The knock at the door

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Joseph Farah sees dire implications for liberty in Obama's 'volunteer' force

It is rare in history that government moves to achieve its ultimate goals in one fell swoop. More often, particularly in the U.S., government grabs power from the people and usurps constitutionally protected liberties in small stages over time.

The intent of Barack Obama's words, which he borrowed from Defense Secretary Robert Gates in laying out a vision for "a civilian national security force" bigger and as well-funded as our military services, taken in conjunction with the "Give Act," are clear. He wants to create something very new in the history of the United States – something ill-defined, nebulous, yet frightening in the context of our nation's heritage.

I have to remind you, because I have an ego, that I was alone in first recognizing the gravity of Obama's first mention of his vaunted "civilian national security force." I did so way back in July of 2008 – still early in the presidential campaign.

In those chilling words, for anyone who understands the nature of totalitarian population control techniques, I saw the specter of something very dangerous, incredibly newsworthy and, yet, his words went hardly noticed in the euphoria of Obamamania.

Only now are we beginning to understand what it means to have a "civilian national security force."

Government-funded "volunteerism" is, of course, an oxymoron. Americans have ample opportunity to volunteer to make their communities better. They do so willingly every day. Anything that is required is not voluntary. Anything that is paid is not volunteerism.

No matter what the immediate intent is of the plans for the massive new bureaucracy envisioned by Obama and the Democratic Congress, the legislation represents a significant departure from American tradition and cannot be supported in any way by the Constitution. The Constitution strictly limits the powers of the federal government. Nowhere in the enumerated powers of that document will you find any suggestion that Congress has the authority to create such a program.

Further, when government effectively employs millions of civilians in what is openly dubbed as a "security force," it is clear that such an initiative poses all kinds of threats to liberty, the rule of law and the will of the people.

I have to laugh at those Republicans who actually saw Obama's choice of Robert Gates as defense secretary as wise. Again, I actually predicted Obama would choose Gates as defense secretary long before he was elected. Gates is indeed a very bright man. He is also the architect of the "civilian national security force" idea, which suggests to me he is also a very authoritarian man – one who sees few limits to the wonders government can accomplish.

Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes of the past have created such "civilian national security forces" to serve their interests – to squelch dissent, to spy on the people, to intimidate and to police.

They have often been used to bolster party dictatorships and authoritarian cults of personality.

That's the threat that such legislation poses – if not immediately, at some time in the future. Once a bureaucracy like this is created, it can always be changed, amended, its powers expanded and its purpose perverted.

It is extremely dangerous legislation in any form.

In 230 years as a republic, Americans have seldom had to fear the proverbial knock at the door. But with the advent of "the Give Act" and "the Serve America Act" and the "civilian national security force," all that could change very, very quickly.