Posted on 08/20/2008 1:34:56 AM PDT by neverdem
In West Texas, it was not uncommon to see the bumper sticker “fear the government that fears your gun” on a lot of pick-up trucks during both terms of the Clinton administration. Like the rest of the South and much of the Midwest, we were hypersensitive to the thought of having our right to keep and bear arms infringed upon in any way. Moreover, common sense and annual FBI crime statistics taught us that 99.9% of the population only used their guns for defensive reasons, thus we were particularly leery of an administration that sought to take away our instruments of self-defense. Yet as bad as Clinton was, his push to disarm the American people would pale in comparison to what we’d see from a President Barack Obama, a man who not only wants to disarm the American people, but America’s allies as well.
In the 1990s, my fellow West Texans and I were especially bothered by the way Clinton turned every crime -- from Columbine to gang activity -- into an opportunity to pass incremental legislation which made it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase and carry guns, and therefore harder to be free. And if Obama’s past is any indication, this is the same course he would take in his attempt to get guns out of our hands.
As an Illinois State Senator in 1999, Obama’s solution to gun crime in Chicago was not to push for stricter enforcement of laws already on the books but to support legislation limiting gun purchases to one a month. In other words, his “solution” to gang-related home invasions was to limit the homeowner’s access to firearms.
But that’s only the tip of the iceberg with this guy. During the 109th U.S. Congress, he voted against Senate bill 397, which outlawed frivolous lawsuits against gun companies. And while campaigning for the presidency in Pennsylvania earlier this year, he voiced his support for reinstating the assault weapons ban and spoke openly about his opposition to laws which allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns on or about their persons.
I always wondered what plans Clinton had for us if he could ever take away our guns, and now I wonder why Obama has been such a vocal critic of private gun ownership in the years leading up to his run for the presidency. What type of “change” does he have in store for the American people if he can succeed in disarming us?
Obama’s reasoning -- and what his election would portend for the Second Amendment -- are a part of a larger “unilateral disarmament” ideology that is one of his core values. Obama wants to disarm America nationally by defunding the missile defense initiatives of which Ronald Reagan dreamed and which President George W. Bush has begun implementing. In a video message to his supporters in 2007, Obama promised that, if elected, he would not “weaponize space” and that he would cut investments in the “unproven” missile defense systems Bush already has in place (add to this his additional promises to “slow our development of future combat systems” and pursue a “world without nuclear weapons” by reducing our own supply first, of course -- it’s almost as if you can hear John Lennon asking us to “imagine there’s no heaven”).
Obama’s opposition to self-defense through missile defense equates to the disarmament of our allies around the globe (if there is no missile defense shield to deploy at home, there will be no shield to deploy abroad). This belief will not be lost on former Soviet satellites, which can see what Russia has done to Georgia in the past weeks and ascertain the kind of “change” Obama has in mind for them if he succeeds in denying them their best means of self-defense.
Even before Russia invaded Georgia, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski indicated that he feared for Poland’s ability to defend herself should Obama win the presidency. In an interview with Desmond Butler, which ran in the Boston Globe on July 8, 2008, Sikorski said John McCain assured him that he would go forward with Bush’s plans to provide Poland with a missile defense system if elected president, but that Obama had provided “no such assurance.”
As the article continued, Butler summed up Sikorski’s sentiments on an Obama Presidency succinctly: “The Polish government is nervous that any deal it reaches with the Bush administration to allow the United States to install interceptors on Polish soil could be abandoned by the next administration.”
Yet on August 14, 2008, Poland did accept Bush’s plan to provide them with a missile defense shield, and Moscow immediately went on record citing this as an offensive move which will require military retaliation against Poland. Maybe I missed something -- is this why Russia recently attacked Georgia? Does Georgia have a missile defense shield too?
No. Georgia doesn’t have such a shield but Vladimir Putin’s Russia has ambitions, lofty ambitions like those of Josef Stalin and Vladimir Lenin. All Putin needs to accomplish these ambitions is an enabler -- someone who will deny Poles the instruments they need for self-defense and thereby open the door for an armed aggressor to do as he wishes. Obama promises to be Putin’s Johnny on the spot.
On the other hand, McCain supports the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense on both the individual and national level. He knows that refusing to provide Poland access to the tools she needs to defend herself is wrong and would expose her to attack in the same way that denying law-abiding U.S. citizens the right to possess firearms would expose them to attack by gangs of armed thugs and shameless perpetrators.
When McCain talks, gun owners and freedom-loving nations like Poland hear a man they can trust, while rogue nations and communist regimes hear a man they cannot control. But when Obama talks, even his friends hear weakness, while rogue nations and communist regimes hear a man they can manipulate. As for me, every time Obama talks, a little voice inside my head reminds me to “fear the government that fears your gun.”
