Saturday, March 14, 2009

Obama's 'Domestic Security Force'

Remember this?

Apparently the One is pretty wedded to proceeding with this plan. As Doug Ross reveals he re-emphasized it again at the dedication ceremony of the National Defense University's Abraham Lincoln Hall:

On February 16, I noted a little-publicized Department of Defense Directive (Number 1404.10), which establishes a "DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce" and rescinds a prior (and longstanding) directive dealing with the emergency use of civilian personnel.

The new 1404.10 cancels the prior directive of the same designation ("Emergency-Essential (E-E) DoD U.S. Citizen Civilian Employees"), which was issued in 1992 under President Clinton. The 1992 directive specifically deals with overseas deployments of civilian personnel. It does not mention terms like "restoration of order" or "stability operations", prominently featured in the new directive.In fact, those functions are central to the mission of President Obama's new DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce. The 1992 directive mentions the term "overseas" no fewer than 33 times. The 2009 directive does not mention the term "overseas" in the body of the directive even once.

News flash: the Constitution defined a civilian national security force. It was all of us. It was established and protected by the Second Amendment.

Blogpal Megan Fox notes this as well, and her take is especially relevant as she lives in Obama's old home town of Chicago, has seen what the Chosen One and his allies think of that Second Amendment and noted the results first hand:

Why it's called a "workforce" is beyond me since its main objective is to be in combat. I ask you, why would we need more combat forces than the police, the National Guard, the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines? Could it be because of the video I posted yesterday? Looks like someone might have an inferiority complex and some serious concerns about our fighting forces' loyalty. {...}

Obama's Chicago, you may not know, has the toughest and most numerous gun laws in the nation. We are one of only two states left in the Union that does not allow conceal-carry legislation. Chicago and several surrounding suburbs have "hand-gun bans" which were just recently declared unconstitutional by the Supremes. This still has not swayed our illustrious Mayor, King Richard. (Who is surrounded by armed guards 24 hours a day. Also, note that our Aldermen also carry handguns on them everywhere they go but if you or I do it, we'll be sent to jail.) Gun laws in Obama's Chicago are only for the little people to follow.

A report came out stating that 26 school-aged children have been shot dead since the school year started. This has set off the predictable wailing mommies leaning on Jesse Jackson while he gets his face time under the hot lights of the cameras. He is again calling for a gun grab. Clearly, gun laws in Obama's Chicago don't work. {..}

And while Obama's Chicago burns to the ground in a war zone that is claiming more lives than the insurgents in Iraq, the Democrats are whining about grabbing my guns. Guns that have never been used to harm anyone and would only be used to defend my families' and my life. (And possibly bag a deer when the grocery stores run out of food.)

Pop Quiz: How do you disarm a population?Answer: Create a Jack-booted Civilian Brown Shirted Black Panther Brigade to come and take them by force. How does that saying go again? From my cold dead fingers....

She has it exactly right. The Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution precisely because they realized that a disarmed population was subject to the whims and tyranny of a dictatorial government.

With the cuts in our military budget Obama is ramming through in the new budget,one has to this where the funding for Obama's 'domestic security force' is coming from? And for that matter, if a domestic security force was needed at all, say, to patrol our southern borders, why not just expand the National Guard?

Or could it be that, as Megan notes, the Chosen One has doubts and prefers a force organized on the lines he dictates and loyal to him personally?

No comments: