Do you remember this from the 2008 election campaign?
At the time, no one really knew what Obama meant by a national “civilian defense force.” Many of us were suspicious because we recognized the mindset of people like Obama. If you know history and you were paying attention, Obama’s language was more than sufficient to give away his inclinations. Now we have a growing body of evidence to suggest that what he meant by those words is nothing with which the average American would agree – if they were told what is happening.
Are you aware that Obama has been building a civilian defense force under the authority of the State Department? Or that this defense force is now larger than the number of American troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq? And that they are actually being used to take over for those U.S. Troops?
“The number of military contractors in Afghanistan rose to almost 74,000 by June 30, far outnumbering the roughly 58,000 U.S. soldiers on the ground at that point. As the military force in Afghanistan grows further, to a planned 68,000 by the end of the year, the Defense Department expects the ranks of contractors to increase more.”
“That trend has been growing for the past several years in Afghanistan, and it parallels a similar trend in Iraq,…”
This “civilian defense force” answers to the State Department, which is under the direct authority of the President. This “civilian defense force” does not answer to Congress, making it extra-constitutional. Now ask yourself this question: do you know the definition of a mercenary?
Definition of MERCENARY
: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service
Well, that is what we have in the Middle East now: a mercenary force under the direct control of and answerable only to the Executive branch:
“Most U.S. troops may have left Iraq, but the occupation continues in ways that are far less transparent to the American people. An army of bureaucrats and mercenaries still occupies the Middle East country, despite claims from the White House that the Iraqis are free.”
But you say that this “civilian defense force” can’t really be mercenaries because they are paid by the U.S. government. I ask you, are they? Are they really? Do you know what happened to the TARP funds, and more importantly, to the money that has been “paid back?” This gets difficult to track, but that is intentional, but if you start looking into this and dig hard enough, you will find that a large part of the original funding was never disbursed and the money being paid back was not placed in the general treasury. It was diverted into what is essentially a slush fund by direction of Obama. I remember this because it caused a fire storm at the time, but this Administration has been so busy and the major stories have been coming at us so fast for so long, most of us have probably forgotten this happened. So what does this mean? It means the Administration has a slush fund somewhere between $200 and possibly $5-600 BILLION dollars that it can spend without any involvement by Congress. As the State Department is under the Executive, and this slush fund is more than large enough to pay these “civilian defense forces,” we do have the requirements to meet the technical definition of a mercenary force.
Do you know the history of mercenaries and republics? You might want to start looking into it because it is not a happy story – for those who hire them. They tend to be hired by republics currently in a state of decline, and – more often than not – they take over the government that hired them. If you recall, Obama called for a national “civilian defense force” just as large, just as well armed and just as well trained” as our military. This cannot mean the militia as the militia is – constitutionally – the domain of the States, not the federal or national government. So why does he need such a large, well equipped and well trained force that answers only to him if he already has the U.S. military – the most potent military force in the history of man? Well, we can’t know for sure, but if you apply the 180 degree rule (because it does apply to these people), the possibilities should bother you because there is no reason for any “non-frightening” possibilities Obama could offer.
But before you leave this post or dismiss the implications here, please take time to watch/listen to this last clip, as it sums up the problem very well – and dead on accurately (and please pay attention to the stress on ideology – read mindset):
If you are among the many American who love this country but still had problems with Bush 43 getting us involved in the Middle East; if you are among those who fear that Republicans want to create a police State that will be used against you; I tell you I share you concerns about the prior Administration and even the Republican Party leadership. But now I ask you to look to the plank in your own and your Party’s eye and ask yourself to what purpose is Obama doing these things? If Bush had done this, would you have viewed his actions with suspicion? I venture to say you would have – even more so than you viewed what he did do. Please, if you love this nation as much as I, do not dismiss this story simply because Obama is “your guy.” If you cannot provide me with a rational explanation for the construction of this “civilian defense force,” then you should try to be consistent and turn that skeptic eye toward Obama because, if you do not or cannot, then you may not be the righteous, patriotic person you think yourself to be after all.