The New Terrapin Gazette

Number 250

21 May, 2012


We fully regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary. — In the army of the workers there must be discipline; there must be comradeship, there must be unity; you are the officers of this army, you are the leaders.


 

An Unresolved Issue Revisited And Brought Up To Date

Some readers may recall that in November of 2008, this newsletter published a report on one of the things then candidate Obama said publicly. Virtually everyone has forgotten the quote and the issue it raised. It’s time to take another look, and see how events have unfolded. Here is the relevant item — in its entirety — from Number 140:

Almost Totally Unnoticed And Certainly Unreported In The Major Media, That Powerful And Enigmatic “Civilian National Security Force” Proposed By Candidate Obama Has Been Authorized. Be Concerned

Issue 39 of this newsletter (then called The Penguin Post) was published in November of 2008. It included this:

Obama speaks:

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.

See and hear it here.

What is this??

Why must this intra-national national security force be as well funded as the regular military? Why must it be federal? Is this constitutional? What will the domestic military’s mission be? Will it be some sort of “Super-SWAT” outfit? Who is to be targeted — who is the enemy to be vanquished with the help of the billions of dollars that will be poured into this force? Why are the nation’s internal enemies considered just as dangerous as all those jihadis beyond our borders? Will this mighty governmental arm (which it seems must be very like the conventional military in important ways) be staffed by volunteers, or by draftees? To whom will it be accountable? If they rough you up, whom do you call?

Beginning with that original publication some sixteen months ago, this newsletter has carried the URL for that video a total of eight times. If memory serves, the Obama proclamation of the need for a “civilian national security force” has also been mentioned a time or two without citation of the URL.

Not a single message was received by the PenPo/Lynx Bulletin regarding this matter, and the subject of the new domestic guards did not surface in the press (well, of course not). This newsletter was one of a very few information sources fretting about Obama’s threat to give his administration unprecedented, overwhelming police/military power for domestic use only.

This proposed “civilian national security force” could be seen as a way to nullify whatever might be left of posse comitatus protections enjoyed by the US public.

Now the claim has been made that The One has authorization for his federal domestic security force.

Reading the language of the bill, one can see at once that it is both broad enough and specific enough to permit the formation of armed and militarily trained cadres that will be commanded by the federal administration. An officer corps is defined, for example. Local law enforcement, the states and the military are all bypassed.

While the law mentions the delivery of health care, there is nothing in it to prevent these cadres from dealing with whatever circumstances might be part of a declared “emergency.” Who, exactly, declares the emergency and who defines it are not mentioned, so it must be supposed that the law tacitly assumes the president will do those things at his pleasure.

Would that be legal? The question would probably be moot in the event that the president wishes to act. He could simply extend his power and control over a region, or over people who are, in his view, troublesome. At such times the achievement of the fait accompli matters far, far more than do legal precedents and interpretations. The law is ponderous and can very seldom act to prevent the government from doing something until and unless the illegal action has already been committed.

The drafters of the US Constitution realized the practical limitations of the judiciary, and set firm limits on governmental power: by telling the federal administration in advance that it is not permitted to take certain actions, the founding document literally prevents trouble. Citizens, including many whose ethics are less than acceptable, recognize this. When criminals ignore the rules, the courts act to create precedents — and most administrations heed them. Most of the time.

Obama may have found a way to make a mockery of this excellent but imperfect system. And, just as Congress simply passed a seismic law that the public did not want, Obama will doubtless just do whatever he wants with his new force, and that will be that.

When the “civilian national security force” that is every bit as powerful as the US military comes for you — for whatever reason, legitimate or not — what can a federal court do to protect you?

Now pay attention, Pilgrims, because this is Truth: the things Obama may want his new domestic force to do fall into two categories. The first includes disaster relief, massive public health programs in the event of a pandemic, and control of civil disorder. The second involves illegitimate activity — repression of constitutional dissent, and any other things the government cannot ethically do. No one (except Obama) knows whether this second category will ever be the mission of the new domestic force. But everyone knows that all the tasks in the first category should be undertaken by local, state and selected federal agencies; if those organizations are not strong enough or are incompetent (think of Katrina), they need to be upgraded/reformed, now don’t they? A new “civilian national security force” is absolutely not required.

If those who recognize the nature of the threat act now, it may be possible to have the relevant sections of the Obamacare law declared unconstitutional. The US Constitution was drawn up to do a number of things, and among the most important is to prevent precisely this sort of power from coming into the hands of the federal government.

First, however, public, press and legislators must realize that the federalism mandated by the constitution is under attack by a perfidious administration.

There are huge problems with that prerequisite: most people won’t be alarmed by what the new law makes possible, and Obama’s unctuous words may make it very difficult to get widespread backing for a federal court case. The news media will report the attempt to correct things as a Quixotic effort by paranoids. Most “civil rights” organizations — such as the ACLU — will instinctively side with Obama, and ignore the need for immediate corrective actions that uphold the spirit of the US Constitution.

It will get even worse. Nutty militias and other armed groups, many of them religious cults and/or racist separatists, already consider Obama to be a deadly threat. Their perceptions will be validated when they learn that The One is now authorized by Congress to command a presidential strike force. The militias will certainly prepare for civil war. The inevitable violence will allow the federal administration to portray all opposition to its political designs as clearly and presently dangerous.

That’s bad, because the feds include some appalling mouth-breathers. If you think that harebrained Secretary Napolitano disgraced herself in recent months, brace yourself for what she will do if an FBI unit is ambushed and wiped out.

