Replies

What you say has a kernel of wisdom. I do think that 98 % of us are peaceful, rational and will chip in to maintain our personal neck of the woods. You saw that on 911 and during the NY blackout,,people have a geniune concern for others, for order, for fairness and in large areas of the country we wouldn't need a military presence to maintain a civil society. Now over a period of time we might in places. Remember the Old West, someone had to be the sheriff. And assuming a foreign entity did this, a WMD attack, we might all have to tolerate some constitutional rights waived to defend our homes,,ie, I say shoot any obvious militant muslims on sight and ask questions later. Innocents will be hurt but when your home is at stake you don't wait for the niceties. That is what I think Franks meant, I don't think most of us would need martial law but certainly terrorists would need it and our usual hoodlums who prey on people. But your neck of the woods is like most of our necks of the woods. Nevertheless I will be on the side of the National Guard and will willingly submit to questions or searches if needed and will turn my head when terrorists among us are summarily dealt with and won't be calling the ACLU to complain.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Others pointed out that there is a significant difference between situational and localized use of the National Guard (such as in and around an attack area, riot area, or during natural disasters), and the move to a military form of government in lieu of a constitutional republic.

I believe that Franks was just stating what should be obvious or explained to everyone. More and more in recent years, people have aspired to and won office who don't really care for this republican form of government. The same can be said for too many of the bureaucrats and agents who work farther down on the food chain. These people love nothing more than crises that expand their power over the lives of ordinary citizens and their property.

In my humble opinion, Hillary would be the epitome of this mentality, but examples exist on both sides of the aisle at all levels of government.

I don't believe the National Guard is as closely tied to the political power structure as the career political elements, but they may become so after endless deployments in foreign adventures.

None of this would be much of a concern if schools were still teaching that ours is a government "of, for, and by the People".