“Civilian National Security Force”…The First Step to a Police State? A Draft?

Well I have been thinking about this for quite some time. Our President Elect, the worshipped one, he who can do no wrong, the second coming of Martin Luther King, proposes that we have a “National Civil Defense Force” that rivals the military in numbers and funding. It is a compulsory service (read as draft on a diet). I have heard of forces like this in the past, say 1920’s German “youth groups”….

So here is the background. On July 2, 2008, in a campaign speech in Colorado Springs, Barrack Obama stated that he intends to create a National Civil Defense Force. About this force he stated, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we set. We must have a civilian National Security Force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.”

WOW! I know you are thinking I had to have made that up. Do some research. I didn’t. Let’s put that into perspective shall we? As of July of 2008, when this speech was made, The United States military consisted of approximately 1,436,500 active duty personnel with an additional 848,000 in the seven reserve components. The US defense budget in 2007 was 431.7 billion dollars with an additional 169.2 billion added to that for the war on terror. So we are talking about 2 million personnel and over 600 billion dollars. 

Thus far no one wants to press the chosen one for answers on what he might have meant on this. And the ever supportive media certainly isn’t talking about it. If Sean Hannity had said it, can you imagine the outcry? No one is even asking. But talk to Rahm Emanuel, the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff, and you can get some answers. Directly from the mouth of Rahm:

Every single American between the ages of 18 and 25 must complete 3 months of compulsory training. He feels that this will allow for a similar shared experience that will allow every participant to experience what it is like to be an American. Wait, did he just say that this service will be required in order for everyone to know what it means to be an American? That taking away someone’s rights or freedoms are necessary in order to share in the American experience? (Truer words may never have been spoken).

When asked if we are talking about living in Barracks he dodged the question. He stated rather than thinking of it as a train ride or barracks, think of it this way, it will be a common experience. Just a thought on that statement. During the Nazi eradication of Jews, it was often said that they shouldn’t think of the yellow symbols as singling them out as bad, but instead that they were “special”.

This sounds like a draft. Of course he cannot say draft or the American public would go crazy, especially those on the left. But mandatory service in the Civilian National Security Defense Force, doesn’t sound like the all volunteer army we have now. Rahm discussed this force in his book outlining the plan for America. You should look that up too. It is an interesting and sometimes scary read.

Hitler had a very similar mandatory force in Germany in the 1920’s. They were the “youth groups” of boys age 14-18. Such a fine plan to help restore the country after the devastation of World War I. These youth groups grew into the “Brownshirts”, better known as the “Storm Trooper” shock troops of the Nazi army. Russia had a civilian defense force too, of course they were better known as the “secret police”.

Now those that know me know that I think that serving in the military is a good thing, and I think everyone should do it because it assists your country while building you into a better adult. But forcing people to serve?

And what is the purpose of this massive Civilian National Security Force that is as big as our military and equally funded (bringing the annual cost of US Defense to over a trillion dollars a year)? Are we talking about a civilian police force that will eventually be the controlling forces of a police state? I mean what does he want to do with such a massive force?

I don’t want to sound like a radical here, but this is worth noting, and I am not saying that Obama wants to do what Hitler did. Hitler didn’t rise to power talking about raising up an army or seizing control or being what he would later become. He came to power under the guise of healing a ruptured country, taking care of one another, believing in the German people and their spirit. His rise to power sounded very similar to the one we are seeing today from the President Elect. That isn’t a judgement, just an observation. I am not saying that the President Elect is looking to do what Hitler did. I am just saying that this in conjunction with the sudden jump towards socialism during this campaign has me a little bit worried. 

So what do you guys think of this? Were you aware of it? Is it a good idea?


  1. Ray Hawkins says:

    Amazing what slips under the radar. While I’m still not sure what the hell a civilian national security force is supposed to be, I have to almost see this as stupid campaign rhetoric – an empty head idea for which both campaigns scored plenty of hits under (gas tax break anyone?). FWIW – there are other ‘Western’ nations that have compulsory service, draft, or whatever terms fits one politics – strange as it is to mention Hitler Germany, our friends in Israel also have mandatory service. Ironic?

    To be blunt – I see this Obama idea as no more relevant or likely than the prospect of gun control. As I have explained to many a friend and family that are increasingly armed to the gills – relax, take a deep breath, and lets think through this – Obama, even with a dominant and dare we say mandated Democratic Congress is not going to get gun control or a draft passed – EVER. As much as everyone has clamored for change, most everyone is not as easygoing for change that means they give something up – that is when they get alligator arms.