HUMAN EVENTS columnist AWR Hawkins is a Ph.D. candidate at Texas Tech University. His doctoral studies are focused on the U.S. Military and his dissertation on the Civil War era. He has been published on topics including the U.S. Navy, Civil War battles, Vietnam War ideology, the Reagan Presidency, and the Rebirth of Conservatism, 1968-1988. More of his articles can be found at www.awrhawkins.com.
ditto
Take a breath and re-read my post. I didn't say they were any of those things...I simply stated they laid the groundwork for it.
I have mixed feelings about the Guardian Angels. Their intent is certainly noble and affords citizens a highly visible channel for positively influencing their community. While they are not government security forces, they certainly work in close conjunction with LE (just like any neighborhood watch for that matter).
On the downside, Sliwa's choice of a beret and distinctive uniform, IMHO, fosters an attitude, or at least an impression, of elitism. While they operate in no official capacity, and Sliwa has never claimed that they do, their uniforms suggest an imprimatur of officialdom. In fairness to Sliwa, the good they have done has far outweighed any of the negatives.
Having said that, I'd be willing to bet if Obama got his "citizen security force" a large percentage of those currently in the GA's would be at the front of the line to sign up.
What Obama has called for is a "civilian/citizen national security force." I've never heard an actual definition for what this is supposed to be exactly; perhaps a national police force like virtually every other nation on earth has, a federally funded neighborhood watch, or just a different name to legitimize the new black panthers...who knows...I'd guess it would be kind of like what Wilson did with American Legion members in WWI, giving them a sort of quasi-deputization to root out political opposition in the name of national security.
I'm not saying Sliwa himself would sanction or condone any such organization, merely that he has created a stepping stone that would make implementation of any such organization a bit more palatable to the average American, and has made it much easier to sell membership in such an organization as a matter of "volunteerism" or "community service."
Ditto.
Please don't give me the "like other countries" B.S. This is the United States of America. We are free and we have preserved and restored freedom to most of the planet precisely because we are not like other nations. A NATIONAL police force is like giving a leader an ax; he can use it to chop wood lying still on the ground, or he can get a few bullies to help him hold the victims down and he can start chopping heads. A force of the scope Obama has already described would have the capacity to enforce a dictatorship. If necessary, it should be outlawed by Constitutional Amendment.
Have you ever passed a reading comprehension test? I wasn't endorsing such a thing...I was asking rhetorically if that's what Obama meant his "citizen security force."
disagree with you. organized crime tried to do him in. he is not being pursued by anyone for having violated anyone’s civil rights. his organization is asked to come into neighborhoods in order to supplement law enforcement and be a presence that helps prevent crime.
to suggest that obama’s “internal security force” had its beginnings in a “right wing” movement such as the guardian angels is ridiculous.
obama is being promoted by the left wing of the democrat party. if a left winger promtes an “internal security force” it would be gratuitous in that there already exist local police forces, the f.b.i, atf, not to mention state police forces.
in light of that, what would the use of an “internal security force” be in a representative republic with the tools already in place for security to exist?
I'm aware of Sliwa's facing down the Gotti machine, and agree he's a ballsy guy...I'm not going to deny that. I also think you're not understanding what I'm saying...and maybe I'm not communicating it clearly. I'm not saying Obama's security force "had its beginnings" in the guardian angels in that, if they should come into being, they were an "outgrowth" or extension of the angels. What I'm saying is that the formation and existence (and indeed the success) of the angels would make it far easier for Obama to implement such a uniformed monstrosity as he has suggested (although like you, I'm really not sure what its purpose or composition would look like in the end state.) Because of the Angels, it would be all to easy to package it as a community service or volunteer organization. It may be as different from the Angels as one can get, and run counter to all that Sliwa believes, but I would not be the least bit surprised if Obama's staff prepared some draft documents that used words such as "modeled or patterned after the Guardian Angels," or, "building upon the success of such volunteer organizations as the Guardian Angels," etc."
I will however, stand by my contention that a lot of the same folks who have volunteered for the Angels would be the same folks who would enlist in Obama's force.
"perhaps a national police force like virtually every other nation on earth has"
A rhetorical question could be understood to be: "perhaps a national police force". The words "like virtually every other nation on earth has" constitutes a statement. Since it is a statement, and you are not quoting him, it's yours. Unless you explain otherwise, which you have. We all make errors in posting, you're forgiven.
"I've never heard an actual definition for what this is supposed to be exactly; perhaps a national police force like virtually every other nation on earth has, a federally funded neighborhood watch, or just a different name to legitimize the new black panthers...who knows..."
