That is to say, you would HOPE that MOST wouldn't kill innocent civilians. "Good" people can do terrible things when they have the excuse of "orders."

Can't say I agree with "The government exists because we allow it to exist". Mostly because there are a lot of things that exist in the political and social structure of this country that in just about everyone's opinion should not....yet there they are.

I'm sorry if you inferred any derision towards independent publishers; I've actually been published by an independent, myself. I was referring to self-published writers, whose works--with some possible exceptions--never go through a professional editing process, to include fact-checking. Don't get me wrong, friend, more than enough unsupported crap gets published by the main-stream media, as well. Otherwise, how else would we even know Ann Coulter's name?

And I guess the "histrionics" of these doomsayers is exactly the crux of my skepticism. My very concern is that our liberties will be eroded too slowly for most people to notice or care, and not dramatically snatched from us after the burning of the Reichstag, like they too often warn.

Maybe our disconnect--since ideologically, you and I have agreed plenty of times in the past--lies in what I feel might be the two very different definitions of "police state" that you and I are thinking of. I think your definition is a little broader, and might include even the slightest tipping of the scale that balances our liberties with the protection our government offers. In which case, I wholeheartedly agree with you that we have been in a worsening police state since... probably the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act of 1971.

The definition of "Police state" that I was thinking about when I left the above comment is on the more extreme, Orwellian end of the scale. So I guess my point is that warning us of that level of oppression is a little bit of a distraction from the fight that we should be putting up to preserve each of our liberties, on a case-by-case basis.

And I'm honestly disappointed in you, Buck, that you would suggest that Obama's proposing a paramilitary, or "civilian military force." Did you read my comments regarding the civilian defense initiatives that Obama proposed? Or, say, read or heard the whole speech--the only speech--where he phrased it like that? What he's talking about is serving the community. Like Brazil, which trains its civilians to respond to natural disasters so that the military can focus on protecting the borders (hence, "defense"). Basically, he wants to 'force' kids to put down their i-phones and think about someone other than themselves for a few months of their lives, before they can expect to receive federal aide.

I'm very familiar with the Raider Brigade's 'deployment' to the US. What COL Cloutier was describing as their mission is exactly the same mission the National Guard has had for a hundred years.

Have you ever worked with the National Guard? It's a crap-shoot, man; sometimes, you're dealing with well-trained professionals, sometimes you're dealing with Bubba and his cousin Jim-Bob. So the Raiders, and whomever takes their place, are designated as a federal representative in the case of domestic emergencies. Basically, the CCMRF's will perform the same role as the National Guard, but with full-time, rather than part-time, soldiers. (It's usually the poorly-trained or undisciplined soldier who makes civilian/military encounters escalate. So yes, that is comforting to me.)

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible that they might abuse their power, or someone above them might abuse their role. I'm just saying it's not likely.

What is likely--and in fact has already occurred--is that the media, our legislature, and we the voters have sat idly by as something as asinine as the Patriot Act flies through Capitol Hill. What we should be talking about is how we can prevent that from happening again.