Thomas Sowell asks: Are You An Extremist? and connects a few dots to the Obama Youth Corps our President promised to create during the election.
Reportedly, the FBI and the Defense Department are cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security in investigations of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. That people who have put their lives on the line for this country are made the target of what is called the Vigilant Eagle program suggests that this administration might be more of a threat than the people they are investigating.
All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year's election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.
Why such an organization? For what purpose?
Since there are state and local police forces all across the country, an FBI to investigate federal crimes and a Department of Justice to prosecute those who commit them, as well as a Defense Department with military forces, just what role would a federal police force play?
Maybe it was just one of those bright ideas that gets floated during an election campaign. Yet there was no grassroots demand for any such federal police nor any media clamor for it, so there was not even any political reason to suggest such a thing.
What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared to existing law enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration -- and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military traditions and law enforcement traditions.
In short, a federal police force could become President Obama's personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers.
Perhaps there will never be such a federal police force. But the targeting of individuals and groups who believe in some of the fundamental values on which this country was founded, and people who have demonstrated their patriotism by volunteering for military service, suggests that this potential for political abuse is worth watching, as Obama tries to remake America to fit his vision.
Hmmmm! Here's the exact promise (via Joseph Farah):
"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."
Is there any other interpretation than that Obama wants an internal army that's as strong and as deadly as the military? In effect, a counterweight to the military? For what purpose? Did the Obama of 2008 not trust the military to remain under his control? Was this a foretaste of the accusation that returning veterans are radicals that will turn to terrorism?
In a multi-trillion dollar budget that no one reads, is there the beginning of a new national police force? Is there a connection to the heightened media coverage of Mexican gangs? Just asking.
4 comments:
Well, technically, there is potential funding for a national security force. Just look at the bill that essentially passed Congress a few weeks ago. The one where Obama's going to essentially draft American youths (I'm sorry, I meant mandatory volunteer) will have to be funded and I'm there were funding provisions withing that bill.
Now you might want to take a close look at that particular bill (I wrote a piece on it on my blog), especially the part regarding a National Service Reserve Force. That particular group has the underpinnings of a potential national security force.
The benign interpretation of then-Candidate Obama's statement is that in situations like Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has been doing the job of what should be the civilian reconstruction arms of the State Department. Yes, the military has an organic engineer component, but does this mean the military should be running clean water and sewer lines across Anbar? Shouldn't the military be able to build or rebuild schools as an option rather than a mission? There are a lot of civilian jobs that are being done either by the military or by the people most likely to be displaced by a civilian force, namely KBR and other groups despised by candidate Obama and his fellow liberals. A civilian force that can do these things in foreign countries, a more muscular USAID, would be a useful adjunct to the kinetic military -- but the State Department doesn't see fit to provide such in any way that makes the news.
The less-benign implication is, of course, a domestic group that puts the SA in "USA".
If my knowledge of history is accurate (and it is ;>)) the Nazis 1st power base was total control of the various state police organizations (Herman Goering lost a power struggle for control of the police to Heinrich Himmler). This was then amlified by the creation of the Gestapo, their secret police answerable only to the Nazi administration. It was only later that the Wehrmacht, the German armed forces, was forced to swear a personal oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler, the Leader (Fuhrer).
I anticipate a similar pattern being tried here.
IF THE NSF THAT PASSED BURIED IN THE 'RECOVERY' BILL DOES NOT DO IT THESE THREE WILL:
dENNIS kUCINICH-HR-808,BOBBY RUSH HR-45, ALCEE HASTINGS HR-645. iNDIVIDUALLY THEY; TAKE OUR GUNS AND AMMO, BUILD THE RE-EDUCATION CAMPS FOR US DANGEROUS FOLKS AND PROVIDE THE CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE OBAMA WANTS. ANY AND ALL COULD BE SLID INTO AND PASSED IN A LARGER 'STEALTH BILL', READ THEM, CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSCRITTER.
Post a Comment