[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat

Cinnamon reduces fat

How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3.

'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot

Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel

Sen. Grassley announces a whistleblower has exposed the FBI program “Arctic Frost” for targeting 92 Republican groups

Keto, Ivermectin, & Fenbendazole: New Cancer Treatment Protocol Gains Momentum

Bill Ackman 'Hammered' Charlie Kirk in August 'Intervention' for Platforming Israel Critics

"I've Never Experienced Crime Of This Magnitude Before": 20-Year Veteran Austrian Police Spox

The UK is F*CKED, and the people have had enough

No place for hate apeech

America and Israel both told Qatar to allow Hamas to stay in their country

Video | Robert Kennedy brings down the house.

Owner releases video of Trump banner ripping, shooting in WNC

Cash Jordan: Looters ‘Forcibly Evict’ Millionaires… as California’s “NO ARRESTS” Policy BACKFIRES

Dallas Motel Horror: Immigrant Machete Killer Caught


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists'
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/201 ... reps-for-tea-party-terrorists/
Published: Apr 29, 2010
Author: By Mark Alexander
Post Date: 2010-05-06 07:37:13 by DeaconBenjamin
Keywords: None
Views: 744
Comments: 67

Publisher's Note: Senior Command staff at Ft. Knox contacted me on the date of publication. They confirmed that there was a security exercise at Ft. Knox this week. An officer in the security loop altered the scenario "in order to make it more realistic." The alterations were not approved at the Command level and were not used by the Installation Command Post. The officer who circulated the scenario through official channels has been identified and will "receive appropriate counsel." Further, Command staff noted, "An official investigation has been initiated to determine the manner in which this information was included in the exercise scenario. Fort Knox leadership is committed to continued positive associations with our community groups and organizations and will continue to work to enhance and improve those relationships." Commanders provided assurance that this type of scenario would not find its way into official circulation again.

The fact that any officer would associate Tea Party folks with "white supremacists" armed with "military grade weapons" and "bomb making components," and believe that association would make this scenario "more realistic," is troubling, at best. We owe our gratitude to a handful of Patriots, who, at risk to their careers, came forth with this information and expected us to handle it honorably and accurately -- and we did just that.

In regard to the verbatim scenario documentation we posted, even though those documents were not classified, Command staff asked that we remove them for specified security reasons. As our mission is not only to uphold our Constitution by holding those in positions of authority accountable to their oaths, but also to support our uniformed Patriots, I agreed to remove the documents from our Web site as requested.

"The duty imposed upon [the president] to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story

A few months back, the commander in chief of our Armed Forces, that erstwhile community organizer Barack Hussein Obama, denigrated a large cross section of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement -- those who advocate for Essential Liberty and Rule of Law.

Obama identified them as malcontents, "waving their little tea bags."

Since then, the Obama administration and their Leftmedia sycophants have endeavored to characterize Tea Party attendees as rude, radical, racist, redneck, enemies of the state. They have attempted to tie high-profile acts of violence against the government to the Tea Party, including the pilot who crashed his plane into a Texas IRS headquarters. (Turns out, he was a Leftwing nut.)

In fact, Americans who attend Tea Party rallies are from all walks of life, as noted in the Patriot Declaration, Patriots who are peacefully and constitutionally petitioning their government for redress.

As I noted in my tax-day essay, Tea Parties are "not a call for revolution but for restoration -- a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law."

However, Obama's words do have consequences.

This week, I was contacted by a number of civilian and military personnel (enlisted and officer ranks) who expressed concern about a military exercise scenario proposed for Ft. Knox, the U.S. Bullion Depository. (For the record, I called Ft. Knox security for an official comment and received the standard reply: "We are not authorized to discuss this exercise.")

As with most such exercises, the Ft. Knox scenario outline occurred in stages, as if real time intelligence was being provided at various intervals. The first intel advisory I received was issued on Friday, 23 April 2010, and identifies the terrorist threat adversaries as "Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party."

You read that right: "TEA Party"!

The advisory states that plans for a demonstration may have been interrupted by "Federal and local law enforcement" raids on a "White Supremacists Organization," but "TEA Party organizers have stated that they will protest at the Gold Vault at a future date."

Further, the intel advisory states, "Anti-Government - Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity."

In accordance with the exercise proposal, Ft. Knox post security is placed on high alert because, "these groups are armed, have combative training and some are former Military Snipers. Some may have explosives training / experience," and "a rally at their compound / training area is scheduled."