Yes, it can happen. The militias can’t win the war, but they have enough military experience, firepower and sheer fanaticism to kill a lot of people. They are eager to prove themselves. Don’t be surprised if they use aircraft, plant improvised bombs inspired by Taliban devices, and deploy effective anti-helicopter weapons. They believe that their heroic example will touch off a second American Revolution that will cleanse the nation.

The USA is rapidly approaching a crossroads, and taking the wrong turn will lead to disaster. The threat, which ultimately does not come from the lunatic militias but from the federal government, has to be aborted now.

That’s easier said than accomplished, for the Good Guys are going to have one hell of a time trying to convince everybody that they are on the side of the angels, rather than supporting the demented militias. As soon as repeal or a federal lawsuit is suggested, Obama will use soothing words to convince everyone that his ambitions are benign. The “civilian national security force” will be presented as necessary on many levels. He will then link his rational critics to the militias, and denounce them all as insane and unpatriotic.

The subsequent smear campaign executed by the White House’s “progressive” lickspittles can be precisely predicted, as it has already surfaced in the Washington Post and the New York Times. It will be very hard to counter. After all, no one can prove that he is not, in his heart of hearts, a racist.

Obama will get his way if press and public look the other way. Then what is almost certainly the worst Congress in US history will bend its knee yet again to the madcap fantasies of the president. The “civilian national security force” will be funded, and…well, nobody outside the White House knows what it will do.

Don’t dismiss this as hysterical speculation. The situation has unfolded far enough that the electorate should deal with it. The issue is crucial to the survival of the heritage the founders bequeathed to the nation.

Yes, of course it’s true that at present, no one outside Obama’s inner circle knows why this domestic force was planned in the first place, whether it will ever appear, and what its missions might be.

That’s exactly the way Obama wants it.

That ends the quote from Number 140, published in 2010. How well did this newsletter predict events?

Not terribly well, you will probably agree. There does not seem to have been significant militia concern about the issue, there was no violence, and the entire matter has been set aside by the press. If there are “wingnuts” who have expressed views on it, this newsletter has no knowledge of them.

In November of 2010, the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives, and Obama was meaningfully opposed as he attempted to advance his programs. The House began grilling Eric Holder, and many observers felt the federal supreme court was acting uppity as regards the constitutionality of Obamacare and that Arizona law regarding aliens illegally present in the state. Could it be that these developments have diverted Team Obama, delaying the unwholesome developments hypothecated in the above commentary?

Perhaps. Certainly the White House has been somewhat frustrated by the political climate, and it is clear that its agenda is mainly concerned with the election. It has let slip two hints that Obama does not feel tactically ready to advance his reforms until he has a mandate. Re-elected, the president will start cutting wood. That’s not surprising.

There is, however, a sense that the White House believes that if the electorate knew what lies in store, Obama would lose the election. That is strongly suggested by the words spoken privately to the Prime Minister of Russia, but overheard by a microphone the president did not know was recording the conversation. Obama’s statement is unambiguous: the electorate won’t tolerate his preferred foreign policy, so the voters will have to be circumvented. Once the election is won, serious Change will commence.

To put it more plainly, but less respectfully: the White House cannot tolerate democratic transparency.

To a man like Obama — or like Nixon — this is eminently sensible. That raises the question of whether any president should pursue a foreign policy that he knows the electorate would find unacceptable. “Progressives” should be particularly sensitive to a White House that acts with deceit and authoritarian zeal, and “wingnuts” can cite Herbert Hoover’s recently published Freedom Betrayed as an argument against an administration that cherishes Quixotic or unethical hidden agendas and ignores public opinion as so much bleating. The Honduras debacle should serve as another cautionary instance of the harm done when diplomacy is shrouded by a press that, ensorcelled by a president, practices partisan self-censorship (most people have no idea what happened).

There are clear indications that Obama considers himself a leader with sophisticated plans he will have to impose on an ignorant, uncomprehending and balky citizenry. There aren’t enough members of the press and the Bicoastal Elite to approve his intended reforms in a fully transparent and literally democratic process, so the low, sloping foreheads are simply going to have to wake up to a fait accompli. Otherwise, nothing will ever get done.

Then there is that TV advertisement (tip of the hat to The Daily Caller):

[flowplayer src=’https://www.newterrapingazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012_06_25-10_29_56_443.mp4′ width=640 height=480]

 

It was withdrawn the instant the opposition to Obama saw it. It suggested to the black voters it apparently targeted that an activism currently not present in the administration would be forcefully launched as soon as The One begins his second term. To some, that activism might appear to have racial overtones. You decide. here is News Report about the issue.

Yes, this discussion is speculative, and it asks you to make assumptions. You are requested to assume, for example, that Obama meant what he said about the national security force, and that he was sincere when talking to the Russian. Then you have to guess how the armed and angry militias will interpret events.

This newsletter is not apologetic for raising yet again issues that have not been widely considered and discussed — let alone clarified and resolved.

 


I don’t know but I been told
If the horse don’t pull you got to carry the load
I don’t know whose back’s that strong
Maybe find out before too long


The masthead includes quotes from the works of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and Fidel Castro.

The staff of The New Terrapin Gazette expresses its sincere gratitude to the many people who have gifted the world with Arch Linux, Emacs, and Firefox.

Publisher:The Eagle Wing Palace of The Queen Chinee.