Civilian National Security Force
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
Like so many of the things I read that aggravate me I received an email today that had me thinking. Now “thinking” and “aggravated” aren’t always in the same sentence but often my thinking about something ends up with me aggravated. In this case I just ended up curious and potentially confused. The topic: President-Elect Obama’s “civilian national security force”.
As I understand it P-E Obama has made the statement that “we” (that’d be you, me and every other American) need a civilian national security force that is “Just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded” as our military. Some of that does concern me.
“Just as powerful” and “Just as strong”, at least in my mind, means:
- Equal manpower. Our current military strength is over 1.3 MILLION troops. That’s approximately 50% more troops than civilian cops for the U.S.
- Equal firepower. Having the same number of PEOPLE doesn’t matter unless they have the same number of GUNS and other weapons. What in the world could we possibly need 1.3+ million civilians armed with automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc for? I’m a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but come on… do we NEED that?
- A similar Chain of Command - which stops at the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. That would give Mr. Obama control over an awful lot of power from both the military and civilian base.
I guess what I don’t understand is why we need such a force. What would their duties be? Who would pay them? Who would provide the equipment, weapons, training, oversight, etc?
Every state already has a state police agency. Every state already has a National Guard that, thankfully, is under control of the state’s governor UNTIL they are activated during war time. Then they are under the control of the Commander in Chief, Mr. President.
In fact, I can only think of two groups of armed individuals who DON’T come under the President’s orders in some way - although I think he could find some legal technicality to take control of them since he’s a lawyer with lots of lawyer friends:
- Police & Deputies: I’m sure that a filter-down type of order might work for controlling the police. Deputies might be a tad harder since Sheriffs are elected; not appointed (at least everywhere I know of). Therefore, Sheriffs are at greater liberty to tell politicians where to put it.
- Legally armed citizens: and somehow, given Mr. Obama’s clear history of anti-gun legislation support, I don’t think HE thinks all those gun owners and carriers will blindly do whatever he says. However, that 1.3+million civilian well armed, well funded and well trained “national security force” may be the perfect people to attempt to enforce Mr. Obama’s will on the rest of us.
Paranoid? No doubt. I hope and pray that the conservative right has this all wrong and Mr. Obama is going to lead from the middle. That said, I’m also thankful that there are over 4 million members of the National Rifle Association so that even if Mr. Obama attempted to use both the military AND his civilian national security force to confiscate or outlaw privately owned weapons, it’d be one heck of a fight and not one he could reasonably expect to win.
If there is another intended purpose for the civilian national security force I’d dearly love to hear it. I believe that empowering citizens to be responsible for their own safety is honorable and, especially in today’s terror-ridden world, indeed mandatory. If that’s Mr. Obama’s goal then I am right there with him. I’ll even volunteer my time as a trainer.
Anyone else want to step up to join me?
Germany started a similar program in the 1930s. Just think put you through school, college etc. Then higher you as a Civiallian National Security Force and of course it will be called CNSF. We know like in all other standards will shall lower or here write entry standards low enough so anyone can get in. More government is what we need your right. From a 20 year retired Law Enforcement Officer.
I wonder if anyone who reads this or will become part of the NCSF can explain the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, Bill of Rights etc… Working in law enforcement I realized the majority of society does not even know their own rights.
Given Obama’s anti gun stance what would he arm this group with foam bats? I believe this is a ploy to get people to come to his way of thinking and to instill in them a “group” menatalit thus be easier to control.
No Thanks, I will let my life and actions be dictated by the Constitution of The United States of America.
If anything like this comes to pass any and all right thinking Americans must join-up immediately. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Its better to keep an eye on things from the inside than from the outside.
“Who would pay them?” You mean, printing more money isn’t the answer?
I kid! I kid!
I heard Obama talking about this during the debates and my first thought was the only reason I could see this idea coming to pass was for the forceful implementation of his(Obama’s) ideas. The idea, it seems, belongs to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Germany had something similar, they were called the Brown Shirts.
I think the name we’re looking for is
GESTOPO or KBG.
Like many of the others, the first thing that went through my mind when I saw this article was 1930s Germany. We’ve already seen some evidence of it prior to Obama, in this country. Take a look at the guardian angels and some of the issues that have occured due to a lack of accountability.
Anytime you have a single charimatic leader and an armed group of followers, there will generally be another group they are claiming to defend against. We need to keep an eye out for that group. As soon as it’s identified, then we have a problem. Remember though, we can’t depend on the general population to do anything but accept the status quo, i.e. Germany, Italy, Russian, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Zimbabwe, Rwanda…
There are supposed to be about 250 million of us in the national security force. It is called being a citizen of the United States of America. That is why we have the right to bear arms.
