Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CFR & U.S. Army Chief of Staff:Use Army for Domestic Enforcement
New American ^ | 6/4/12 | Joe Wolverton II

Posted on 06/04/2012 2:42:54 PM PDT by Nachum

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last
To: Psalm 144
NWO. We’ve been headed this way since 1989. The ‘R’ and the ‘D’ are just for decoration.

Especially when we're apparently being given Morton's Fork for this election.
Our choices are Obama (not an NBC) or Romney (not an NBC); this will be used to provide precedent for declaring the NBC clause 'outdated' and destroy what little authority the Constitution still holds.

51 posted on 06/04/2012 10:57:35 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing
O’dierno
Sounds Irish to me.

Irish/Mexican... and from a wealthy family. Obviously.

52 posted on 06/04/2012 11:00:45 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: marron
In these cases I think the president already has the authority to deploy the military, no new law is required.

Well not after Eisenhower federalized the National Guard and integrated Little Rock Schools.

53 posted on 06/04/2012 11:17:46 PM PDT by itsahoot (I will not vote for Romney period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant
Was that a-hole remark intended for me????

You're pretty quick on the uptake there... Almost as quick as you are to insult another American's ethnic heritage.

54 posted on 06/04/2012 11:50:23 PM PDT by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

“the CFR is an enemy organization made up of traitors?”

Oh, I’ve known that for quite some time. Even some of the GOP prez candidates from a year ago were either on it or have close buds in it. If this were 1776, they would all be hanged.


55 posted on 06/05/2012 12:17:54 AM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Something every day. . .

"CFR & U.S. Army Chief of Staff: Use Army for Domestic Enforcement." . "Thousands of Communists and Neo-Nazis clash in streets of Hamburg." . . "Chicago Police Video: "You First Amendment Rights Can Be Terminated" (Brownshirts).

1932 and 2012 parallels?

Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

56 posted on 06/05/2012 12:28:13 AM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

Continual
Fascist
Repression


57 posted on 06/05/2012 1:39:30 AM PDT by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

READ THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - WHO DOES THIS SOUND LIKE?

* He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

* He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

* He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

* He {intends to keep} among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

* He {intends to render} the military independent of and superior to civil power.

* He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws...

* For depriving us in many {future} cases, of the benefits of trial by jury...

* He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless ... savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

* In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.


58 posted on 06/05/2012 2:40:22 AM PDT by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Give em an inch and they will take a hundred miles.

No, make that a million miles.

Friggin no good bastards!


59 posted on 06/05/2012 4:32:01 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Funny they won’t use Federal troops to protect the border.


60 posted on 06/05/2012 4:35:56 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

My point is that sometimes people react to something like it is new and therefore sinister.

A perfect example is the banning of troops carrying weapons while on base unless specifically instructed to do so, which contributed to the Ft. Hood debacle. This was portrayed around here as a Clinton initiative to make the troops more vulnerable.

In actual fact I believe this has always been the case in the military. Officers kept control of arms except during actual training or combat. Officers were supposed to be armed at all times, which was one of the main distinguishing marks of an officer versus other ranks.


61 posted on 06/05/2012 5:27:43 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
As you can see, the Constitution explicitly allows for military enforcement of domestic laws.

Try reading more from the Constitution before quoting from it.

The Militia, according to the Constitution, consists of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 40. The Militia consists of the PEOPLE, not Federal troops.

The Federal military forces are highly-trained to take orders from the President. A Militia would consist of people from local areas who would be highly unlikely to follow orders to shoot their neighbors if so ordered. I would rather the Militias be mustered than Federal troops be permitted into an area.

There's a lot of talk about law enforcement being overwhelmed, National Guard, etc. These are issues for the States. The Federal government needs to be invited into a State to assist. They should NOT just have to the right to mosey on in whenever they see fit.

There's a lot of saber-rattling from DC. I hope the Governors, esp. those in the South, are paying attention and are unwilling to assent to a Federal takeover. I would fight for my State of Florida if so ordered, but I would NEVER fight for Obama.

