There are two sets of rules. One set for the rulers and another for the rest of us. —Richard Yancey, former IRS tax collector
Posted on 02/21/2009 8:37:32 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A little-publicized Department of Defense Directive (Number 1404.10) establishes a "DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce" and rescinds a prior directive dealing with the emergency use of civilian personnel.
The new 1404.10, dated January 23, 2009 -- just three days after the inauguration -- is effective immediately, and cancels the prior directive of the same designation ("Emergency-Essential (E-E) DoD U.S. Citizen Civilian Employees"), that was issued in 1992 under President Clinton. The 1992 directive specifically deals with overseas deployments of civilian personnel, and mentions the term "overseas" no fewer than 33 times.
The new directive does not mention the term "overseas" in the body of the directive even once. The word "overseas" appears in the new Directive 4 times: once as as a reference; once to describe a database "code"; once to describe the code values; and once in the Glossary. In other words, the new Directive doesn't apply to the overseas deployment of civilians at all, but applies to their deployment in the United States mainland.
The previous Directive does not mention "restoration of order" or "stability operations." These operations are prominently featured in the new directive. In fact, these functions are central to the mission of Obama's new DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce:
Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05...
While the directive suggest that the DoD will seek volunteers, Section 4 (d), subsection {e} paragraph 2 states: Management retains the authority to direct and assign civilians either voluntarily, involuntarily, or on an unexpected basis to accomplish the DoD mission.
This new directive is odd, coming as it does after campaign promises by Obama to establish a paramilitary "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military (video).
Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel wrote the following in his 2006 book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America":
"It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
Here's a video of Rahmbo describing his mandatory civil service plan to NY Daily News reporter Ben Smith in 2006. This notion was detailed in Emanuel's book, co-authored by Bruce Reed.
This bunch has been thinking about this "force" for a long time. As previously documented in these pages, Obama has been actively organizing and training the cadre for his "Civilian National Security Force" since 1993. Here are the frightening details.
I worked around the federal government a lot and this Directive is all about funding. The language and the mission can be changed in a heartbeat.
Here’s a chance for people to vote on “Change” - again
will the lemmings get on the trains?
Interesting read
Give Obama some credit - he is preparing for Civil War II. The way things are going for him he may just get to fight that war.
So who can shoot better: Democrats or Republicans? Taken as read from this article, that question has to be asked.
We are on the cusp of Revolt here. This is the most outrageous aspect of Obama. This cannot be tolerated.
Brown-shirts and Jack-boots for everybody!
“Asked to serve”. Or will they be conscripted?
These poor kids will never see 26!
>So who can shoot better: Democrats or Republicans? Taken as read from this article, that question has to be asked.
That, my friend, is a stupid division-line; I don’t care if they call themselves “independent”, “democrat”, “republican”, “anti-federalist”, “whigg” or whatever; I’m far more concerned that they desire justice, not the puppet shows we see in the courtrooms, and not the “above-the-law” politicians.
Just remember, the coming tyranny is an injustice, we should welcome any who will fight for their rights, for justice.
FUBO
>We are on the cusp of Revolt here. This is the most outrageous aspect of Obama. This cannot be tolerated.
BLOAT; start laying out logistics and operations planning.
> That, my friend, is a stupid division-line; I don’t care if they call themselves “independent”, “democrat”, “republican”, “anti-federalist”, “whigg” or whatever; I’m far more concerned that they desire justice, not the puppet shows we see in the courtrooms, and not the “above-the-law” politicians.
Fair enough. So where are they? Or more to the point, where were they on November 4 2008?
> Just remember, the coming tyranny is an injustice, we should welcome any who will fight for their rights, for justice.
Again, fair enough. Tho’ I’m not at all certain that the lines aren’t drawing themselves up as tidily as Left versus Right, Dem versus GOP, Wrong versus Right. Because they seem to be.
Perhaps there are a whole bunch of folk on the side of Right that are keeping quiet for the moment — if they are there, they sure aren’t obvious.
C.O.P.S. for short, "Comrade Obama's Police State"
I have an 18-year-old daughter. They’ll get her only after I empty my boxes of ammunition in their general direction one bullet at a time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.