Author Topic: "CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE:" Obama's goals become clear with hid militarized government  (Read 539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,455
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
“CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE”: Obama’s Goals Become Clear with his Militarized Government
 
Posted by JimCampbell On April 19, 2014 0 Comment
 


Obama has little respect for the U.S. Constitution.  He proves this daily as

he circumvents congress and continues to commit his unconstitutional acts.

 

blm-snipers-outside-of-bundy-ranch

It is absolutely astounding to me that those in the FBI who got caught up in the BLM mission

to size and or destroy Cliven Bundy’s cattle and risk starting a civil war have forgotten the words they swore

when the promised to protect the U.S. Constitution.

It’s clear now more than ever that the Obama administration is” A Domestic Enemy,” and must be dealt with  as such.

 

bundy-ranch-cowboysOath Keepers and Cowboys put themselves in front of the Bundy family and friends until they cut an run.

For those members of the FBI who were there that day here are the words that each of you swore to, do we need to bring out the crayons?

United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office


All officers of the seven Uniformed services of the United States take swear or affirm an oath of office upon commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is required by statute, the oath being prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code.

One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders. Officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

 Text of the Oath


I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


Federal Fire Power: Instead of putting a lien on the property of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, the Bureau of Land Management surrounded his ranch with 200 armed agents. It’s not the only agency with a private army.

Back in 2008, candidate Barack Obama slipped a little-noticed line in a speech, proposing a national police force reporting straight to him.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military,” he said. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”



As our military is slowly decimated by his policies and budget cuts — and with federal agencies armed to the teeth — we may be seeing what he had in mind at the ranch of a 67-year-old Nevadan.

Agents of a federal agency that many Americans were surprised to see so heavily armed even herded American citizens into “First Amendment zones,” another surprise to those who thought the Constitution made the entire U.S. such a zone.

“The government’s option,” said Fox News contributor and former Judge Andrew Napolitano,

“is to take the amount of money (Bundy) owes them and docket it — that is, file the lien on his property. The federal government could have done that.

“Instead, they wanted this show of force. They swooped in . . . with assault rifles aimed and ready and stole this guy’s property, they stole his cattle. They didn’t have the right to do that. That’s theft, and they should have been arrested by state officials.”

The Environmental Protection Agency also has a private army. In late August 2013, armed EPA agents joined agents of the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force and swarmed gold mines near Chicken in the Last Frontier State.
   


In groups of four to eight, they even wore body armor and carried guns while investigating a supposed violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

That raid drew attention to the fact that some federal agencies, including the Library of Congress and the Federal Reserve Board, have divisions employing armed officers.

Other federal agencies participating in the operation were the Fish and Wildlife Service, Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Park Service and, yes, Bureau of Land Management.

That’s right: NOAA, whose dangerous job is to forecast the weather, monitor the atmosphere and keep tabs on the oceans and waterways, has its own law enforcement division.

It has a budget of $65 million and consists of 191 employees, including 96 special agents and 28 enforcement officers who carry weapons. Why does a weather service need ammunition?

We have pointed out the massive purchase of ammunition by the Department of Homeland Security that’s estimated to provide DHS a thousand more rounds per agent than soldiers in the Army.

But DHS is not alone.

 

Some 70 federal agencies, including those not associated with national security or crime fighting, employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

The Agriculture Department recently put in a request for 320,000 rounds.

Not long ago, the Social Security Administration put in a request for 174,000 rounds of “.357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point” ammo. NOAA put in a request for 46,000 rounds.

“We’re seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms. “To be honest, I don’t understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time.”

Maybe we can ask Cliven Bundy.

http://universalfreepress.com/civilian-national-security-force-obamas-goals-become-clear-with-his-militarized-government/
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 01:25:16 PM by rangerrebew »
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,855
  • Itchy yet?
http://universalfreepress.com/civilian-national-security-force-obamas-goals-become-clear-with-his-militarized-government/


There are a few - that was just the top one that matched both headline and text.

It's easy to miss the link when posting - I do it all the damned time.  :shrug:
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 12:14:36 PM by EC »
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Let me put up some pertinent info to add to this discussion.....

Per Wiki.....

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws.

