quote:

Originally posted by CaptainBosco:

quote:

So the description above is either inaccurate based on a misunderstanding of the law of concealed carry or is simply FUD.

I incorrectly assumed they would open carry. Thanks for the correction.

We don't open carry even where it is Legal. We ONLY carry when we are actually in the field.

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:


Probably because there is absolutely nothing wrong, illegal or even improper about wearing a sword.

There is in the Aux. Swords are only worn with full dress unis and the Aux is clearly barred in the AuxMan from wearing full dress unis. And since it is barred in the AuxMan then it is wrong, illegal (in the sense of violating a Commandant Regulation) and improper.

Claerly barred or merely not mentioned as allowed? And is the statement "Swords are only worn with full dress unis" also in the AUXMAN or is that merely being borrowed from military customs of the AD services?

--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero, City of New Orleans, La
on the web: www.coastguardauxiliaryslidell8cr.us

quote:

Originally posted by MikeAux:
It's time to move on. Ken, I am sorry to say, I don't think you will get any new members from this board.

But he already did. Didn't skyray or another author post that he joined?

--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero, City of New Orleans, La
on the web: www.coastguardauxiliaryslidell8cr.us

quote:

Originally posted by eirikr1:

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:


Probably because there is absolutely nothing wrong, illegal or even improper about wearing a sword.

There is in the Aux. Swords are only worn with full dress unis and the Aux is clearly barred in the AuxMan from wearing full dress unis. And since it is barred in the AuxMan then it is wrong, illegal (in the sense of violating a Commandant Regulation) and improper.

Claerly barred or merely not mentioned as allowed? And is the statement "Swords are only worn with full dress unis" also in the AUXMAN or is that merely being borrowed from military customs of the AD services?

--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero, City of New Orleans, La
on the web: www.coastguardauxiliaryslidell8cr.us

MBA?

Not Allowed means just that not allowed period.
How long does this thread have to go on?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kdreger,

Claerly barred or merely not mentioned as allowed? And is the statement "Swords are only worn with full dress unis" also in the AUXMAN or is that merely being borrowed from military customs of the AD services?

Here is the section of interest:

AuxMan 1.A.4.a. Uniforms

quote:

Auxiliarists are authorized to wear Coast Guard uniforms with the appropriate Auxiliary insignia, with the exception of full dress (swords, large medals, and white gloves) and dress (large medals and white gloves) uniforms. Uniforms shall be worn as prescribed in Coast Guard Uniform Regulations, COMDTINST M1020.6 (series), except as noted in Chapter 10 of this manual.

Whew! Spent the weekend away from internet access and on a little "encampment" of my own....with wild pigs being the target of interest. (the 50 Beowulf worked great!)

It seems I missed most of the fun -- never expected to see this thread hit 10 pages...

All of that -- but questions regarding actual membership numbers, finances, and how finances are accounted for all remain unanswered questions by the selectively vocal leader. At least an improperly "borrowed" map image was removed -- but the misrepresented (dishonest) photos remain...

Skyray - when is your first flight with the "Air Wing"?? I'm interested to hear what you'll do. Since the Florida "border" is basically the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic ocean, I'm wondering just what you'll be doing -- and how far off-shore you'll be asked to go.

Since the "BPAUX" offers no funding reimbursement for your aircraft (fuel expenses or hourly maintenance rate) like the CG Auxiliary does, I wonder how eager you will actually be to perform these missions? Using them simply as tax deductions I suppose...

Also, since you will most certainly conduct your aerial "patrols" outside of gliding distance to land -- and you are not covered under a governmental insurance policy (again, like the USCG provides to AUXAIR facilities) -- I expect you will be assuming the risk of losing the value of your own aircraft should you ditch at sea (since your personal aircraft hull policy would most certainly exclude the volunteer off-shore surveillance work)...

I guess you'll be responsible for your own PPE as well.

