous times. We certainly need good leadership.
And, I pray for the man every day. Just as I did for our previous President.
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 15:59
But, isn't there a 5% value added tax waiting in the wings? Could bring in a lot of dollars. And more in a good economy.
The military budget is probably about 1/4-1/5th of the overall budget. We're talking close to a trillion dollars. I don't think there is any way you can achieve parity without drastic cuts somewhere else.
I'm almost sure he can't raise that much money for a CDF when there are so many other budgetary shortfalls such as medicare.
He's got a lot of fixing to do before he can even entertain these extravagant ideas.
I believe you're right.
I also believe that a near universal draft would help mature a whole bunch of young people who could stand a little bit of maturing.
But, I'm an old guy who has been in the service and was made better by it.
I've got no love whatsoever for the man or his proposed policies, but am I the only one who thinks the "as strong as and well funded as the military" talk was mostly hyperbole to demonstrate the intent to create an actual, functional organization rather than just a logo to put on Tshirts for inner city kids?
He may very well have nefarious deeds planned for this group but I don't think he ever meant they would sit down and count out matching funds...
I can see him in the oval office with a stack of money....
"One for the military, one for the CDF, one for the military, one for the CDF".
Besides, you guys are all doom and gloom, let's look at the bright side. Fully functional CDF means we get to fight uniformed combatants, and that's a lot easier than shooting people in plain clothes.
The military budget is probably about 1/4-1/5th of the overall budget. We're talking close to a trillion dollars. I don't think there is any way you can achieve parity without drastic cuts somewhere else.
I'm almost sure he can't raise that much money for a CDF when there are so many other budgetary shortfalls such as medicare.
He's got a lot of fixing to do before he can even entertain these extravagant ideas.
Hahah...Yep, we're safe because he couldn't do it without 'drastic cuts.'
Oh crap, a thought occurs...how about he just cuts the defense budget and funds it with that? Good thing Klintong never cut the military's budget, right? Oh wait, he slashed the shit out of it. Lucky for us though, its been so long that no one even remembers it, and nobody will ever think of doing it...double shit, Clinton with breasts is now Secretary of State. Well, maybe she forgot...
I'm amazed by how many people are whistling past the graveyard...hey guys, guess what? Obama and co. don't think like you do...its nothing to them if you don't have money for equipment or training, you're all a bunch of Nazi killers of women and children to them anyway, and 'only people who can't do anything else and the poor' join the military. At least in their minds(and their minds alone, since nothing could be farther from the truth).
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 19:17
Oh crap, a thought occurs...how about he just cuts the defense budget and funds it with that? Good thing Klintong never cut the military's budget, right? Oh wait, he slashed the shit out of it. Lucky for us though, its been so long that no one even remembers it, and nobody will ever think of doing it...double shit, Clinton with breasts is now Secretary of State. Well, maybe she forgot...
You do realize that Clinton cut the defense budget because the Cold War was over?
Just checking.
You do realize that Clinton cut the defense budget because the Cold War was over?
Just checking.
That says everything about your thought process that I need to know. You do realize that in 1993 Islamic radicals performed an act of terror (one of many) with the first bombing of the WTC, ONE month after Clinton took office? Sounds like a great time to start winding down the military.
I like your ideas, they intrigue me...do you publish a newsletter perhaps? Strangling the military during 'peace time' and then expecting it to perform during 'war time' sounds like a plan for success.
By the way, I thought Bush I ended the Cold War? The USSR officially blew to pieces in 1991...Bush I declared the Cold War over 2 years prior. You know Clinton took office in 1993, right?
But you're right, once you end up on top of the dung pile, its time to relax and quit preparing, especially when you're the Worlds 'sole remaining super power.'
Hey, Obama said there's no WOT. I say lets go one step further and not just cut the budget, but hell, lets just do away with those mean military guys and replace all their swords with plowshares.
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 19:35
That says everything about your thought process that I need to know. You do realize that in 1993 Islamic radicals performed an act of terror (one of many) with the first bombing of the WTC, ONE month after Clinton took office? Sounds like a great time to start winding down the military.
So you knew in Feb 1993 what was going to happen in Sept 2001? Perhaps you could have let the rest of us in on it.
The post-cold war "wind-down" was begun under Bush 41. Everyone thought the Cold War was over and NO ONE could conceive of a terror threat that rivaled the threat posed by the USSR.
Hindsight is 20/20.