My error was in not putting a "?" after, "who knows..." I'll be careful to type more slowly next time so you can keep up.
“i will, however, stand by my contention that alot of the same folds who have volunteered for the angels would be the same folds who would enlist in obama’s force.”
sounds like you have a particular psychological profile in mind and it doesn’t seem to be a healthy one.
“...i would not be the least surprised if obama’s staff prepared some draft documents that used words such as “modelled or patterned after the guardian angels.”
that seems to be a stretch.
obama is not considering a volunteer force, he is suggesting a force that would be “as well funded and organized as the u.s. military.” he won’t be doing a cutsey volunteer organization. he’ll be doing an internal security group with lots of power, that would overlap the function of the fbi; a far cry from an organization that is dedicated to the prevention of crime.
(send up the warning flares watson.)
Obama's remarks were in a speech, the subject of which was service and volunteerism...here's the part where he discusses his "civilian national security force" in context with the preceding and subsequent paragraphs:
"Today, AmeriCorps, our nation's network of local, state and national service programs, has 75,000 slots. Now, I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at city hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service.
And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource, our citizens. And that's why as president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots... and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.
People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.
So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.
We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families.
And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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.
We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.
This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up."
As with all Obama proposals it's typically vague and ambiguous, so the true composition, organization and mission of this *force* is anybody's guess as of now. To be honest, in the context of the speech, my first impression was something along the lines of the Civilian Defense Corps in WWII and the Cold War, or something along the lines of what Wilson did with the American Legion in WWI...used them as an auxiliary police force, "strike busters," and political enforcement apparatus. It may very well end up being what you describe; I just didn't see it that way in the context of the whole speech.
“we’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military.”
that seems to go beyond any idea of volunteerism. it seems to suggest an organization that’s well organized and not just some loose conglomeration of patriotic, community-minded individuals who want to help their fellow citizens.
“...like providing health care and education, saving our planet, and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose...”
nebulous nonsense. has all the earmarks of indoctrination and coerced effort.
the game is afoot watson.
IMHO
Agreed, and no doubt it would be nowhere near as altruistic as Obama makes it sound, but you have to admit if that's the case, it was awkwardly crammed into his speech. Many have tossed around the word, "brownshirt" which I'm not quite willing to do (yet), but if you look at what Wilson did with the American Legion in WWI (Jonah Goldberg covers it pretty well in "Liberal Fascism") I could see something like that...or just as the USAF has the Civil Air Patrol as an auxiliary, what would keep the Obama Admin from setting up an analogous auxiliary for Homeland Security?
“...or just as the usaf has the civil air patrol as an auxiliary, what would keep the obama admin from setting up an analogous auxiliary for homeland security?”
the civil air patrol does not take on air force sorties in combat. it is made up of volunteers who fly search and rescue missions under the supervision of the air force.
obama did in fact awkwardly cram his “internal security force” into what sounded like harmless volunteerism. but, what exactly does “internal security force” mean?: is it proper to populate an “internal security force” with volunteers? will it mean armed members, people charged with the enforcement of new laws, people who’ll be watching for...what? would they duplicate the efforts of the fbi,state and local and federal law enforcement? it might be premature to mention brown or black shirts but it would certainly be irresponsible not to question such an ominously-sounding idea.
the game is definitely afoot watson and with an all-democrat, left-wing government, president bush’s supposed invasion of everyone’s privacy and wide-ranging violations of the constitution will seem like an episode of leave it to beaver.
IMHO
Liz Michael is not going to like that one bit.
The Guardain Angels are closer to the founder'd ideal of the citizen militia than to the SS or SA. For one thing, they are not under government control. They work with the authorities, sometimes, but not for them.
You admit your error, in addition to the one I pointed out, and then you have the temerity to question my ability to comprehend. Amazing!
This little back-and-forth between you and I is off of the thread topic, but, IMHO, it has value in that gives some insight into the psychological aspects of your postings. Some admittedly unsolicited advice; stop digging.
Indeed, I pointed out my error, but I still question your comprehension. Nobody else who posted to me had any trouble comprehending the question "who knows" without the question mark.
"This little back-and-forth between you and I..."
...all began when your failure to read my complete question resulted in your flying off the handle accusing me of supporting or soliciting a national police force when nothing could be further from the truth, and anybody taking the time to read what I actually wrote would clearly understand that. Then, when I respond to your knee-jerk comment, you remark on my psychological state?
How very liberal of you.
"You admit your error, in addition to the one I pointed out, and then you have the temerity to question my ability to comprehend. Amazing!"
My only error was in failing to place a question mark at the end of the sentence, which I freely admit. Mature grown ups admit their mistakes; perhaps you'll learn that some day.
Now run along and play; the adults are trying to have a conversation here.
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.