Another intel update was issued on Monday, 26 April 2010, noting that the "rally at the Militia compound occurred," and "Viable threats ... have been made." The intel on the rally notes, "Many members were extremely agitated at what they referred to as Government intervention and over taxation in their lives. Alcohol use 'fanned the flames.' Many military grade firearms were openly carried. An ad hoc 'shoot the government agent' event was held with prizes (alcohol) given for the best shot placement."

The report states further, "Components of bomb making are reported to have been on the site. Some members have criminal records relating to explosive and weapons violations."

In response to the "immediate threat," the exercise stipulates, "local detention centers are being made ready for mass arrests." Both the "QRF I and QRF II" are placed on two hour recall, and the "5-15 CAV" was ordered to "draw weapons from holder and store in most available arms room," and "coordinate with MASA for immediate ammunition draw; have equipment readied for immediate use, i.e. vehicles staged and loaded IAW 5-15 CAV SOP; LMR's charged."

QRF refers to Quick Reaction Force. QRF I is the 194th Armored Brigade. QRF II is the 194th Armored Brigade.

The 26 April order gives specific instructions for the 5-15 CAV (a 16th Cavalry battalion) to have weapons, ammo, vehicles and communications at ready, and it places the other 2,200 members of the units on two-hour recall. In other words, these orders are to gear up for defending Ft. Knox against Tea Party folks and their co-conspirators who oppose nationalization of our health care sector.

Now, for almost 30 years I have, on occasion, participated in the development and implementation of small and large scale military exercises within the U.S. and around the world.

Such exercises are critical to the readiness of our forces, and the standard for the real time intel reports in these drills requires thinly veiled references to assets of existing or collateral threat vectors, communist regimes such as China and terrorist networks such as al-Qa'ida, etc.

Perhaps the author of the Ft. Knox scenario should focus on a response plan for, say, an Islamic terrorist who attacks unarmed troops on his own post. (See Ft. Hood / Major Nidal Malik Hasan.)

While the Ft. Knox exercise scenario is amateurish in its construct (meaning it appears to be composed by someone with not much experience in such matters), the fact that it made it out into official channels sets an ominous political precedent.

The military officers and enlisted personnel with whom I spoke are all dedicated uniformed Patriots who are loyal, first and foremost, to their oath to "support and defend" our Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Their concerns about this exercise mirrored my own. As one put it, the scenario "misrepresents freedom loving Americans as drunken, violent racists -- the opponents of Obama's policies have been made the enemy of the U.S. Army."

They were equally concerned that it appears the command staff at Ft. Knox had signed off on this exercise, noting, "it has been issued and owned by field grade officers who lead our battalions and brigades," which is to say many Lieutenant Colonels saw this order before it was implemented.

It's not likely that Ft. Knox Commanding General James Milano or Deputy Commander Col. David Teeples, or even the regimental and brigade commanders for the 16th Cav and 194th AB, actually read the exercise scenario, but that doesn't absolve responsibility for such an egregious example of political agendas infiltrating military exercise scenarios.

One officer insisted, "The American people should require greater accountability of their commissioned officers, that they abide by their oath and never allow politically motivated propaganda like this exercise on any post or base again."

Another observed, "Whether this is complacency by officers who do not see such orders as a problem, or worse, officers who recognize the problem but do not insist the orders are changed, this is a serious problem. We are discussing the training of American citizen soldiers in the use of potentially deadly force against a specific group of political dissenters. There is never a time in an officer's career in which he does not have a duty to apply critical thought to the orders he is given and asked to give. It is my opinion that any officer that has allowed these orders to persist, to reach the level of junior officers and soldiers, has demonstrated a lack of judgment or apathy towards what his duty requires of him. Either way, we should demand more of the commissioned officers, who we as a nation empower to lead our sons and daughters into battle."

Indeed, and at best, the blatant malfeasance on the part of the individuals who composed this exercise reflects poorly on the uniformed services.

The antidote to this patent misrepresentation of peaceable Patriots is to expose it with the Light of Truth. As our motto Veritas vos Liberabit affirms, the Truth shall set you Free!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 59.

#1. To: DeaconBenjamin (#0)

Do I believe the retraction? No. Do I believe buckwheat never gave such instructions to the military? No.

Hasn't the bastard lied enough already to the masses for us to know he can't be trusted or believed? Hopefully this and other information will wake more voters up to the urgency of voting those presently in Congress OUT ... and come 2012 vote OUT the potus with the empty suit and empty head.