The Act, as modified in 1981, refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

*SNIP*

The Act, § 15 of the appropriations bill for the Army for 1879, found at 20 Stat. 152, was a response to, and subsequent prohibition of, the military occupation by United States Army troops of the former Confederate States during the ten years of Reconstruction (1867–1877) following the American Civil War (1861–1865). The president withdrew federal troops from Southern states as a result of a compromise in one of the most disputed national elections in American history, the 1876 U.S. presidential election. Samuel J. Tilden of New York, the Democratic candidate, defeated Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio in the popular vote. Tilden garnered 184 electoral votes to Hayes' 165; 20 disputed electoral votes remained uncounted. After a bitter fight, Congress struck a deal resolving the dispute and awarding the presidency to Hayes.

In return for Southern acquiescence regarding Hayes, Republicans agreed to support the withdrawal of federal troops from the former Confederate states, ending Reconstruction. Known as the Compromise of 1877, South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana agreed to certify Rutherford B. Hayes as the President in exchange for the removal of Federal troops from the South.[1] The U.S. Constitution places primary responsibility for the holding of elections in the hands of the individual states. The maintenance of peace, conduct of orderly elections, and prosecution of unlawful actions are all state responsibilities, pursuant of any state's role of exercising police power and maintaining law and order, whether part of a wider federation or a unitary state.

During the local, state, and federal elections of 1874 and 1876 in the former Confederate states, all levels of government chose not to exercise their police powers to maintain law and order.[citation needed] Many acts of violence, and a suppression of the vote of some political and racial groups, resulted in the election of state legislators and U.S. congressmen who halted and reversed political reform in the American South.[1]

When the U.S. Representatives and Senators from the former Confederate states reached Washington, they set as a priority the creation of a statute prohibiting any future President or Congress from directing, by military order or federal legislation, the imposition of federal troops in any U.S. state.

An exception to Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, allowed President Eisenhower to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1958 school desegregation crisis. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.[2]

The original Posse Comitatus Act referred essentially to the United States Army. The United States Air Force was added in 1956 and the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. The United States Coast Guard is not included in the Act. (The Coast Guard was originally part of the Treasury Department, was later part of the Department of Transportation, and is now within the Department of Homeland Security.) This law is often relied upon to prevent the Department of Defense from interfering in domestic law enforcement.[3]

The original provision was enacted as Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress.

    Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[4]

The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:

    18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

        Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):

    10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel

        The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008).

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[5]

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:

    The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[6]

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act[7] that in its original form was written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness.

In 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law. Section 1021, clause "b", article 2 defines a 'covered person', i.e., someone possibly subject to martial law, as the following: "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." [8] Additional text in Section 1021, Paragraph e, defined the scope of said authority of the military with the text, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."[9]

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Please take a moment to review the information I just posted on Posse Comitatus, then, considering the direct prohibition against using US Military Personnel as domestic law enforcement; at what point do the domestic law enforcement officers become defacto govenment para-military troops??  In many cases local police departments and Sheriffs have well trained military assault teams that are better armed and better outfitted than what our troops fighting the Taliban have.

If police officers are better outfitted and armed for urban assault than your average Army troop is, are they not in violation of Posse Comitatus, and therefore operating extra-constitutionally?? 

 :pondering:

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,485
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Please take a moment to review the information I just posted on Posse Comitatus, then, considering the direct prohibition against using US Military Personnel as domestic law enforcement; at what point do the domestic law enforcement officers become defacto govenment para-military troops??  In many cases local police departments and Sheriffs have well trained military assault teams that are better armed and better outfitted than what our troops fighting the Taliban have.

If police officers are better outfitted and armed for urban assault than your average Army troop is, are they not in violation of Posse Comitatus, and therefore operating extra-constitutionally?? 

 :pondering:

In a word, nope.  For that act to kick in, federal military action must be involved and unless the state law enforcement officers in question have been made a part of the federal military command structure, their actions are not federal actions and therefore the posse comitatus act does not apply.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,855
  • Itchy yet?
Please take a moment to review the information I just posted on Posse Comitatus, then, considering the direct prohibition against using US Military Personnel as domestic law enforcement; at what point do the domestic law enforcement officers become defacto govenment para-military troops??  In many cases local police departments and Sheriffs have well trained military assault teams that are better armed and better outfitted than what our troops fighting the Taliban have.