You do realize that Clinton cut the defense budget because the Cold War was over?
Just checking.
Man, this is too rich, I just can't keep quiet.
Did you know that Clinton 'did not have sex with that woman?'
Did you know that at Waco, children with machine guns fired on the FBI then burnt their own dwelling down, and the FBI was forced to send an APC crashing into the building in an attempt as rescue?
Did you know the meaning of is, isn't?
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 19:38
Man, this is too rich, I just can't keep quiet.
Did you know that Clinton 'did not have sex with that woman?'
Did you know that at Waco, children with machine guns fired on the FBI then burnt their own dwelling down, and the FBI was forced to send an APC crashing into the building in an attempt as rescue?
Did you know the meaning of is, isn't?
Sure...do you know the meaning of "relevance"?
I never talked about Lewinski, nor did I mention Waco.
So you knew in Feb 1993 what was going to happen in Sept 2001? Perhaps you could have let the rest of us in on it.
The post-cold war "wind-down" was begun under Bush 41. Everyone thought the Cold War was over and NO ONE could conceive of a terror threat that rivaled the threat posed by the USSR.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Uh, buddy...the WTC was bombed the first time ONE MONTH after Clinton took office. How did he need hindsight to take something that happened previous to the military cuts into account? Yeah, that sentence is oddly constructed, but I'm too stupid to word it any differently.
I think you're intentionally being obtuse, but you're not Tom Brokaw, and I'm not your average TV viewer...you know full well Clinton had knowledge of the Islamic threat BEFORE he made massive defense cuts. And even if he didn't 'know' anything specific, the fact that we had a Islamic attack on our own soil should have been the impetus to start FINDING OUT. Not cutting our defense and intelligence budgets. But hey, there's the way it was, and there's the way CNN would put it. Guess which one you're following?
Sure...do you know the meaning of "relevance"?
I never talked about Lewinski, nor did I mention Waco.
Right...a man's honesty has no relevance on what he claims are the motivating factors for his actions. I mean, he only lied about the other stuff, right?
I think my eyes just about rolled out of their sockets.
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 19:46
Uh, buddy...the WTC was bombed the first time ONE MONTH after Clinton took office. How did he need hindsight to take something that happened previous to the military cuts into account? Yeah, that sentence is oddly constructed, but I'm too stupid to word it any differently.
I think you're intentionally being obtuse, but you're not Tom Brokaw, and I'm not your average TV viewer...you know full well Clinton had knowledge of the Islamic threat BEFORE he made massive defense cuts. And even if he didn't 'know' anything specific, the fact that we had a Islamic attack on our own soil should have been the impetus to start FINDING OUT. Not cutting our defense and intelligence budgets. But hey, there's the way it was, and there's the way CNN would put it. Guess which one you're following?
One more time...the military cuts began BEFORE Clinton took office AND we don't need a Cold War military budget (meant to counter a SUPERPOWER) to deal with terrorism.
If we do, then tautologically we are losing the strategic fight.
PS. Please check the definition of obtuse. I don't think you're employing it correctly.
One more time...the military cuts began BEFORE Clinton took office AND we don't need a Cold War military budget (meant to counter a SUPERPOWER) to deal with terrorism.
If we do, then tautologically we are losing the strategic fight.
You seem very selective on both your memory and facts.
Bush I made cuts in a military that had just BUILT UP for war...in other words, it was going back to being a peacetime military. In any event, they were NOTHING like the gutting Clinton gave the military, and neither can you trace Clinton's cuts back to Bush. Please show me how you can trace it...hell, I guess technically, Lincoln gutted the military, no wait, it was Washington, no, it was Wilson...shit, no, it was Eisenhower.
Making cuts in a military on a war footing to make the transition back to a peacetime military is nothing like massively gutting the PEACETIME BUDGET. You seem to have a real hard time understanding that. Bush WON THE WAR....and then cut back because that's how its been ****ing done since the ****ing Athenians were fighting the ****ing Spartans. Clinton GUTTED the military despite the fact that there was a major Islamic threat, BECAUSE HE WANTED THE MONEY ELSEWHERE. I guess the two are equal to you...
What does an army do in peacetime? A lot of things, but the simple answer is, they TRAIN. What happens to that army when their training budget is cut? The answer is, their readiness level drops.