Phant2000  posted on  2010-05-06   8:36:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Phant2000 (#1)

Hopefully this and other information will wake more voters up to the urgency of voting those presently in Congress OUT ... and come 2012 vote OUT the potus with the empty suit and empty head.

Which was the rally cry in 2008, to "vote OUT the potus with the empty suit and empty head", and look what it got us, more of the same.

You cannot vote your way to freedom. In the course of your life, has government significantly retracted because of how you voted? I can think of one time, Reagan, but that was so short lived as to make heads spin, and then only in regards to taxation, while he on the other hand increased government on other levels. No, voting will get you nothing but more of the same, eventually you'll have to break the paradigm then have constructed in your head and see that it's a rigged system meant to give you the illusion of control, so that you lend your consent to continued rape. Until you get there, you'll keep advocating drinking hemlock in order to cure arsenic poisoning.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2010-05-06   8:51:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: SonOfLiberty (#4)

You cannot vote your way to freedom.

You cannot vote your way to freedom ... Perhaps you used a poor choice of words?

As has always been our form of government, we CAN vote for freedom at all times, that is how the system was originated. Do we vote for freedom? Not since the Civil War.

That being the case, the only other viable pathway to freedom is, once more, the path of Revolution or Civil War. You leave no other option.

In the past election there were eighty million people that could have voted, but did not. Such inaction indicates to a thinking person that a large number of Americans realize the futility of voting.

You state the failure of voting, and recognize the alternative.

Phant2000  posted on  2010-05-06   9:37:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Phant2000 (#15)

You cannot vote your way to freedom ... Perhaps you used a poor choice of words?

No, the choice was correctly worded and precise.

As has always been our form of government, we CAN vote for freedom at all times, that is how the system was originated.

Incorrect. The original system ceded that rights belonged to individuals outside of any government, as inherent in our nature as human beings. Government cannot and could not grant a freedom, therefor you cannot by definition "vote for freedom at all times", since government cannot grant freedoms in the first place, it can only impede their exercise. Governments were instituted ONLY to guarantee the freedoms, not grant them, and existed only by the consent of the governed, and if they should stop performing that duty it was our right and obligation to *overthrow* that government and replace it with one compatible with original intent. Remember, a government that stops guaranteeing liberty is one that will not act for liberty, regardless of how you vote, ergo overthrowing that government was the solution the Founders recommended. Jefferson was quite clear about what was needed to water the tree of liberty. That is the system as it was originated, look it up.

That being the case, the only other viable pathway to freedom is, once more, the path of Revolution or Civil War. You leave no other option.

It is not I who leave no other path, it is your government that leaves no other path. They refuse to follow the simple rules we put down for them to follow, the Constitution. They are lawless. You cannot constrain them, I cannot constrain them, they are rogues and criminals. Vote all you want, and they'll just smile knowing that there is another sucker still participating in the charade and lending them sanction to continued wrong doing.

In the past election there were eighty million people that could have voted, but did not. Such inaction indicates to a thinking person that a large number of Americans realize the futility of voting.

I'll grant some of them, but I suspect that a lot of them are simply apathetic to most things. Not that it ultimately matters of course.

You state the failure of voting, and recognize the alternative.

Aye, that I do, thank you.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2010-05-06   9:51:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: SonOfLiberty (#19)

Aye, that I do, thank you.

I have made a conscious note of what you post, how you respond to others, and how inconsistent you are. While you preach to others what to do, you are planning a totally different approach for yourself.

Therefore, of the three alternatives you have given to the problem you now address, which one are you taking? 1) The sucker route, 2) the apathetic route; or 3) the runner route (by leaving the country).

You might look down, Son ... the paint is getting close to putting you in the corner.

Phant2000  posted on  2010-05-06   11:10:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Phant2000, SonOfLiberty (#26)

While you preach to others what to do, you are planning a totally different approach for yourself.

I recall from yesterday, Son said he would leave the country before he would fight for freedom, thus you are correct about his inconsistencies.

He leaves himself zero wiggle room, he is either apathetic, on the sucker list or in favor of leaving the country rather than fight.

All of those are categories by his own choosing and definition.

Myself, I will stay and fight, I dont vote, and have been aware that the government is a scam since 1950.

Cynicom  posted on  2010-05-06   11:28:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Cynicom (#30)

I recall from yesterday, Son said he would leave the country before he would fight for freedom, thus you are correct about his inconsistencies.

