16 November 2008

Why would Obama want a separate force with military might?

As I was joking around during some down time with the CO and 1SG yesterday it turned up that the CO was the only one in the room who didn't have a Concealed Pistol License. He looked at the two of us as if we were growing an extra appendage from our foreheads (extra points if you can guess which appendage).

I've known for years that the bulk of the Military is conservative. Not necessarily "Republican" but definitely conservative. This is why Democrats fully support "Getting out the Vote" and "Making every vote count" except when it comes to Military voters.

By my totally bogus method of SWAGing it, I figure about 15% of the Military aligns with the Democrats, and the remaining 85% range from Republican, Libertarian, and even Anarchist. Most of us fall somewhere between fiscal conservative/social conservative to fiscal conservative/social permissive.

And a metric crap ton of us are gun owners. When National Guardsmen were used to confiscate privately owned weapons during the aftermath of Katrina it did more to crumble the faith of the American public in the Armed Forces than any other event in history. Posse Commitatus not withstanding, such an order to confiscate private property and deny citizens their rights should have been ignored or blatantly disobeyed.

It was an unlawful order. An emergency doesn't suspend someones rights. And yet we know from Katrina that when democrats are in charge, your guns are not safe. In California confiscation of semi auto M2 50 cal rifles have been confiscated because a California judge ruled that linked ammunition is "A high capacity magazine" and therefor 60 pound blocks of steel are now a menace to public safety (after all, the government would only target "bad" guns right?). Never mind that the death count from 50 caliber rifles in California is a staggering "0".

I hear a lot of scuttlebutt, and I'm not the only one in place to keep a few guns stashed if/when someone comes to take them.

Which brings us to why Obama would want a national defense force seperate from the traditional military. To do things that the traditional military cannot do. We are not a police force, not on American soil.

There is no external threat that justifies building a seperate yet different military force. And if an internal threat did rise up that required military might then the President has the option of using the military by the exemption of the insurrection clause. Crushing rebellion with Federal troops didn't start with Lincoln, George Washington had the "Whiskey Rebellion".

I don't want armored personnel carriers conducting presence patrols in your neighborhood or mine. I don't want jack booted thugs tossing in flash bang grenades to storm a house in order to confiscate grandpa's Marlin 60 and a few boxes of 22 lr.

This has brought some heavy thinking on my part. Where would I stand when doing what is right is not doing what I'm ordered to do? An officer is not sworn to obey, and all soldiers are expected to know the difference between a lawful and unlawful order.

I can only assume that Obama would want a force unrestricted by the rule of law to carry out actions that are illegal for the military to carry out. I can think of no other explanation. And that scares me, because I would likely be a target of those activities.

"We cannot continue to rely 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," Obama