In any event, I've laid the timeline out, and you just keep repeating the words of a impeached, known liar at face value, a man who has repeatedly shown his and his party's disdain for both the military in particular and national defense in general. I don't think we're going to agree, so I'll just say, Lewinsky's for everyone, her treat.
I replied before you added the obtuse request, so here you go...
ob·tuse (ŏb-tōōs', -tyōōs', əb-) Pronunciation Key
adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est
1.
1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
3. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.
4. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
5. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
6. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.
2.
1. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
2. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
3. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.
See 1 up there? Being intentionally obtuse means you're playing dumb. Thinking I used the word incorrectly without bothering to check if you're correct about my improper usage is just being dumb.
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 20:15
You seem very selective on both your memory and facts.
Funny that this annoys you given your own predilection for doing the same.
Constitutionally the President has ZERO control over spending. The "power of the purse" resides in Congress. From 1995-2000, Clinton dealt with a REPUBLICAN congress. Apparently they didn't share your foresight.
I'll concede the ground to your obviously superior intellect. :D
Funny that this annoys you given your own predilection for doing the same.
Constitutionally the President has ZERO control over spending. The "power of the purse" resides in Congress. From 1995-2000, Clinton dealt with a REPUBLICAN congress. Apparently they didn't share your foresight.
I'll concede the ground to your obviously superior intellect. :D
Oh Lord...constitutionally, we have the RTKBA. Make sure when you're blaming the Republican Congress for the defense cuts that you maintain your intellectual honesty and give them credit for balancing the budget and the surplus. Oh wait, everyone says Clinton did that. How does one need foresight to LOOK BACK at radical Islamic attacks?
Sweet, I hold the field. Don't get butt hurt because you tried to call me stupid for using a word you don't know. I never said nor implied that I was superior to you, just that it is stupid to call someone out on something that you don't know 100% yourself.
Have a good weekend, I'm drinking a killer homebrew right now, if you're anywhere near Raleigh, NC we should have this discussion over a couple some time, because here we're just repeating ourselves. At least in person one of us could punch the other one in the mouth.
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 20:29
Oh Lord...constitutionally, we have the RTKBA. Make sure when you're blaming the Republican Congress for the defense cuts that you maintain your intellectual honesty and give them credit for balancing the budget and the surplus. Oh wait, everyone says Clinton did that. How does one need foresight to LOOK BACK at radical Islamic attacks?
Sweet, I hold the field. Don't get butt hurt because you tried to call me stupid for using a word you don't know. I never said nor implied that I was superior to you, just that it is stupid to call someone out on something that you don't know 100% yourself.
Have a good weekend, I'm drinking a killer homebrew right now, if you're anywhere near Raleigh, NC we should have this discussion over a couple some time, because here we're just repeating ourselves. At least in person one of us could punch the other one in the mouth.
Seriously...did you actually read what I wrote? I don't recall blaming the Republican Congress for anything.
I simply pointed out that virtually NO ONE in government with power over the purse had the foresight to make terrorism a national defense priority. You made claims that Clinton slashed defense spending...something he couldn't have done without Republicans in Congress. Now you want to bring in the balanced budget? Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Like I said your hindsight is 20/20.
Seriously...did you actually read what I wrote? I don't recall blaming the Republican Congress for anything.
I simply pointed out that virtually NO ONE in government with power over the purse had the foresight to make terrorism a national defense priority. You made claims that Clinton slashed defense spending...something he couldn't have done without Republicans in Congress. Now you want to bring in the balanced budget? Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Like I said your hindsight is 20/20.
Every post from you is a different argument. You should go back and read how many questions I've presented you that you've totally dodged. The record is clear, like my hindsight, and like the hindsight of our leaders in 1995 when they looked back to 1993 when the WTC was bombed.
By the way, you keep mixing up hindsight and foresight, or you're being obtuse again and just accusing me of either to play both sides of the field. Don't believe me? Go back and read your posts.
Mmm, beer foam. Its delicious. Have a nice weekend, enjoy the last (meaningless) word.
Gutshot John
01-23-09, 20:38
Every post from you is a different argument.
Physician heal thyself. You're confusing what you do with what I'm doing. Don't believe me? Look back at your posts.
You should go back and read how many questions I've presented you that you've totally dodged.
Uhm no I just didn't respond to the Lewinsky/Waco nonsense simply because it wasn't relevant.
The record is clear, like my hindsight, and like the hindsight of our leaders in 1995 when they looked back to 1993 when the WTC was bombed.
Take it up with them.