    I am 100% for an advancement and maturity of a domestic peace corps (for lack of a better term) that gets the apathetic youth of today more involved in and giving back to the community they so richly draw from. As adults, examples or parents we too should/shall set that example rather than expect government to pay for the cheetos-stained hands of our kids to drop the remote and pick up a rake. garbage bag, paint brush, etc. Domestic social programs too often fail because the economic model doesn’t support the longevity of the program.

  2. Ray,

    I understand that many countries have a compulsory military service. I don’t have an issue with them doing so. It is necessary there. But it isn’t here. Israel’s required service cannot really be compared to the youth groups that Hitler had.

    I am not as convinced that this is nothing to be concerned about. Even if it doesn’t happen, it is troubling that our new President Elect and Chief of Staff have this mindset. It is just one of the many issues that I wonder if people know about. This election more than any other, it was apparent that many votes were cast with little or no knowledge of what they were voting for. I stand by the fact that I am not a radical or a conspiracy theorist. I am far from that. Most people describe me as a realist. So while I agree that this can’t happen (Along with a ban on guns, abortion, etc.). It is important that we talk about these things and ensure that Americans start paying attention. That is the first step in taking our country back.

  3. Only Obama could get away with re-instituting slavery.

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    What stinks is that even as I consider myself an educated voter, I never saw this story when it aired which is very discouraging. Perhaps that is a function of finite time and seemingly infinite political news sources that all have an angle (while certainly most angles now appear to lean waaaaaay to the left which is no better than the alternative). While I agree with the premise of some what the President-elect advocates in the way of service – a mandatory Civilian Defense Force? Even when I read the blog I immediately went to Snopes cuz I thought ‘you have to be kidding me’ – question is – why did the press corps that had access to him not ask the same damn question?

  5. Reading libertarian blogs, as I tend to do, I knew about the mandatory civilian service idea as soon as he proposed it. This makes it even more clear to me that the way to stay informed is to not rely on the mainstream media for your information. They tell you what they want you to know, even (especially?) FOX news. Whether “right” or “left” they are all still on the authoritarian end of the political hierarchy.

  6. The relevance of the statement sounds to me like an unthought campaign statement. There has been no further information (that I can find) on actually following thru on this.

    I also agree that Fox New is also bias. As I know this will generate a lot of outrage from people who refuse to watch any other news source, the overall feel of Fox News presents itself as more conservative and an alternative form of news and entertainment. Lets be realistic and know that most people do not believe in any news bias and when the subject is broached, people believe only Republicans or anyone other than liberal would believe this to be true. Again, instead of going down this path, I would like to see more sites which truly provide the news, not what people want to hear.

    Regarding the draft, I think some sort of civil service should be mandatory for all Americans. Volunteerism is lost in our society because it isn’t the norm. A requirement would remind people how lucky they are to live in our country and maybe value, instead of trash, the rights provided to all americans. I know this will piss some people off, put it is how I feel.

  7. Slavery (involuntary servitude) by any other name is still wrong, even if it might make people appreciate freedom more. You don’t kill peoples’ parents to make them appreciate life more.

  8. Jen,

    I wouldn’t exactly say that it is an unthought campaign statement. It is a well thought out plan that Rahm Emanuel has detailed in his book outlining his plan for America. I am sure Obama didn’t mention it again because his campaign staff went “dude that sounds to radical right now, hush it up during the campaign” but I think it is on the agenda.

    Fox never claimed they would have zero bias. They claimed that they would have no bias during the day, which they have done (see my post about the American Media for the New York Times article that says so). But at night they would turn the station over to giving conservative views a voice during prime time, which is something no other station was allowing to happen.

  9. Kent

    I don’t know if I would call it slavery. But I certainly don’t think that there is any way that the government should be forcing people to participate by making them do this.

    You make a great point that you don’t kill someone’s parents to make them appreciate life more. It is a daunting possibility if something like these national security services would actually come in to play

  10. Hmmm… I hadn’t heard this one before.

    I guess my first question is, what would you have them spend all that money on? MY money. Your money. He’s talking about $300,000 per “recruit” if you stick to the 2 million recruit estimate. If you assume that every young person in America will ultimately be subject to this service, there are 4 million live births each year, so by default a mandatory service would involve about twice as many people as the current military. At $150,000 apiece given the current burn rate.

    Assuming you’re not going to discontinue the existing military , where will you get the money? Assuming 150 million tax-paying families, that’s an additional $3000 per family tax. This from the guy who wants to give the middle class a break? Wow.