Let’s try that again with spelling correct:
Why don’t you read what he actually said before claiming the sky is falling and we’re all going to be saying seig heil Obama. It makes you look like a right wing nut instead of a rational person with rational concerns. I like your less political and more common sense articles, but on this one you’re just off base. He’s talking about the Peace Corps.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html
Andrew E,
What does a National Civilian Security Force have to do with the Peace Corps any other similar agency. I did try to see what he was talking about after Frank wrote this column and I found nothing that made me think Peace Corps! If you say National Civilian Security Force, without defining what that means, of coursse people of all political stripes are going to fill in the blanks based upon their own definition and/or fears.
I am certainly no “right wing nut” (and I don’t think Frank is a nut, either) - compared to most cops I am very much a centrist - but I AM from Illinois and Pres-Elect Obama has espoused some ideas, including about guns, that are far, far to the left of where I can comfortably sit. P-E Obama, like ALL politicians, bears close scrutiny. That is the job of the true National Civilian Security Force, otherwise known as the electorate, whether they are armed or not.
And I like the more political columns posted in this space. I may not always agree, but they’ll always make me think.
You know, I freely admit to be pretty right wing. In fact, there have been times where I’ve admitted to being a “right wing extremist”. I have friends who tell me I’m so far off to the right that I’m coming around on the left.
My biggest concern is that P-E Obama has made a few comments that could charitably be called “slightly socialist”. THAT scares me. Add in other comments he makes that seem fairly different from what anyone else in the public view seems to espouse and it makes me wonder.
I’m not trying to bring the man down or paint him in a negative light. It’s my dearest hope that he will be as good for this country as many believe(d). But you can bet I’ll be watching carefully and will exercise my First Amendment rights anytime he steps past a line I believe to be in America’s best interests.
Ok, am I wrong to think that this is a civic duty of ALL AMERICANS? Shouldn’t we ALL be on the look out for this stuff? Isn’t this why we have the second ammendment? Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.
I have tried to be pretty neutral on this whole P-E Obama hysteria that is sweeping the lefties, I am finding things to be concerned about though. I don’t know if anyone else caught it, but yesterday at his news conference he said he wanted to have the whole socialized medical care deal on his desk as part of the auto industry bail out bill. Has anyone heard what else he wants in this bill to be signed on Jan. 20 2009?!? I am getting the feeling some of his advisor’s are sorely over estimating what the populous will accept from this newly minted savior.
Jon,
No, you are not wrong about our civic duty, at least in my opinion. My kinda long-winded response above was in part to agree with what you had said before.
I’ll never understand the paranoia that the “evil government” will use the military to seize everyone’s guns thus rendering the population powerless and then the government can do…hmmm, what would they do? What would the purpose of such an exercise be? And how do you get 1.3 Million average Americans who make up the military to blindly follow such a plan? I want to protect my family as much as the next guy, but it’s not the gov’t I’m afraid of.
And Bruce L, socialized medical care is a fantastic thing; look at the UK, France and Canada. I agree on the bail out; my socialists views do not extend to the market place and stop abruptly after we make sure sick kids get the help they need.
Look, Obama isn’t the big bad wolf. Even if he was, the USA is, as a whole, a huge ship that just can’t be turned around that quickly regardless of evil intentions. Plus, the government is a massive bureaucracy that is too inept and disorganized for any sort of conspiracy to actually work without the full cooperation of the population.
The civilian national security force is just talk, won’t happen, and even if it does who cares, it’s not some weird plot equivalent to the Nazis. Geez, that’s right wing spin (just like the left wing spin made Palin look far more stupid than she is (I hope) ).
Let’s filter what we read by examining the source and the source’s motivations.
Simon;
You may well be right in everything you say. I’m not a fan of socialized medicine even if that makes me out to be some kind of monster. Do I want sick kids to suffer? NO! Do I want to pay increased taxes to pay for medical care for those to lazy to work? NO!
I think part of the problem is that our politicians, in general, seem so untouchable. I mean, you’ve got the FBI charging the Illinois governor with attempting to SELL a seat in the SENATE and he’s still in office? I know… innocent until proven guilty. Well, that same philosophy applies in other ways. I’ll believe that Obama is a good, strong, patriotic, American-loving leader when he’s proven it. Until then I’m going to judge the man based on his past record of extreme-left, near-socialist voting record and statements. And, while we’re here, his “change” platform is looking very much like Bill Clinton’s years in office and in line with the will of the Democratic National party. Um, that’s not much of a change “in Washington” except that a Republican president is no longer in the White House.
And just for the record, yeah… I’d rather see an Independent or Libertarian president than one from EITHER of the major political parties.
Thanks for the reply, Frank. I also do not want to pay taxes to subsidize people who are fully capable of working but choose not to. But poverty is dictated by more than just work ethic. To say that all those who cannot afford the necessities of life are lazy is an oversimplification of the problem to say the least. Surely most of the losers we meet in our jobs fall into that category, and it is tempting for us to paint all of the poor with the same brush, but it is simply not true.
I wonder if health care had been invested in instead of the Bush / Saddam grudge match, would the country be in a better position today?
