From: wnd.com, by: Bob Unruh, on: May 2, 2015, see the article HERE.
Back in 2008, Barack Obama, then a presidential candidate, called for a “civilian national security force.” And he wanted it wanted it as big as all of the nation’s military branches. Combined.
Now black activist Al Sharpton is suggesting a path that probably would accomplish that: nationalize America’s police forces.
Sharpton, the National Action Network chief who has been sounding off most of the week on the death in police custody of Freddie Gray, said: “We need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states’ rights to get the right to vote. We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases. Police must be held accountable.”
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Friday that Sharpton is “talking about looting the legal system, national takeover of policing.”
Limbaugh said that with the state’s attorney’s announcement Friday of counts against six police officers for the in-custody death of Freddie Gray, justice in America is becoming “social justice.”
“If you’ve heard the term ‘social justice’ bandied about over the course of your life and wondered what it really mean, aside from another way of expressing liberalism, the press conference today by Ms. Mosby, the state attorney, pretty much defines social justice as opposed to real justice,” Limbaugh said.
First, the talk host said, Sharpton talks about a policing takeover, then, “she comes along and starts talking about the cause. One and one equals two. ‘This is a moment, this is your moment,’ What, the charging of six cops? Or the death of Freddie? What is the moment? ‘Let’s ensure that we have peaceful, productive rallies that will develop structural and systemic changes for generations to come. You are at the forefront of this cause, and as young people, our time is now.”
Obama’s calls for a private standing army was made at a 2008 appearance in Colorado Springs.
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we set,” Obama said at the time. “We’ve got have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
It was WND Editor Joseph Farah who raised the obvious questions about Obama’s plans for a civilian army after the speech.
“For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama’s campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since,” he wrote at the time.
“In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation’s military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: ‘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.’”
“Now, since I’ve never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase ‘civilian national security force’ before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind,” he wrote. “What does it mean?”
Farah pointed out that a “massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together” would be startling.
“The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?” he wrote.
Limbaugh explained what the nationalization of police and the “social justice” emphasis by the prosecutor, mean.
“I think the legal system – what Rev. Sharpton meant here in the first sound bite, I’m gonna go ahead and say this. What Rev. Sharpton is talking about is looting the legal system. When he talks about a national takeover of policing in this country, he’s talking about looting the legal system.”
WND reported two years ago that a book documented how the Department of Homeland Security already was demonstrating troubling signs the agency is shifting the balance of power away from local and state municipalities toward a centralized federal authority.
In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott conclude the DHS has likely violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
The law expressly forbids direct participation by the military in a “search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity.”
The authors further cite evidence the DHS is building a de facto domestic military, with the purchase of military-grade equipment and the execution of military-style training exercises.
The DHS could be the realization of Obama’s call for a civilian national security force, warn Klein and Elliott.
Obama’s words, his lawless, unconstitutional actions over these past six years, and current events (yes, even Jade Helm) conjure up the very distasteful specter of him declaring martial law.
At least two American lawmakers have stated on the record that, in their opinion, Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 legalizes or authorizes martial law in the United States. Senator Mark Udall stated “These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect…Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil.”
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of U.S. military forces to perform the tasks of civilian law enforcement such as arrest, apprehension, interrogation and detention unless explicitly authorized by Congress. This is what keeps Obama from using our military to enforce his laws and why he may believe that he will need his own “police force” to accomplish his agenda. While he may have believed that during his campaign, I doubt that he still believes it. He has shown little regard for the Constitution and wouldn’t let a little impediment like a “prohibition” keep him from his goal.
The president, under his or her constitutional powers to put down insurrection, rebellion, or invasion, may still declare martial law if local law enforcement and court systems have ceased to function. I imagine that all it takes is a presidential order to declare that insurrection exists and martial law is necessary to “restore order.”
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the ability of the President of the United States to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed. Accordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act, as an “Act of Congress”, have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.
All of the interactions between martial law, the Insurrection Act, and the Posse Comitatus Act create a complex minefield of legal dependencies designed to prevent an ill-advised attempt by the president to use our military to do his/her bidding on American soil. There is a lot of reading to do on those subjects if one is interested, especially from a legal standpoint. I honestly hope that I’m bringing up a subject that will never be in play and for which an answer is moot.