Posted on 12/08/2011 2:41:37 PM PST by George Varnum
...3 companies of infantry were polled by questionnaire about the drill and it’s purpose. One of the questions was, will you as a member of the Nat. Guard use lethal force against the American public if ordered to do so? One of the men stepped forward and refused to take the poll and explained that it was a moral judgement on his part and that he could not do so. He then placed his weapon on the ground and fell in behind the formation. Devon said it was like a waterfall, Every member layed their weapons on the deck and fell in beside the one lone specialist. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at oathkeepers.org ...
If this story is true, then these troops who might (?) also be Marines have taken a much more proactive response to it, and are calling the regime's bluff. That takes courage.
It will be interesting to determine (if we can) whether this is an accurate account, and if so what the consequences to these young Patriots will eventually be. Obviously the courageous "Point man" is being made an example of, as is a common military practice. Another common military practice is to punish an entire Unit for the misdeeds or infractions of one or a few. If true, this probably isn't over.
As many of my regular correspondents and E-mail "Intel Loop" members know, I have been speculating for some time now about how an unconstitutional Muslim Stalinist usurper President may well emulate his Idol's historic tactics to assure the "loyalty" of the Soviet military back in the 1930s.
It was called the "Great Purge", and it wasn't pretty.
So I'm an alarmist and conspiracy theorist... OK; ...but I will be greatly blessed and relieved (again, assuming veracity of this story) if those brave, patriotic American Warriors are still "among us" being seen and heard from a year from now.
Okay, so what happened at Kent State?
Post # 57 at the link say the General in charge of the CA Nat’l Guard insists this never happened.
What would you expect him to say?
This requires more investigation and sunshine.
The oath is to “...protect and defend the constitution...”, not “congress, the president, or inside the beltway”.
It appears our young military folks are far better acquainted with the constitution than are the low lifes in D.C.
Beware, politicians...you have not corrupted all of our folks ...yet.
As for Kent State, those folks should not have been there...and they obviously were not well briefed. Try looking at LBJ, a master felon if there ever was one.
Sharper cultural divide, higher emotions, back then.
>> Okay, so what happened at Kent State?
Good question. My opinion: there will *always* be the possibility of isolated events, but I don’t think our current voluntary military has the stomach for widespread military violence against its own.
Over the course of years, that could change I suppose.
Also I have heard it said that if you need to do military “police action” in the Philadelphia ‘hood you handpick southern rednecks for the job, and if you need troops to put down a rural insurrection you choose your inner city ghetto youth, and so forth... leverage local tastes so to speak.
When I served in the US Navy, we were taught that it was our obligation and duty to refuse to obey an illegal order.
The responsibility for this should be laid where it deserves: directly on the US Congress.
The problem as I see it: Obama is bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslims as refugees. We have a southern border that actually no longer exists and millions of people who hate the USA are flooding into our nation. Our DOJ will not protect the civil rights of whites, Christians or Jews.
We are being set up.
Well, according to at least one version, a provocateur shot at the Nat’l Guard first, thereby sparking the entire incident.
I'm inclined to believe the General. This sounds like one of those things you get in an email with "FWD FWD FWD, in front of the title.
This is actually an interesting question that I have been expecting to see come up. A lot of speculation has been aimed at what the National Guard or the military would do if, for example, Americans were to revolt against their government.
While the “sample size” is pretty small, it does provide some insight into the way that the military feels toward American civilians.
One respondent to this post asked about Kent State. Kent State occurred in a totally different environment and a very different set of circumstances. The Vietnam War had been so propagandized and denigrated by the media, John Kerry, Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite as an “unpopular war” that all of the military men and women of the day were equally denigrated by the American public. It didn’t matter if a serviceman or woman had actually served in Vietnam, if they wore a uniform, they were guilty.
Today’s military enjoy the benefit of being wildly supported by the public, even though the media still despise them. As a result, the environment is different. In addition, they DO have the perspective of time to look back at what happened at Kent State and learn from it. I honestly doubt that many National Guard or active duty military would be willing to open fire on American citizens today. Too many things have changed and are different.
I would allow anybody under arms to defend themselves if they felt threatened while in the performance of their duties.
There is credible evidence of a gunshot before the fatal volley at Kent State. Personally, if someone was throwing bricks, rocks and molatov cocktails at me and I heard a gunshot, I would probably react in a most agressive manner.
So what’s to prevent the same thing from happening again. Same scenario different place maybe like OWS protests? There were some violent actions against the cops. What would have happened if untrained NG troops came? (untrained as in riot control)
Sorry, but this isn’t remotely believable.
Maybe they want to find out where the military stands on shooting American citizens. If just one quarter of what Obama is doing now Bush did, there’d be a media riot over that alone.
Just looked it up. Seems there was someone there with a pistol. http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2010/10/analysis_of_kent_state_audio_t.html
That was my first thought...
Mark
This story doesn’t pass muster. Smells just like a fishy rumor to me. BS.
If this is true, I am deeply saddened by the behavior of the officers. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! on them!
These officers took and oath before God to uphold the Constitution. They LIED! They lied to the American people. They lied to God! They bore false witness. They took the Lord's name in vain.
Taking the Lord's name in vain has far far far **MORE** deeper implications that merely saying, “G__ D___!” It means swearing an oath and LYING while doing it! These officers evidently had absolutely NO NO NO intention of upholding the Constitution when they swore before God to do so.
Exodus 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”
By the way...I am DISGUSTED with our very highest military. When did ignoring Obama’s forgeries, identity theft, multiple social security numbers, failure to e-verify, election fraud, and other crimes become part of the military code of honor? How did this become part of defending the Constitution? Is **this** how they watch the backs of the brave and honorable troops serving under them. ( Pass the barf bucket, please!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.