Bullshit. YOU made that insinuation on the only thread we discussed things on yesterday, as if it were the only thing I said. Per our only discussion yesterday, to help you remember:

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=117665&Disp=51#C51

The only thing I said about moving out of country, was if they instituted a draft, and then to protect my children from induction, and if it gets to that point then it's clear that civil disobedience, which I'm urging *right now today* has failed. You clearly are not reasoning fully.

I know though, I'm challenging your elderly girlfriend, so you have to attack.

The first option is always civil disobedience, which I've advocated clearly and consistently for months now. I do however think that will fail and that I will have to ultimately expatriate, which is why I also state that this is also in the works.

Hope this clears things up for you.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2010-05-06   11:38:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: SonOfLiberty (#31)

The only thing I said about moving out of country, was if they instituted a draft, and then to protect my children from induction,

I don't think they can draft anyone who refuses to step forward and take that oath. I remember some of what I have read about it and it seems that up until you do that you are a civilian and military officers can't order civilians to do anything (unless it is under martial law I suppose).

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-05-06   13:30:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: James Deffenbach (#46)

I don't think they can draft anyone who refuses to step forward

Good heavens James.

In 1952 the FBI and local police showed up on my Fathers doorstep looking for me as a draft dodger. They DO drag you away in chains if necessary. It is not the military, you are in violation of Civil Law.

Cynicom  posted on  2010-05-06   13:49:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Cynicom (#48)

In 1952 the FBI and local police showed up on my Fathers doorstep looking for me as a draft dodger. They DO drag you away in chains if necessary. It is not the military, you are in violation of Civil Law.

Does the "Civil Law" require you, a civilian, to take a step forward and recite an oath? I don't think so because you would have a slam dunk case of being forced into involuntary servitude.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-05-06   14:02:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: James Deffenbach (#50)

Does the "Civil Law" require you, a civilian, to take a step forward and recite an oath?

You are under civil law until such time as you undergo military induction.

One may refuse anywhere along the line, the civil authorities then lock you up and you face penalties as prescribed under civil law.

Cynicom  posted on  2010-05-06   14:07:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Cynicom (#52)

You are under civil law until such time as you undergo military induction.

One may refuse anywhere along the line, the civil authorities then lock you up and you face penalties as prescribed under civil law.

I could be wrong--it has happened a couple of times before--but I don't believe they can do anything to you (legally) beyond compel you to appear for the physical and whatnot. I think their authority over you ends when they try to trick you into a contractual obligation by engaging in a ceremony that they made up so that you could not claim that you were deprived of your right not to be subject to involuntary servitude. How could a military officer require you, as a civilian, to do anything unless the country was under a declared state of martial law? And if they can would that not make it a military dictatorship?

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-05-06   14:47:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: James Deffenbach (#56)

How could a military officer require you, as a civilian, to do anything unless the country was under a declared state of martial law?

They cannot and do not.

Selective service and all of that is civil. They send the FBI after you when you do not appear for draft induction of any kind. Regular draft, reserve call up etc.

When there is a hot war, the government plays hardball, no nice guys.I was overseas when my draft call came, my Father threw it away as I was already in the service. A few days after I did not show for my physical, the FBI and local cops showed up to possess my personal being. They were ticked off because he had not advised them of such. His reply was, "If you cannot keep track of your own people, I cannot help you, and please leave now"...

Cynicom  posted on  2010-05-06   19:26:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Cynicom (#58)

C, what would you do if today you we're 18, there was a draft and the Wars very Hot.

O - and you got the notice?

tom007  posted on  2010-05-06   20:05:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 59.

#60. To: tom007 (#59)

C, what would you do if today you we're 18, there was a draft and the Wars very Hot.

That is a very good question.

I do know from personal experience, the extent the government will go to force compliance with the "law".

Given the state of our country and government at the present time, I would be gone. I would not go willingly. Sixty years or so ago, I was at the lowest rung of the social ladder and knew one thing, wars were fought by the likes of me, so the odds were not in my favor.

Most kids now at 18 have no clue as to the present condition of our government, so most will go when called.

I suspect where you are on the social ladder determines your actions. Those above me in WW2 and Korea all managed to avoid service, all of them.

Perhaps the proper answer is, knowing what I know now, I would have been long gone and far away. Tom, few here have ever seen American kids in chains and irons like common criminals, that I have seen. Their crime, they did not want to go, did not want to die. We use to watch them boarding, no one called them names, no one, it made one sick inside. God how we hated the military, but we hung in there.

Cynicom  posted on  2010-05-06 20:24:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 59.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]