I can't wait to hear about all the good aerial missions the "BPAUX" sends your way... If you get bored, my offer for you to come up here and fly is still open.

how finances are accounted for all remain unanswered questions

If you ever find out that info for the CG Aux, please let us all know. Some of us have been trying to get an accounting of the Auxiliary funds, other then the once-a-year useless report in The Beacon, for several years to no avail. And the CG Aux, unlike the BP Aux, is a public agency and CG Aux volunteers are required to join and pay dues to its funding arm, the CG Aux Asso Inc. You would think in that case the CG Aux would be required to perform full disclosure. But formal requests up the Broken Chain are not even acknowledged.

Once again you are trying to hold a private group to a higher standard then the Aux is willing to provide its members.

actual membership numbers

The Auxiliary doesn't provide an honest membership count in most cases. More then once a very inflated number that appears in an official document or speech has been called into account here. Once that very inflated number was quoted by the Commandant himself. It was only off by about 10,000 members or an inflation of 25% of the membership.

My apologies to the CG Auxillarists for jumping in on your turf but I couldn't pass it up.

quote:

And if anyone is interested, here is what the news did yesterday in San Diego, now understand this is a pretty lIBERAL chanel, they only took a little liberty in one statement!

Well, I had a little while to kill so I read this thread. What was I thinking. I have never heard of so much double speak in all my life.

Before I go too far, please provide the names of the USCG members you say you work with. I would love to talk to them and it only a click of a mouse for me to get into contact with them and I would love to hear the accolades of your program.

The news article was the clincher though. The following are direct quotes from the article with questions added. You didn't dispute them so you obviously believe or want to pass them off as true:

"The group considers itself an arm of the U.S. Customs And Border Protection Agency."

You have said since your first statement on this thread that "We are the private sector working to assist all law enforcement agencies around the country in the effort to help secure our nations borders." So are you private sector or are you an arm of the "U.S. Customs And Border Protection Agency" as qouted in the article. You can't be both. CGAUX members are an arm of the U.S. Coast Guard they are fully supported by the US Coast Guard and have a mandate from their parent service. See the difference between that and your group?

"The group has been trained under the Department Of Homeland Security for a citizens watch group. Their job is to watch and report what they see back to the U.S. Border Patrol"

You really made them think you were trained by DHS? The BP did not ask you to take on that mission. They don't even sanction it but you allowed the article to imply it did.

So what training did DHS provide? If you told them you were trained by your HSPIG and were misinterpreted it is just as bad. Didn't you acknowledge that you are the "V.P. Homeland Security Policy Institute Group, Inc."? If so you trained yourself.

What is your background? Military, Law Enforcement? What qualifies your agency to train anyone? Also why is the HSPIG allowed to display the DHS logo? As the VP of the organization you must know so let us in on the secret.


Additionally, the uniforms worn in the video clearly show you want to look like Law enforcement. The logo on the hat (which looks like a badge to the casual observer), rank on the collars, and the colors chosen make it quite obvious you are looking for the look of an official agency. On first glance I would have mistaken the person in the article for an LEO but that was your intention wasn't it.

As stated before, you can claim all you want that you are trying to make it clear you are a private sector entity, but your outward appearance clearly contradicts that. Plus, you provide a link directly to the CBP without a disclaimer that you are not associated with them. You clearly chose the name, uniforms etc. to confuse the average person. You don't think everyone has read your silly disclaimer on your website do you?

What is your background? Military, Law Enforcement?

Ken's background, as well as that of the other Founding/Director of the HSPIG, Inc, which is the parent of the BP Aux, is a matter of public record. You can find both of their bios here.

You might also want to look over the bios of the BOD of the HSPIG Inc

tankkllr,

As one of our active-duty partners/sponsors, I'd never consider a post from you as intruding on Auxiliary turf.

Other posters might not agree... (possibly ex-Auxies)

Well, that's one active duty Coastie's vote in the "BPAUX is misrepresenting themselves" column...

As was said before, you need a sponsoring organization or entity in order to be an "auxiliary" -- and "HSPIG" doesn't qualify...

quote:

As was said before, you need a sponsoring organization or entity in order to be an "auxiliary" -- and "HSPIG" doesn't qualify...

