Replies

Well this directive from the DoD should just about seal their intentions.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf

They have a plan, do we?

Do you know if this is a brand new directive or just a renewing of one that existed under Bush?

They might try to enforce some sort of anti-citizen directives through the military, but do you think they’ll obey en masse? I think Obama is covering all his bases with that directive as well as organizing the new NCCC as his personal SS/Gestapo.

The directive to the DoD itself does violate one more part of the Constitution though... Unless they think they can bypass the restriction on using the military in the U.S. by saying these are DoD CIVILIANS, and not SOLDIERS. (Not that it stopped them the other week down south...).

Can you post a link that I can save and forward. The PDF will not allow me do either.

Thanks

"We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."

Does this tone sound familiar to anyone?

Remember the guy who called Mark Savage and said he was a part of the democratic team who helped get obama elected in Chicago. Then he goes on to say how blunt obama's people were in speaking about massive amounts of money they would have (stimulus) to create job reparations and one party rule.

When I heard that I definately thought the stimulus will be used for obama supporters only. That part is true today with Union only, minorities, problematic and low income. But I thought how could they be so open about a illegal plan they have.

Saying they will use a army they have at any time to enforce their agenda is against the Constitution.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin189.htm

In The Chicago Tribune of 26 July 2008, John McCormick reports Barack Obama as saying: “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.” And in a 2006 interview with Ben Smith of the New York Daily News, Obama’s soon-to-be-inside-the-White-House controller, Rahm Emanuel, disclosed that: “We’re going to have universal civil defense training, somewhere between the ages of 18 to 25 you will do three months training * * * which will give people a sense of what it means to be an American.”

“the supreme Law of the Land,” the only place—the only place—in which the Constitution mentions “security” is in the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And this is, as well, the only place—the only place—in which the Constitution declares that any specific thing is “necessary” for any purpose. As previously noted, the Constitution also refers to “Armies,” “a Navy,” and “Troops, or Ships of War” that the States may “keep.” But nowhere in the Constitution exists any explicit power or permission—or even suggestion—for any Branch of the General Government to create some “civilian national security force” at all, let alone one “that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the Armed Forces. No such power or permission being delegated, no such power or permission exists. Surely it cannot possibly be an “implied” authority, in the face of the four-fold delegation of express powers for other “security” forces. Expressio unius exclusio alterius.

Certainly some new “civilian national security force” cannot be created and deployed before revitalization of the very establishments the Constitution declares to be “necessary.” And if it cannot precede the Militia, it cannot supersede them, either.

So, now what? What must America’s patriots demand of Obama if he persists in calling for such a force? Nothing less than that he support revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” by the States. Simply put, enforce the Constitution. That would be “change we can believe in.” And in the nick of time, too.

“Well this directive from the DoD should just about seal their intentions.”

Don't panic about this reg; it's not new. The subject is the utilization of DoD civilians (IOW civil service employees) in time of war. Civilian employees have been filling critical positions for decades and they are obligated to stay at their posts and even deploy overseas in wartime. They are not used in direct combat roles, just combat support (close enough though).