If police officers are better outfitted and armed for urban assault than your average Army troop is, are they not in violation of Posse Comitatus, and therefore operating extra-constitutionally?? 

 :pondering:

You wandered into a rather large grey area.

Is the National Guard not called out to keep the peace? They are technically military.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,485
  • #NeverTrumpForever
You wandered into a rather large grey area.

Is the National Guard not called out to keep the peace? They are technically military.

depends on what you mean by "technically military."  If by that you simply mean they carry armaments similar to those carried by the US armed forces, then yes, they are.  But if by that you mean they are a part of the US military command, and subject to the orders of the US military, then they are not when they are acting under the authority of the state they serve, because then they are subject to the command of the state's executive, not the federal government's executive.

The level of armament doesn't matter; it's the chain of command that matters.

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
depends on what you mean by "technically military."  If by that you simply mean they carry armaments similar to those carried by the US armed forces, then yes, they are.  But if by that you mean they are a part of the US military command, and subject to the orders of the US military, then they are not when they are acting under the authority of the state they serve, because then they are subject to the command of the state's executive, not the federal government's executive.

The level of armament doesn't matter; it's the chain of command that matters.

I was pretty sure that was the answer, but what's the real difference if it is an Army Corporal sitting behind that Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, or one of your local Sheriff's Deputies?? 


Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,485
  • #NeverTrumpForever
I was pretty sure that was the answer, but what's the real difference if it is an Army Corporal sitting behind that Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, or one of your local Sheriff's Deputies??

For one thing, the deputy sitting behind the gun is more likely to know locals, to be a local, and to understand/sympathize with local concerns, as is the sheriff who put him there.  an army corporal who hails from, say, the Bronx is very unlikely to understand, appreciate, or sympathize with the concerns of ranchers in Nevada.

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,566
Chieftan wrote above:
[[ If police officers are better outfitted and armed for urban assault than your average Army troop is, are they not in violation of Posse Comitatus, and therefore operating extra-constitutionally?? ]]

I'll offer my answer (the one that will be proffered by the government):
No, they are not.
At least that's how the argument is going to be made for using militarized officers of -civilian- (important word) governmental agencies to do the "police work" of government.

This becomes the excuse they have to circumvent Posse Comitatus, and render it moot (from the point of it having been passed to protect Americans from unlawful force applied against them by the use of troops by the federal government).

Transform the new troopers into "civilian police". Arm them to the teeth, with all the weapons, gear, and backup support normally provided to military personnel.

We see this going on right now, and NO ONE is doing anything to stop it. Of course, the democrats will oppose any efforts to stop it, because to them "the government" is the ultimate authority, and all must submit to its demands. But the Republicans are going to do nothing to stop it, either. At least a VERY few may speak out against it. But that isn't going to STOP what's happening.

The only way this will be stopped is when one or more states, acting together, use whatever resources they have within their borders (state police, national guard under authority of the governors, local sheriffs, local police, or even organized groups of civilians) to intervene (in an action being undertaken within one or more state borders) and confront the federals, and literally force them to back down. Yes, I know what that implies.

Ahem... didn't something like that just happen a few days ago?

But that's the only way this can be put to an end.
Of the people, by the people, for the people....

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
For one thing, the deputy sitting behind the gun is more likely to know locals, to be a local, and to understand/sympathize with local concerns, as is the sheriff who put him there.  an army corporal who hails from, say, the Bronx is very unlikely to understand, appreciate, or sympathize with the concerns of ranchers in Nevada.

And I am not willing to bet my life on that distinction.


Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,485
  • #NeverTrumpForever
And I am not willing to bet my life on that distinction.

then you'd better stay at home under the bed 'cause that distinction is the only one you're going to get; posse comitatus does not apply to state actors, whether you will it or not.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,455
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them

[/b]
In 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law. Section 1021, clause "b", article 2 defines a 'covered person', i.e., someone possibly subject to martial law, as the following: "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces

Since Obama is sending weapons to aid "moderate" Al Qaeda in Syria, doesn't that make him a covered person?
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,485
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Since Obama is sending weapons to aid "moderate" Al Qaeda in Syria, doesn't that make him a covered person?


Good point!!


:bigsilly:


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf