Title: Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov.. elections Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Jul 29, 2010 Author:e-mail Post Date:2010-07-29 14:13:30 by Jethro Tull Keywords:None Views:1876 Comments:53
Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov.. elections (Update)
Note: An update has been posted at the end of the article.
In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as 'Consequence Management Response Force' will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President.
The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart , Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.
According to the Army Times,
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.
The key phrase is 'may be called upon to help with civil unrest.' (AP Photo/David Longstreath).
This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military. This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.
The source described this as 'our long, hot summer of discontent' that could be eerily reminiscent of the summer of 1968 when riots broke out in many of our largest cities.
However, the summer of 2010 could well be much worse due to the players involved. In 1968 the major players were war protesters. This time, the outrage simmering beneath the surface of American society involves a broad cross-section of the heartland, and most of them are heavily armed.
It is highly unlikely that these citizens would ever initiate armed conflict of any kind. In their view, gun rights are for self-defense--and for defense against tyrannical government, which our Founders regarded as the most dangerous force on earth.
However, it has become clear that other groups may well initiate violence in order to start an 'incident' that would give Obama and a rogue Congress a reason to implement martial law, confiscate the citizens' guns, enforce curfews, and suspend all future elections until such time as it is deemed 'safe' to proceed with human liberty as encapsulated in the right to vote.
Tea Party members, for example, have been warned in recent days that members of Andy Stern's SEIU union and members of the organization formerly known as ACORN plan to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings in order to incite some sort of incident that could result in armed conflict.
In addition, all indications point to a humiliating defeat for the Democrats and Obama in November. Not only will the House in all likelihood transfer to Republican control, but it is increasingly possible for the Democrats to lose the Senate as well.
And there are Leftwing groups in this country that would use whatever means necessary to prevent that from happening.
ACORN has already gone underground, changing its name so as to fly beneath the radar screen. How many people will the group register to vote illegally?
And with Obama's plan to naturalize between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens, a brand new voter base for the Democrats will be in place prior to November.
Add to this the growing unrest over continued high unemployment, the coming spike in interest rates and inflation, and the still-boiling outrage over the manner in which Obama and the Democrats shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the citizens, and all of the ingredients are present for a major F-5 tornado to sweep across the heartland.
To what extent would soldiers use deadly force during such 'civil unrest' should the Consequence Management Response Team be utilized? During the anti-war riots of the 1960s they killed student protesters. What about now?
The military source cited by the radio host today was asked this very question. He would merely say that the culture of the U.S. military is changing--half support Obama and the other half are dead-set against him.
His conclusion? There is no way to know for sure if they would obey an order to open fire on ordinary citizens.
Update: The Cato Institute published this warning when the program was launched in its first phase in 2008 (the program has been updated and expanded since 2008). The Founders insisted that standing armies were never to be used against American citizens on our own soil, no matter what violations of this principle have occurred in the years following. In the spirit of the Patriots and of real journalists government must be questioned constantly and held to intense scrutiny in order to preserve liberty.
Well folks here it is, the special force Obama wanted using our own military. For any of you my age, remember Hitler's Nazi's prior to WW2 !!
Sorry Obama lovers you're getting this too. He said during his run for president he wanted this special force for control during internal matters in our country! Looks like he's got it....
Not sure who wrote this last part but use the Army Times link to read the actual article. If they are not going to use the non-lethal package in the US that leaves only the lethal methods.
There were "defectors" and challengers to the Iraq/Afghanistan deployments during Dubya's reign, if I recall.
A military *should* in fact, not be divided regardless of who is in charge. So probably, yes, they would have went with what Dubya, or any other President, ordered most likely. That they're divided now, is huge, if its true.
George I started the middle east campaigns, Junior simply tried to impress dad by going bonkers after 9/11 and invading...of all places that had nothing to do with it, Iraq. George I, being a former CIA guy, was quite keen to expand the "national security state", Dubya was just following in his footsteps. Clinton, of course, established the principles that it's perfectly ok to gun down your own citizens, as well as continuing keeping middle east tensions high by his random bombings.
Your Achilles heel is Dubya. But we've been over this before, probably pointless to rehash it.
That was Junior's doing in early October of 2008
That I agree with. The 2008 article referenced doesn't really back up the main article (this thread) claims that this is being planed for 2010.
My point being, if the same exact orders would have been issued by Junior, whatever those have been or are going to be, under the exact same circumstances, conditions, etc. and et al., there would be no political rift like that that might cause issues for the PTB.
Disagree. Soldiers, by and large, know that it's a grave sin to turn their guns on their own countrymen. Generally speaking, soldiers are geared to serve the country, not the "leader" and their loyalties remain to the nation as a whole as opposed to individual "leaders". Hence the reason the military didn't just flip Carter the bird when he was de-funding them (for example). They have individual political beliefs, but (generally) those take a back seat to duty to country while they're in uniform.
When you get to the point that some will, and some won't, instead of "none will", you're at the starting point of the previous Civil War. Which is what, I believe, is the important grain to take from the notation of 'there's a rift' mentioned in this piece.
I'm not disagreeing, what I'm stating, again, is that when it gets to the point that you have a large amount of soldiers that *will* turn against their own citizenry (beyond a small unit or two, there's always insane people in the ranks), and a division is now apparent in the ranks, that portends bad things. Confederate soldiers were, just a week prior to the outbreak of the civil war, U.S. soldiers (or rather, respectively, soldiers/militia from their state of origin). Union soldiers, sent to kill other Americans were, just a week prior to the civil war, U.S. soldiers (or rather, respectively, soldiers/militia from their state of origin).
When I was in the military what I stated was by and large true (of course, there probably were minor exceptions). There were even polls sent around, what in the 1990's by the Clinton administration, that asked the "would you turn your guns on your fellow citizens" and the vast majority answered "no way, go to hell for asking".
That most likely is changed now, but that's the point, if it's changed, then we're at the point of being on the cusp of civil war.
Remember, even the Chinese had units lining up to battle each other during Tienanmen Square when they were being ordered to mow down their own, and they are far more brainwashed than Americans could ever lay claim to being. No matter the "hand that feeds you", it's a tough sell when you're ordered to gun down your friend's grandmother.