And can you please point to where you can verify this legal requirement?

We had 3 lawyers look into it and all of them gave us the ok! But again, I am open to resolve your questions.
Ken

Hi Ken:

I want to applaud you for forming this group. Sorry you received the personal attacks from some individuals here. That is their usual Method of Operation-- if they can't win the debate, some grow frustrated and begin to gnaw at your leg rather than at the argument.

To make it clear, I am an ex-Auxiliarist. I am a Libertarian and opposed the PSI's (intrusive background checks and fingerprinting) that the DHS forced on all members and applicants a few years ago. I was fine with having my SS# run against federal records to make sure I wasn't a felon.. but what they began doing (after I was already a member for five years), and continue to do is and was so over the top for a volunteer organization. I'm a person of principle. I gave up something that I dearly loved rather than succumb to yet another invasion of my civil liberties.

So now that you know where I come from...

I looked over your website, and found it to be very professional. I was very impressed with your news releases. Who ever does your PR is a very good writer and knows his/her stuff.

I like what you're trying to do. My only problem with your group, like some of the others here mentioned, is I worry about the name of the organization. I don't think it was chosen to intentionally mislead the public, but unfortunately, it implies your group has the Border Patrol's blessing and that your group, like the Coast Guard Auxiliary, is a citizen's arm of a governmental mother organization.

I truly feel a name change is in order. I understand you have a lot of time and money invested in your "brand," but I do think it's going to cause even more problems for you down the road. At the very least, until you get it sorted out, you might want to consider a disclaimer on your website.

My impression is that you're a group of very patriotic and motivated concerned citizens who want to do their part to help seal up the borders. You just have selected a confusing choice of a name.

quote:

As we have a new member who is evidently unfamiliar with internet discussion boards, let me introduce him to the first rule of these boads -- you will not change the mind of anyone who participates in a discussion - EVER. No one ever backs down from a position they have taken -- EVER

Well, I don't agree because I have personally modified my position on several Auxiliary issues based upon the reading of posts in this forum. If you listen carefully to the intent of the messages and filter out the passion, there's good feedback here.

quote:

Originally posted by tankkllr:
My apologies to the CG Auxillarists for jumping in on your turf but I couldn't pass it up.

quote:

And if anyone is interested, here is what the news did yesterday in San Diego, now understand this is a pretty lIBERAL chanel, they only took a little liberty in one statement!

Well, I had a little while to kill so I read this thread. What was I thinking. I have never heard of so much double speak in all my life.

Before I go too far, please provide the names of the USCG members you say you work with. I would love to talk to them and it only a click of a mouse for me to get into contact with them and I would love to hear the accolades of your program.

The news article was the clincher though. The following are direct quotes from the article with questions added. You didn't dispute them so you obviously believe or want to pass them off as true:

"The group considers itself an arm of the U.S. Customs And Border Protection Agency."

You have said since your first statement on this thread that "We are the private sector working to assist all law enforcement agencies around the country in the effort to help secure our nations borders." So are you private sector or are you an arm of the "U.S. Customs And Border Protection Agency" as qouted in the article. You can't be both. CGAUX members are an arm of the U.S. Coast Guard they are fully supported by the US Coast Guard and have a mandate from their parent service. See the difference between that and your group?

"The group has been trained under the Department Of Homeland Security for a citizens watch group. Their job is to watch and report what they see back to the U.S. Border Patrol"

You really made them think you were trained by DHS? The BP did not ask you to take on that mission. They don't even sanction it but you allowed the article to imply it did.

So what training did DHS provide? If you told them you were trained by your HSPIG and were misinterpreted it is just as bad. Didn't you acknowledge that you are the "V.P. Homeland Security Policy Institute Group, Inc."? If so you trained yourself.

What is your background? Military, Law Enforcement? What qualifies your agency to train anyone? Also why is the HSPIG allowed to display the DHS logo? As the VP of the organization you must know so let us in on the secret.


Additionally, the uniforms worn in the video clearly show you want to look like Law enforcement. The logo on the hat (which looks like a badge to the casual observer), rank on the collars, and the colors chosen make it quite obvious you are looking for the look of an official agency. On first glance I would have mistaken the person in the article for an LEO but that was your intention wasn't it.

As stated before, you can claim all you want that you are trying to make it clear you are a private sector entity, but your outward appearance clearly contradicts that. Plus, you provide a link directly to the CBP without a disclaimer that you are not associated with them. You clearly chose the name, uniforms etc. to confuse the average person. You don't think everyone has read your silly disclaimer on your website do you?

OK, this is going to be a long one!

My comments are within the ( ), so that I could respond to each question as asked.


Well, I had a little while to kill so I read this thread. What was I thinking. I have never heard of so much double speak in all my life.

(can you please point out where that is for me to make clarifications for you?)

Before I go too far, please provide the names of the USCG members you say you work with. I would love to talk to them and it only a click of a mouse for me to get into contact with them and I would love to hear the accolades of your program.
(Let me get you the names today I will try to PM them over to you if you don’t mind)

The news article was the clincher though. The following are direct quotes from the article with questions added. You didn't dispute them so you obviously believe or want to pass them off as true:

"The group considers itself an arm of the U.S. Customs And Border Protection Agency."

(As does your local Neighborhood Watch in your area, they consider themselves an arm of local law enforcement, but not associated directly with them)

You have said since your first statement on this thread that "We are the private sector working to assist all law enforcement agencies around the country in the effort to help secure our nations borders." So are you private sector or are you an arm of the "U.S. Customs And Border Protection Agency" as qouted in the article.

(Actually we can, because we have that choice and option as the private sector, we can choose to play where and when and with whom we feel like doing so, unlike many other groups associated directly with government agencies)

You can't be both. CGAUX members are an arm of the U.S. Coast Guard they are fully supported by the US Coast Guard and have a mandate from their parent service. See the difference between that and your group?

"The group has been trained under the Department Of Homeland Security for a citizens watch group. Their job is to watch and report what they see back to the U.S. Border Patrol"

(We offer training provided by DHS to all of our members, this training is FREE to anyone who wants it, we just utilize it in our training methods, it helps keep our people abreast of current things going on, you to can also sign up for these type of programs if you look into it!)


You really made them think you were trained by DHS? The BP did not ask you to take on that mission. They don't even sanction it but you allowed the article to imply it did.

(Understand this point, BP, CBP nor any local, state or federal entity will NEVER “Actually” come out and give us an assignment! Never, Never, Never! We have talked that out with CBP & BP, the issue would then lay in that they would have the burden of responsibility for us, just like here! So, as we dance around the table in our talks with these great people, they will say that area-x really could use some coverage, and IF some one were to check that out say between x & y hours that might prove very beneficial to everyone! That is how it works with us and all of the agencies, never a direct order! We decide if we want to go there or someplace else, just that simple)

So what training did DHS provide?
(Like I stated above our training is free from DHS, we also offer training when we are at camp, that is provided by DHS or another facility like the Water Watch program, traffic alert program, firearms training by NRA instructors, first aid, search and recovery. Not all are DHS, but some of these are, and we will continue to get more and more that are from DHS to help our folks understand today’s current situation)

If you told them you were trained by your HSPIG and were misinterpreted it is just as bad.
(I have never told anyone that someone from BPAUX was trained by HSPIG, If you can locate that I would like to see it, because that would be a incorrect statement and I would want to correct it)

Didn't you acknowledge that you are the "V.P. Homeland Security Policy Institute Group, Inc."?
(Yes, I am. HSPIG is just a non-profit Corporation, I have a technical background in I/T, and have a lot of specialized training, plus some from various organizations I belong to that benefit HSPIG & BPAUX, and if you would like to say I am self trained, go for it, I have done a lot of self training in these 60+ years haven’t you? )

If so you trained yourself.

What is your background?
(My bio is open for anyone to see, that is the short version, it probley tells you more about me than you know about 90% of the folks here)

Military, Law Enforcement?
(Yes, private side of LEO)

What qualifies your agency to train anyone?

(I don’t do the training, we have and are part of the “Train the trainers” program and these folks do it)

Also why is the HSPIG allowed to display the DHS logo?

(Well, that is a great question, over the last 3+ years we (HSPIG) has worked with DHS to preserve the DHS daily briefing for archive purposes, and to allow people in out (HSPIG) group to have access to it. DHS has allowed us, after we (HSPIG) requested it to use the logo, as did ALL of the other web sites located on ours (HSPIG), we asked prior to using any of the logos)

As the VP of the organization you must know so let us in on the secret.

(It is not a secret, you just have to ask, but they just don’t hand it out like candy either!)


Additionally, the uniforms worn in the video clearly show you want to look like Law enforcement. The logo on the hat (which looks like a badge to the casual observer), rank on the collars, and the colors chosen make it quite obvious you are looking for the look of an official agency. On first glance I would have mistaken the person in the article for an LEO but that was your intention wasn't it.

(This has been discussed prior, I don’t want to go over it again please)

As stated before, you can claim all you want that you are trying to make it clear you are a private sector entity, but your outward appearance clearly contradicts that. Plus, you provide a link directly to the CBP without a disclaimer that you are not associated with them.

(Ok, now you are reaching, if we were to look at 100 web sites, that had links what percentage of those web sites asked prior to giving the link? Few!, we offer the link to show what BP is really like and if or when folks have a question about who we may be they can look at BP and see the difference, it also allows us to promote BP for recruits! Of which we also have a PICTURE and a link to BR for recruiting for them at NO COST TO THEM!)

You clearly chose the name, uniforms etc. to confuse the average person. You don't think everyone has read your silly disclaimer on your website do you?

(Actually this is not an issue, we are telling everyone who we talk to who we are and that we are the private sector and that we are NOT linked to the BP, everyone understands that, and I really don’t think that the disclaimer is silly, it would be silly if it were not there as pointed out by someone else prior)

I hope I have tried to answer as many questions as I can, I am sure I cannot convince all of you, but this is still a free country, you can make up your own minds based on this LONG thread, don’t let anyone’s post sway you, make up your own mind! And I am sure that many of you will choose to not support or acknowledge or even be upset with us, well, that is still again your choice, and I hope that never changes.

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:

quote:

As we have a new member who is evidently unfamiliar with internet discussion boards, let me introduce him to the first rule of these boads -- you will not change the mind of anyone who participates in a discussion - EVER. No one ever backs down from a position they have taken -- EVER

Well, I don't agree because I have personally modified my position on several Auxiliary issues based upon the reading of posts in this forum. If you listen carefully to the intent of the messages and filter out the passion, there's good feedback here.

On the contrar, I have been on internet boards since Al Gore created them, maybe befor that!
I dont intend to sway anyone, I just want to have everyones questions cleared or answered to the best of my ability. Just that simple, nothing complex! If some of these folks want to join BPAUX fine, if not file also...It is not something like the trhead name implies a "Competition Group" it is more of a colabaration of efforts I really would hope.

Ken

I just had a interesting thought!
Do you folks here ask this many questions to your leaders? Do they respond?

Just asking, that would be interesting to know....

Ken

quote:

Originally posted by kdreger:
I just had a interesting thought!
Do you folks here ask this many questions to your leaders? Do they respond?

Just asking, that would be interesting to know....

Ken

Yes we do and the answers we get are direct from our manuals that have been approved by the United States Coast Guard which is governed by the Department of Homeland Security. The same agency that I have gone through the PSI and have my ID issued from.

So, that question back on page 3 or 4 about finances was answered already?

That is great, and I am sure it has taken years and year to develop these manyals, that is a great Idea maybe we will start something like this also, just useing our own rules though...and have it also online for folks to see like you folks do.

This is a great board, my oldest son was in the USCGR when he was deployed in Desert Storm in a PSU group, that was a hoot for him, and my other business partner Tom was over they at the same time! Another hoot!

Thanks for all the great input folks...

Ken