    As a Revolutionary War history buff, I would make the observation that military service was not compulsory even after independence had been declared and a Congress seated. Washington frequently lamented the lack of manpower, but never went so far as to suggest compulsory service. Even during subsequent drafts, military service was not compulsory for everyone – just for those holding the lucky numbers.

    It is tempting to point to Switzerland as a successful model for mandatory military service. Many do. But it’s not that simple. The key to Swiss effectiveness in this regard is not simply mandatory miltary service (or mandatory gun ownership, as espoused by some pro-gun advocates), per se. It’s the Swiss cultural norms established since they won their independence from Austria in a revolutionary war fought in the 1200’s. Most Swiss still live in traditional patriarchal families. In fact, Switzerland has the lowest percentage of working mothers of any European country. While America was debating the Equal Rights Amendment, Switzerland was wondering whether women should be allowed to vote. Schools are strict, and teenagers have less freedom than in most of the rest of Europe. Studies shows that Swiss teenagers, unlike teenagers in other countries, feel closer to their parents than to their fellow teenagers. Communications between the generations are open. While these things may have some correlation with mandatory military service, certainly there are numerous other cultural factors.

    So O’s proposal to have a national civil defense seems ludicrous on so many levels.

    How about just recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right, as recently determined by the US Supreme Court, yet still rejected by O?

    I’m getting more and more sick and tired of idiot politicians dreaming up pork programs to force people to do things THEY think should happen socially. Let’s stop talking about “mandatory” anything. This country was built upon the ideals of freedom. Let’s live those ideals. Leave me and my kids alone. I will provide my own civil defense, or die trying, if necessary. If there is an obvious need for me to volunteer for military service to achieve the ideals of freedom in which I believe, I’ll do it, and will encourage (but not require) my children to volunteer.

    Government should be responsible for providing adequate infrastructure as necessary for Americans to exercise their freedoms. Government cannot and should not try to create culture. Your social program ideals will be different than mine. Build the roads, keep the real estate maps, and leave me the hell alone.

  11. usweapon,
    Just because an advisor has something in his book does not mean Obama will stick by it. The statement was made with no follow up since July 2nd. I think this one will be pushed under the rug.

    Regarding Fox News, I still disagree. Bias is defined as to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence. During the day, Fox provides an unbias view of the news but their nightly broadcasting projects a more conservative view, aka, a favoritism. You cannot deny this.

  12. Jen,

    Nor would I deny that. Nor would Fox deny that. The point is that they are exactly what they said they would be. Unbiased during the day and conservative biased at night. I am OK with it because they are telling me what they are up front. The difference here is that they are the only ones admitting what they are up front. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, whoever eles you want to mention offer a big bias on the liberal side while claiming to be unbiased.

    We haven’t heard about it since July 2nd simply because the feedback would be largely negative. Obama hasn’t mentioned it since, probably at teh request of his advisors. Rahm Emanuel has mentitoned it over and over. And Rahm Emanuel is not just some advisor, he is the Chief of Staff for the President, one of the most powerful positions in the country.

  13. Muddy,

    I really want to hear what the purpose of this force would be. And I want a better answer than it will give Americans a shared experience. Is it because we would be a safer nation with a civilian population that has been trained to protect the home field? If so then I might agree, but then you have to recognize the right to my guns so that the trained force can do what they have been trained to do.

    But moreover I just don’t agree with the government feeling the right to take our youth and subject them to ANY experience. I personally would rather that my son never has to hold a gun in his life. But I will teach him and raise him to be able to. I wholeheartedly agree that there should not be a mandatory anything. Make this a great country because of the freedoms that people enjoy. Make it a great country for all the reasons that the constitution laid out. Do that and you won’t have to require anything of anyone. They will be jumping up to defend her if the need arises. “The greatest generation” believed in this country and EVERYONE contributed when the time came because of that. That will happen again if we can get our country back to being what it was.

  14. BlackFlag says:

    The 13th Amendment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction” – pretty darn clear. Of course the draft is completely in contradiction to this amendment.

    But that piece of paper won’t stop anyone.

  15. Yes, I agree completely BlackFlag, even though it hurt me deep inside to say that out loud, lol. This is one that I will be jumping up and down against and will probably not be the last time that I have a post dedicated to it. Every time I see it in the news I am going to bring it back up. As this site continues to gain readers, which it does despite my ramblings, I want everyone to know this is being proposed.

%d bloggers like this: