• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Obama's new Brigade 80,000 strong, ready to march on US cities for the mid-terms

grizzer

New member
Shi* just keeps getting better :w00t2:
***

Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections (Update)


April 13, 5:16 PM
greydot.gif
Conservative Examiner
greydot.gif
Anthony G. Martin


d289bb6c-f9d1-417b-963a-9c713e2de681.jpg
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.

(AP Photo/David Longstreath).​


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.'
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.

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Con...ed-on-American-soil-just-before-Nov-elections
 

JEV

Mr. Congeniality
GOLD Site Supporter
I have said before that the Kenyan is just waiting for the right emergency/opportunity to initiate Marshal Law. No surprise if it happens just before the elections when his minions will be facing their greatest threat. Nothing surprises me with these people...especially the balls of the Kenyan.
 

RobsanX

Gods gift to common sense
SUPER Site Supporter
The Army swears that they will.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
If you're not a domestic enemy, then you don't have to worry.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
That is a rather naive way to put it Rob. That is a matter of opinion of the ones in charge.

On the other hand, you must be prepared. I do not see the Tea Party going violent, but we all know every movement has it's extremes. If extremists do get violent, we do need to be prepared.
 

RobsanX

Gods gift to common sense
SUPER Site Supporter
That is a rather naive way to put it Rob. That is a matter of opinion of the ones in charge.

On the other hand, you must be prepared. I do not see the Tea Party going violent, but we all know every movement has it's extremes. If extremists do get violent, we do need to be prepared.

There are domestic terrorists in this country. The Hutaree militia, and that guy who flew his plane into the IRS building are two recent examples. There's always a argument about how far is a protest allowed to go before it's considered a riot. I just don't think this unit would be deployed unless something really major happened.
 

rc2james

New member
Site Supporter
Ah now BULLSHIT! That is the only response to the interpretation of an article like this requires. The link to the armed forces website indicates that this quick response team is to be used in case of another attack like 9-11 to support local law enforcement and only when requested, not to support any political agenda.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
There are domestic terrorists in this country. The Hutaree militia, and that guy who flew his plane into the IRS building are two recent examples. There's always a argument about how far is a protest allowed to go before it's considered a riot. I just don't think this unit would be deployed unless something really major happened.
I agree completely with you there. It was the comment that as long as you are not a domestic terrorist you don't have to worry.....while true, if any administration wanted to classify anyone who disagreed with them a domestic terrorist then we have a major problem. That's all I meant.

I agree this force would only be used in extreme circumstances and is a good thing. We need to be prepared. Much like many individuals CC a handgun all the time. They are prepared; just in case they need it. 99.9% of the time they will not need it but to need it and not have it with you could be a fatal mistake. Much the same way our nation needs to be prepared for all kinds of real possibilities.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
The Patriot Act really makes no distinction between US citizens on our soil and foreign threats. If you get arrested as a suspect for a terrorist act you can loose all your rights under this regardless of your citizenship. At least that is the way I understand it.
 

mak2

Active member
Can anybody make out the banners in the background. I have to read this thread again, I must be missing something.
 

SShepherd

New member
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/trebilcock.htm

...."For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands"

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/definition_of_w.html

Definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

At least, according to U.S. law:

18 U.S.C. 2332a
  • <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(2) the term "weapon of mass destruction" means—
    • <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title; <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
    • (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
    • (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;
18 U.S.C. 921
  • <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(4) The term "destructive device" means—
    • <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
      • <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(i) bomb, <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(ii) grenade, <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, <LI style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em">(v) mine, or
      • (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
    • (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
    • (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.
This is a very broad definition, and one that involves the intention of the weapon's creator as well as the details of the weapon itself.
In an e-mail, John Mueller commented:
As I understand it, not only is a grenade a weapon of mass destruction, but so is a maliciously-designed child's rocket even if it doesn't have a warhead. On the other hand, although a missile-propelled firecracker would be considered a weapons of mass destruction if its designers had wanted to think of it as a weapon, it would not be so considered if it had previously been designed for use as a weapon and then redesigned for pyrotechnic use or if it was surplus and had been sold, loaned, or given to you (under certain circumstances) by the Secretary of the Army. It's also means that we are coming up on the 25th anniversary of the Reagan administration's long-misnamed WMD-for-Hostages deal with Iran.
Bad news for you, though. You'll have to amend that line you like using in your presentations about how all WMD in all of history have killed fewer people than OIF (or whatever), since all artillery, and virtually every muzzle-loading military long arm for that matter, legally qualifies as an WMD. It does make the bombardment of Ft. Sumter all the more sinister. To say nothing of the revelation that The Star Spangled Banner is in fact an account of a WMD attack on American shores.
Amusing, to be sure, but there's something important going on. The U.S. government has passed specific laws about "weapons of mass destruction," because they're particularly scary and damaging. But by generalizing the definition of WMDs, those who write the laws greatly broaden their applicability. And I have to wonder how many of those who vote in favor of the laws realize how general they really are, or -- if they do know -- vote for them anyway because they can't be seen to be "soft" on WMDs.
It reminds me of those provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act -- and other laws -- that created police powers to be used for "terrorism and other crimes."
 

mak2

Active member
Well if you are going to imply the pic is of guys that are left wing, socialist loons ready to keep the people on the right in line, you could at least use a little more realistic pics.
 

SShepherd

New member
Well if you are going to imply the pic is of guys that are left wing, socialist loons ready to keep the people on the right in line, you could at least use a little more realistic pics.


you guys who?

Why are you trying to preempt anything said.and put words in peoples mounts? Are you from the 1-900-PSYCHIC line?

No, we're not that predictable:shifty:
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
you guys who?

Why are you trying to preempt anything said.and put words in peoples mounts? Are you from the 1-900-PSYCHIC line?

No, we're not that predictable:shifty:

Sure you are Shep with all due respect. :wink:
 

dzalphakilo

Banned
I have said before that the Kenyan is just waiting for the right emergency/opportunity to initiate Marshal Law. No surprise if it happens just before the elections when his minions will be facing their greatest threat. Nothing surprises me with these people...especially the balls of the Kenyan.

So very well said.

I give it 50/50 odds that your daughters boyfriend is dating her just to check you out:yum:

The Patriot Act really makes no distinction between US citizens on our soil and foreign threats. If you get arrested as a suspect for a terrorist act you can loose all your rights under this regardless of your citizenship. At least that is the way I understand it.

That's the way I understand it as well.

Ironic thing, most people think that if someone brings up Randy Weaver's name at Ruby Ridge, you're a anti goverment nut of some sort. Although I may not agree with all of Mr. Weaver's personal views, you can't help but respect the service he gave to his country AND you can't help but fear what the goverment can do if they so wish, and this was BEFORE the Patriot act.

The Army swears that they will.

Quote:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
If you're not a domestic enemy, then you don't have to worry.

Officers take a different oath, and their is no mention of the president:D
 
Top