This is, again, very interesting. For the moment, this mandatory idea would not fly, but I have a feeling that if there is another big "crisis" that the opportunity may be seized to change, perhaps, the Constitution? The ramifications of such a move could be potentially disastrous.

Not at all. Your argument is perfectly reasonable. Something you said struck a chord: "the as yet untested European Union..." I was suddenly thinking back to the Pre-Austro-Prussian War Austria, whose military was not so well standardized and did not have a common language with which it could operate. This is also a problem of the EU. When Austria was tested against the military of Prussia the Austrians crumbled. I wonder how the EU would hold up? Another issue is that most of these "states" in the EU are still sustaining their own military forces.Just how united are they really? That's the other part of the untested bit. There have been rumors of some fractures, or so I am told by some friends from over there...

Hitler got the people on his side by promising to pull them out of a depression. He promised a way that they would be taken care of and jobs provided. He utilized loopholes in the Weimar procedures and Constitution and was thereby able to rally support. He played on the division in other parties and on peoples fears and prejudices. The interesting thing is that at its height, the NAZI party only held a Majority for a brief period of time. One can spend hours going into the how and why he was able to succeed. It was really quite amazing. What is scary are the parallels between then and now.

At this stage of the game, and seeing as how almost anyone not on the same page of the administration seems to be being labeled as a right wing extremist or racist, you are probably right...It is sad that it now seems that one can not make any statements without being labeled an extremist.

For a party that is supposedly for individual rights, freedoms, and is so "liberal," the democratic party is almost anything but... I really do not like either party, but the more they push, the more I tend to lean toward the Republicans. I really wish there existed a viable third choice...

I find so much of what is going on to be very frustrating and I feel so helpless do do anything about it.

One never knows. It would be interesting to see what would happen if it turned out that there really is a problem with his citizenship...

As stated before, CALL AND WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES. Too much is going on and most people haven't a clue. It is truly frightening.

This is sad news indeed. I need to read this one.

You can find the video on YouTube and if you do a search for either the Speech in Colorado in July of 2008. It is interesting to read the transcript and to watch the video.

I am from Alabama. I did not know about this. What are the bills? I may have to call our reps...

Civilian National Security Force?

Bear with me as I go through this. I hope it all makes sense.

OK, I know this must be old news to most people, and I must have been hiding under a rock somewhere when, then Sen. Obama, was making his rounds on the campaign trail and made his July speech in Colorado where he made his first reference to a Civilian National Security Force. At first glance I disregarded it and thought nothing of it until some of the more recent controversies. I have watched the speech again as well as read the text version of the speech. I believe that words are very important. It is important to know what words mean. The following is a quote from the speech:

"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."

Now I also did my research and went back to the Obama campaign's official statements and stated goals/promises. No where did I see any mention of this force. It was only mentioned in this speech, yet these words were uttered in a public speech in Colorado. It makes me wonder...

The primary reason that this strikes a chord now is due to the recent, now infamous DHS report which does so much to imply that veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are potential security threats (and yes, I have read the report in its entirety). Why discredit veterans/military personnel which during the presidential campaign and in public there has been or was such emphasis placed on helping the returning war vets and serving troops. Why do we need a security force to police our own? We already have our own civilian police forces at the state, county, and city levels not to mention the FBI, ATF, DEA, DHS, etc. Why would we need another force that is as well funded, trained, and as expansive as the present standing military? How could this be legal? To what end would this force operate? What would its scope, authority, and/or jurisdiction be?

I am a student of history. The wording used and the idea proposed is striking similar to the Germany of the 1930s and 40s. It sounds strikingly similar to the Sturmabteilung (aka the SA or Brown Shirts) and the later Schutztaffel (aka SS). It started out as part of a movement that grew to a military force. It was used largely to frighten and "police" any opposition to the NAZI regime.

The laws of this country are in place for a reason. The military exists to protect our country and our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Posse Comitatus Act was written into law to protect the people of this country from the government. I would tend to view this as an attempt to circumvent this law, as well as others.

So, how do we prevent this? Call your representatives in the U.S. House and Senate. Call your state representatives and get the states rattling their sabers, similar to the way Texas has recently made noise. Make so much noise about everything that seems out of line (which apperas to be a lot lately) that it can not be ignored. Above all, do not do anything violent to protest. Violent acts only give them more reasons to point fingers at anything not in line with the present administration or the "liberal ideals" which are permeating the media, which they will exploit to the fullest extent possible.

I hope this post made sense. Please feel free to comment.