Bleeding heart I am not, and I get really pissed off with the families of third generation social assistance / welfare recipients and their sense of entitlement. But, I see very little gain in refusing to help truly needy people because some others will take advantage. Of course they will; it is the cost of doing business.
As for health care, the HMO’s have a vested interest in avoiding socialized health care; they are making massive profits and their interest is the bottom line. I wonder how much of the case against socialized health care comes from the HMO spin doctors?
And is Obama the magical answer to everything? Of course not. I believe that no one gets to that level without being in a lot of pockets, and those pockets belong to the same people/corporations who have always had powerful politicians in their pockets. Money buys campaigns, so money rules the country, and that won’t be changing any time soon. But at least we get to listen to a guy who gives better sound bites than old George has.
But come on, can you imagine Palin “aw shucks” as VP and then President after Mccain’s next heart attack? That’s like promoting a janitor to CEO. Sure, all the other janitors think it’s great that “someone who knows what it’s like” is the boss, but when it comes down to it the CEO operates on a totally different level than the janitors and the company would go in the toilet.
The Palin as VP choice was about campaign marketing and making the election into a reality tv show. Thankfully it didn’t work. Mccain is great, Palin was not, and was a deal breaker. But I don’t think it would have made a big difference who got in, a politician is a politician.
NCSF Chief ( President of The Divided States of America Obama ), simply needs a security force from sea to shining sea to ENFORCE his change you can better believe in our else…….wonder who will be picked as his right hand man?
God bless America. Allah need not apply!!
Frank;I’m with you as a former Navy Seal.This cnsf,sounds crazy.My friends are former military and urrent police officers. We continually train together feeding off of each other’s knowladge.To be properly trained takes lot’s of hours and lot’s of money,as was asked before-who is gonna pay for it.Obama and Biden are the biggest anti gun politicians we’ve ever seen. So with the help of the N.R.A. We will be keeping our eye’s on these guy’s!
First point of contention is “Obama’s record”, if you believe he truly has one. He is articulate when someone has written a speech for him. For all those who have berated Palin let me say this, she is more qualified than Obama by virtue of the fact she has actually had to make executive decisions. Obama is not qualified to be president, having some of the most socialist ideas that he probably acquired from the company he has kept. To the best of my recollection some of the worst leaders in history have been articulate speakers. The only thing we have to go on, right now, is Obama’s short voting record and the fact he said anything he thought would get him elected president.
Simon, Simon, Simon. You refer to the socialized healthcare of the UK, France and Canada. While I have yet to do any research into Canada let’s take a look at France and the UK. The French tax rate is extremely high, 71.3% of gross salary. Sure not all of that goes for healthcare, but I pay enough taxes as it is and can guarantee that as soon as one socialist program is allowed there will be more (kinda like welfare being folowed by healthcare). As for the UK for some strange reason they have recently started to move towards a free market approach to healthcare. Why is that? Maybe because, like all government run programs, the healthcare system there is inefficient and slow. People often wait weeks for a simple CAT scan (which many hospitals share as the government will not buy one for every hospital). Socialized healthcare, like all socialist ideas, looks great on paper but blows up in practice. Government is not meant to take care of us, but simply to perform those duties (and only those duties) named and granted in the US Constitution.
France 80.59
Canada 80.34
Simon;
All your comments are appreciated. I’m going to pick out just one to comment on since it’s so appropriate to the moment.
Comparing Palin to a janitor who gets promoted to CEO (if she as VP and McCain died) doesn’t seem quite fair to me. But let’s leave it and ask this: would a janitor be better than the CEOs of the “big 3″ right now? You’re right… they do operate on different levels. Janitors have to make everything clean. CEOs have to make everything LOOK clean.
I like things simple. Once we have to start analyzing different layers of something then I get a headache.
I think the bigger problem stems from people looking to the government for the answer. Whether the question is about a national security force, health care, etc… No longer is there an expectation among some of the population that they are responsible for taking care of these things for themselves.
Jon; Your right,people need to realize that the Govt. is not there Big Daddy. yeah, let’s just hope that some responsible individual accountability is still possible! Oh to dream. I’m off to the range, hope to see you there!
c’mon this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of safe and the home of the chickens. We are fine right now where we’re at, fighting terrorism at the source.
When our police officers are expressing concens over this development, concerns ought to be expressed. Is this why more senior(in age) cops are surely being pushed out the Force? In my home town, there’s a push to hold 40,50, and 60 year old cops to physical standards written for 18 and 19 year old kids. I dare not go into the details. Is this a way to shag them out of their retirement or is it a way to remove old school cops who might tend to be more loyal to the people than to the State? As one gets older they tend to be a bit more cynical toward the system and is less likely to give instant and unquestioning obedience to orders that may violate people’s civil and human rights and replace them with myrmydons.I was once told that the older cops mentored the younger ones for good and for ill. If the liberty concious officers are forced out of the Department, who would mentor the newer cops to abide by our Constitution?