By the way, you keep mixing up hindsight and foresight, or you're being obtuse again and just accusing me of either to play both sides of the field. Don't believe me? Go back and read your posts.
blahblahblah. No I'm not confusing them. Hindsight means that you look backwards after events and point out that everything was obvious...sorry but it wasn't.
Now who's being obtuse?
We risk discrediting ourselves with much of I what I keep seeing posted over and over on the internet gun forums.
Yes be weary of their intentions. But jumping to far reaching conclusions is only going to convince the unconvinced that we're a bunch of wack jobs.
Outlander Systems
01-23-09, 22:10
I called into a radio show a few months ago about this one.
I'll lay it out, again.
Based on the unemployment numbers over the last few months, the O-Man can probably entice people to serve that are not cut out for the military. Like, handing out bottles of water during a Hurricane or something of the sort.
I didn't vote for the O-Man, but I'm not going to cast him as guilty until proved innocent. I'm not exactly slobbering on myself, hailing him as the Messiah with spiralling zombie eyes, but I'm not throwing him in as the Antichrist either.
In all fairness, his policy on the 2A sucks ass, his referral to the Constitution as a set of "negative values" sent chills down my spine, and I'm not 100% sure he's not a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I don't see him as evil incarnate either. I think he lucked out that the bulk of the US population had become fed up with the country's direction, and voted out of emotion, instead of logic. Personally, I don't think anyone should hold the rank of CIC without having prior service, and I find the fact that Americans effectively bitch-slapped a war hero in favour of an unknown figure, who's been surrounded by terrorists, gangsters, and generally unsavory folk throughout his adult life, but I guess it goes to show that this little popularity contest shows where the bulk of America's backbone lies.
I think the fact that neither candidate's refusal to support the bankster bailout bill, shows what a mass of gutless suckers we all are for even electing any of these swindling hucksters; but I've digressed.
I'll let the new boss prove me wrong, or prove me right, but I'm not going to totally flip out over a CDF that probably couldn't get the funding to have a marching band, let alone become some sort of secret police.
On that conspiratorial little note, does anyone honestly believe the military, full of patriotic, and heroic Americans, sit by idly whilst a Tyrant's enforcement arm be created for the repudiation of the freedoms they fight and die for?
texasrangers
01-24-09, 01:44
[QUOTE=citizensoldier16;294465]That may be the case, but like you said, SCOTUS says otherwise. Reference BUTLER v. PERRY, 240 U.S. 328 (1916).
And the Heller decision proved that 4 out of our 9 "constitutional experts and interpreters" have absolutely no respect for the 2nd amendment to our Bill of Rights. If you may recall, one year after that SC decision, Woodrow Wilson entered us into another needless war, one that he said he would "not send our boys over there to fight" but did anyway once he got elected on the rhetoric. It didn't matter though, because the propaganda of the day depicted poor innocent women and children drowning after the Lusitania had been sunk, so millions of brave men volunteered, and hundreds of thousands never came back. Again, how were these conflicts in Europe a TRUE threat to American security? In reality however, those passengers on the Lusitania traveled at their own risk because the German consulate had taken out ads in major New York newspapers saying that ships carrying arms, ammunition and supplies to Great Britain would be fired upon. Wilson is also the same marxist pig who signed off on the Federal Reserve System (the 5th plank of the communist manifesto - look it up), and a heavy, progressive income tax (the 2nd plank of the manifesto - again, please look it up). At the time of course, it was not heavy, merely 1% of income of over $20,000 (off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure). Wilson is also the same marxist imbecile who tried to enter America into the League of Nations, the first tangible form of world government. But that didn't work, so another war was needed, and then the United Nations treaty was ratified by the Senate and passed. Alger Hiss, a convicted communist spy, played a very important role in the creation of the UN. So, in conclusion, just because an unaccountable group of men who clearly do not understand individual liberty tell me that being forced to be in the military and risk my own life for the benifits of the State is NOT involuntary servitude, doesn't mean that I have to accept it as fact, or the truth, or what I have to do.
...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Here's my take on the Rahm proposals.
With regards to firearms and national preparedness, the US government and states have a strong mandate to train and equip. It's something they should be doing.
Most young adults these days do not act the way they do because of an overabundance of discipline. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if they went to a uncomfortable, martial atmosphere for 3 months, learned to use weapons, learned to apply themselves, and to work with others, the majority would be much better off from the experience.
