http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...3002217_pf.html

Does this not bother anyone else at least in the slightest? Seems to me the founders were highly against government troops providing domestic security....just thought someone should bring this up.

i may be looking at this wrong but possibly means they hope to have our troops back from the war(s) by then for this. But either way, i'm not sweating it, we should have a stronger military presence inside the country, just so as long as it doesn't go too far like in some other countries.....

to me thats the thing. Not trying to bash the military in any way, but the reason we use cops and not the military for domestic security is because putting people in charge of law enforcement that have sworn an oath to a national government and may not be from the area they're in charge of is a dang good way to cause trouble.

Try this one and see what you think.
http://steamvalveblog.typepad.com/steam_va...lice-force.html

and this from the man himself. I just hope I misunderstood his true meaning. Better funding law enforcment agencies is one thing, but building a civilian national paramilitary agency is a whole other issue. I wonder if they will get those cool uniforms like the original Nazis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Check this one out. This came out the 10th of last month and warn us about banning gun ownership as he builds his national security force.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4...KBlHOwD94CCDU00

You start talking about the military serving inside the US it's kind of a sticky situation. Certainly I have no problem in the event of a catastrophe/emergency/natural disaster/terrorist attack the military being deployed in the States for any number of reasons, hopefully all good reasons to defend the people and keep order. But having the military acting as what exactly? Full time National Guard acting as Police? I just don't understand the need for using the military, aren't our men and women in enough demand. And I'm sure some could use a rest if there is time for them to do something like this. Wouldn't all of this not be a problem if they trained more and paid the police better, actually secured the border, and did more to actually improve what we have in this Country now. I'm no fan of Obongo and don't like his plans for Civil Defense, or them sending Diplomats to talk to people who hate us and his gigantic "Peace Corps" on and on. Just wondering, where is this going.

It has already gone too far! The use of the U.S. militiary against U.S. citizens is plainly unconstitutional. Remember the Consittution and it's amendments? This is the domain of each state's State Guard Units, NOT the U.S. Militiary! The Federal Government has absolutely no authority or power within the borders of the United States except what we foolish folks allow by apathy or ignorance. http://www.libertyforlife.com/law/posse_co...s_destroyed.htm It is time to wake up America. We stand on the verge of collapse with a self avowed "World CItizen" to take the helm on January 20, 2009 and we say "just so as long as it doesn't go too far like in some other countries.....". Study your history or we are doomed to repeat it.

1911

no offense intended, I am on a roll today. Anybody got a fiddle?

I would suspect that after another 9/11 the average sheeple will be crying for military protection in their neighborhood. I believe this is setting us up for some sort of possible governance of foreign rule. Oboma
just violated Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution by selection Hilary Clinton as Secretary of
state. It is just a matter of time. Bit by bit little by little.

Yakdung

What's this?

Hillary has until she is SWORN IN as secretary of state to resign as a US senator. She is not taking the office RIGHT NOW... so there is no violation of the constitution. She is not yet holding the office of Secretary of State. Not until after Obama is sworn in... Thats the REAL crux, there... too bad he cant be impeached for constitution violations as soon as he tries to inplement an anti 2nd amendment gun ban!

Sorry... I wish it were true...

Section 6 - Compensation

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

I may be way off but I don't see anything about resigning. What I do see is underlined.

Remember what happened last time "Cesar" marched on "Rome"......

Hillary has NOT been appointed to anything... YET... not until AFTER Obama is sworn in, in Jan.

She has to be resigned from the senate BY THEN... or its a violation of the constitution. shes just been CHOSEN to take the office when her time comes right now...

I understand your interpretation is "during the Time for which he was elected" unless she resigns. I am thinking that strictly with the words of the Constitution it says from 2006 -20012. The Constitution says nothing about resigning so that you can be legal. It simply says "during the Time for which he was elected". Of course being simple gets me into lots of trouble and I am not claiming the high ground and saying this is correct as I am not a Constitutional scholar but in my simple mind that seems to be correct. Guess we'll see Indy. The other issue is that the Constitutiion has been regularly ignored for many years; so even if I am correct you may prove to be constructively correct.

1911

Hell, if I had MY way, neither of them would even be in this COUNTRY... let along holding a public office...

Seems like "the time for which he was elected" would mean the actual time he is president. The current secretary of state is still holding that position so I feel like it would be for "that four years". But 1911 makes a great point. We may never truly know and they will do what they want.

I hope I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth but I think 1911 was talking about 'the time for which she was elected'. If she was elected from '06-'12 then she can't be appointed to a civil position and there's no 'disclaimer' saying she can resign.

True, True! Leave to the girls to be better communicators.

I think I just understand 'man-ease' a little better!

Got ya.

I was reading "The time for which 'she' was elected" to mean that she cant hold BOTH offices... Thats where I was in my mind... so they weren't actually IN that office of "secretary of state" until actually sworn in to do it, for the moment shes just been asked to do it... and has yet to be sworn in to actually TAKE that office. Thats what I meant by she could resign before that point.


But if we look at it the other way... Then yes. By all means I DO AGREE with 1911!!! That she should not have even been CONSIDERED for the office, as shes currently a US senator, and therefore not eligible to even TAKE the office regardless!

More light as this unfolds:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/03...utional-battle/

Yakdung,

And it pretty much says...

"NO ONE CARES ANYMORE whether its legal or unconstitutional or not... The Government doesnt care about the constitution anymore... they just DO WHAT THEY WANT REGARDLESS"


Thats how *I* read it!!

Constitution? How quaint.

Reveloution? _ _ _ _ _ _

I hope somebodies catching on other than us GRUMPY old people over 50.