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:1957 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.
I still hold that gunning down "them thar ferriners" is different than gunning down your dad's golfing buddy. And I don't think the military et. al. is at that point (nor, does the article), though apparently a sizable number are, hence the divisions.
The cops being conditioned to hate us (clearly, they have been) started during Nixon's reign if I'm not mistaken. SWAT teams, the first push to militarize the local police, didn't that start on his watch? Or was it a few years earlier (I honestly can't remember)? Give a bunch of Barney Fife's a bazooka and an attitude of "use it at will!" and you're just asking for trouble. The police intelligence hiring standards were lowered in the 1990's (Clinton's doing), such that if you did a bit too well on the entrance exams, you were disqualified from police service. Why would that ever be considered a good thing to do, unless you wanted the cops just smart enough to use their equipment, but dumb enough to be easily brainwashed and incapable of questioning orders?
9/11 of course consolidated all of this, which I believe was the plan all along, the legislation for 9/11 was clearly pre-written, pre-edited and vamped a thousand times over, just waiting for an 'event' to put it in place. Dubya of course loved putting it in place, but I can guarantee you that it was already inked in final copy before he took the oath of office the first time through. End of the day, we've been sold down the river leading up to this oncoming freight train confrontation since at least the end of the Vietnam war.
Ok, I'll say it again. When you get to the point where most soldiers are comfortable gunning down their own parents, then you're on the cusp of a civil war or worse. Of course they've done it in the past. Normally, it's an inconceivable jump to make though. Which is why, again, there's now some kind of division in the ranks. The division isn't just "they all want to kill us", it's "lots of them think it's wrong to turn the guns on us" as well.
Who killed Pat Tillman? Knowingly? sure.
The entire military? Or some idiots that would exist in any age?
Who killed Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge?
If I'm not mistaken, US Marshall agents shot his kid and dog, and the FBI sniper/monster Lon Horiuchi shot him, and then his wife, in cold blood.
Both, it should be pointed out, were non-military.
Who shot everyone at WACO?
The FBI. Who are not the military.
The ATF/FBI/U.S. Marshall types are and always have been, utterly different than the standard soldier. It's easy to get them converted, they're relatively small groups, plus most enter from the onset with a chip on their shoulder.
What did those people do to endanger anyone around them? Were those justifiable reasons to kill one's own fellow citizens? Not to any sane, rational, moral, and generally good person, but apparently it was to the troops and LE that did the job.
Only one incident involved troops, and as I point out, it clearly wasn't "all the troops" or "the military in general", it was the standard corps of brain dead you're always bound to find in any organization that totes arms.
If the entire military were convinced that its right to turn against us, the PTB would have already sent them out in the streets. They can't yet. There's a very good reason for that.
So an analogy to your contention is that because Joseph Goebbels was a terrible person, that necessarily means that all people are terrible.
The examples you gave were of LE (which I've never disputed) and a random assassination in the military, which can occur in any organization. There are Hindus that have killed other Hindus, that doesn't mean that Hindus are by and large murderers.
Nobody is disputing that some can turn against their own.
An entire huge, million person institution though? No. That's why there are divisions in the military. If they were all some large slavering "kill all people even my neighbors" types, there would be no division. That there is a division means that the military is not all a bunch of mad dog wild eyed murderers of their own people. Some might be, some might not be, apparently it's a rift big enough to divide them.
Last, even though I'm from Ohio, I doubt you can convince me that folks from Indiana are aliens and somehow not Americans. I suspect the same applies to units from Idaho who are asked to gun down folks in Iowa.
Not sure there's much more to say on this topic. Dystopias don't exist for exactly the same reasons Utopias don't exist, they are incompatible with human nature and human experience and require a blanket acceptance of their framework, which never happens.
And a third (or fourth time), if the military is to the point that there are divisions in it on whether to shoot us or not, that portends us being on the cusp of a civil war, since the default position of soldiers here (most of them), historically, has been to not mass slaughter their own people. And, yes, there is a difference between hand picked and selected LEO's and "come as you are, everybody welcome" soldiers.
In any event, I see nothing yet that changes my position on this.
Not sure how many times I need to write this point out. You're arguing with yourself.