People CCW a gun because they can not CCW an entire cop. It's an entirely constitutional idea that cities, counties and states be able to have some sort of rudimentary defense structure greater than the typical first responders to pull from. Virginia Tech might have benefited from having more trained good guys with guns working in a coordinated manner, and Los Angeles certainly would have after the Rodney King verdicts.
Before the 2A was enumerated, there was some discussion going on about a select militia vs the current system. What we have isn't bad, it just isn't all that used or organized. Mildly comparable to the old soviet factory work theory. "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."
The two points I want to make is that the concept of the militia was never meant to be "no strings attached" and [controversial statement alert] the 2A isn't solely, or even primarily about owning guns.
Everyone is focusing on the word "Gestapo", and that is far from what Obama was talking about in his July Speech in Colorado Springs.
Obama wants a domestic form of the Peace Corps that is just as well funded as the Military. He calls it a Civilian National Security Force. As I stated earlier, he already has this going in an early form in most States; the group is called Public Allies.
Public Allies is a 13 month long paid training program for young people that teaches Community Organizing. The program contains a strong dose of Marxism.
Do some checking on this program. At face value it looks like any other inner city youth program, but dig deeper and you'll find what it's really about.
I have studied this group for quite a while now, and have had contact with some of it's former members.
OH58D
We risk discrediting ourselves with much of I what I keep seeing posted over and over on the internet gun forums.
Yes be weary of their intentions. But jumping to far reaching conclusions is only going to convince the unconvinced that we're a bunch of wack jobs.
I know you sort of slid this in here, but it bears repeating. For the past 8 years many of us could run over to the lefty forums and snicker about all the conspiracy theories that were posted there. They came off like nuts because they jumped to conclusions and made crazy claims. We're going to have to be careful not to sound the same way. This is a pretty mainstream site where gun owers of all beliefs come to learn. But to the "unconvinced" who might swing by here and visit, that's not the feel of this forum lately and what they'd see wouldn't win them over. There's way too much "sky is falling" panic.
We already have a force to defend America. ;)
http://kissata.com/
the group is called Public Allies...
Do some checking on this program. At face value it looks like any other inner city youth program, but dig deeper and you'll find what it's really about.
I have studied this group for quite a while now, and have had contact with some of it's former members.
OH58D
That is pretty scary.
The Peace Corps is not in the same realm as a Civilian National Security Force. Are we talking about a National Neighborhood watch? Maybe someone should ask him.
Have you seen the "average" 18-25 year old lately? Most are not inclined to make much effort towards anything. Could you see some kid who was poorly raised, was part of a gang, and has no education doing much more than causing trouble for the people who are now in charge of them? Sure, it sounds scary but the reality doesn't pan out too well...
Or better yet, wait until college students who voted for the messiah are told that they will have to give up their spring break or summer vacation time (the perfect time frame between courses) in order to fullfill their "service" obligations. I can just imagine the uproar that will bring.
FrankRochester
02-25-09, 16:03
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/SA-Logo.svg/135px-SA-Logo.svg.png
In 1921 Adolf Hitler formed his own private army called Sturm Abteilung (Storm Section). The SA (also known as stormtroopers or brownshirts) were instructed to disrupt the meetings of political opponents and to protect Hitler from revenge attacks. Captain Ernst Roehm of the Bavarian Army played an important role in recruiting these men, and became the SA's first leader.
thopkins22
02-25-09, 16:20
The military budget is probably about 1/4-1/5th of the overall budget. We're talking close to a trillion dollars. I don't think there is any way you can achieve parity without drastic cuts somewhere else.
I'm almost sure he can't raise that much money for a CDF when there are so many other budgetary shortfalls such as medicare.
He's got a lot of fixing to do before he can even entertain these extravagant ideas.
:rolleyes: Where are the trillions of dollars coming from for the bailouts/stimuli? Is there a surplus from which they're drawing this cash? No. Are people loaning us this money? No. Has the US government raised taxes to 90%? No. Are they printing money as fast as they can? Yes.
All current and future obligations combined our federal government could(worst case scenario and they actually get called on FDIC deposits) be in the hole something like $78.4 TRILLION dollars. That's more than the GDP of the entire world. Do we really think these politicians care about a lack of money?
There are plenty reasons that this won't happen, especially in the sense that it's been discussed here, but precedent shows us that a lack of money has yet to stop our government from spending vast sums of it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.