62 posted on 06/05/2012 5:44:21 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Try reading more from the Constitution before quoting from it.

I did, actually.

The Militia, according to the Constitution, consists of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 40. The Militia consists of the PEOPLE, not Federal troops.

Of course it includes Federal Troops; or are you going to assert that they are not [part of] "the people"? Or perhaps that the Constitution does not apply to them?
The issue is a simply that of understanding sets & subsets.

The Federal military forces are highly-trained to take orders from the President. A Militia would consist of people from local areas who would be highly unlikely to follow orders to shoot their neighbors if so ordered. I would rather the Militias be mustered than Federal troops be permitted into an area.

Again, you're ignoring the simple fact that the federal troops ARE a portion of the people; furthermore, like you said they are trained/and equipped, given the Constitution's "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"-clause it is obvious that this can only be the case if the federal troops are those "employed in the Service of the United States".

There's a lot of talk about law enforcement being overwhelmed, National Guard, etc. These are issues for the States.

Agreed.

The Federal government needs to be invited into a State to assist.

Untrue, Art 4, Sec 4 is not optional:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
(Of course the above is routinely ignored in the case of invasion by illegal immigrants.)

Furthermore, in art 1, sec 8: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
How much do you want to bet that an organized and armed resistance to federal overreach would "officially" qualify as Insurrections?

They should NOT just have to the right to mosey on in whenever they see fit.

They don't have the right; they have the power.
(As the Constitution delegates powers; rights are an attribute of a person. This minor point is however totally irrelevant to those who embrace a "might makes right" philosophy.)

I hope the Governors, esp. those in the South, are paying attention and are unwilling to assent to a Federal takeover. I would fight for my State of Florida if so ordered, but I would NEVER fight for Obama.

I hear what you are saying; it would be good if governors would make a stand. However, they are likely very afraid of the political ramifications if they use their powers, fearing a backlash from both the people* and the federal government.

Obama is [tangentially] one of the reasons I got out after 9 years enlisted in the Guard. I was saying how the Constitution mandated an NBC it would fall upon the Army to remove him from office should he not qualify (NBC clause); I wasn't entirely sure he wasn't an NBC then, but a sergeant basically yelled at me that I was wrong (i.e. that the oath to support & defend the Constitution was not operative.)... that combined with political promotions, which obviously I didn't qualify for.

* -- Especially conservatives: "I have a job; I have to [go to] work man!"

63 posted on 06/05/2012 9:50:10 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority

” In an article penned by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno, the CFR would see the Army used to address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe ...”

Blah....blah...blah. Remove the traitorous POTUS first, and I’ll sign on : )


64 posted on 06/05/2012 9:57:58 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marron
So why is CFR suddenly interested?

Nothing at all sudden about it. This is exactly the sort of "crisis" that CFR has always hoped will jump start one of their "Do-Boys" in the Oval Office onto the throne of tyranny. This scenario is a wet dream for them. Of course they'd much prefer that this country be unilaterally DISARMED first, but if it's got to be done the hard way, it's okay with them. After all, it's not their blood that will be staining the streets red. It's going to be ours.

65 posted on 06/05/2012 10:50:34 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Stand up and be counted... OR LINE UP AND BE NUMBERED...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

First, thank for your commitment to this country. I apologize if I insulted you or your service.

My meaning was more that, while yes they comprise “The People,” they take orders from a Federal entity. It is their job to do so.

Second, they are provided to protect against invasion. This article plainly discusses their use in police actions. How this is Constitutional is beyond me.

This garbage recently where they handcuffed a bunch of drivers at an intersection to search for bank robbery suspects was a test-bed, in my opinion, to see how far the police state can stretch its legs without having too much push back from people. You change the enforcers from law enforcement to military with tanks and explosives, and you’re essentially permitting the imprisonment of the People BY the People (read: the military) for any purpose north of simple shoplifting, and even that might turn out the same way.

The Federal government’s purpose should be to protect the several States from incursion on the outside or insurrection from within barring peaceful insurrection at the ballot box. You start putting armed troops at polling stations and riding around conducting “checks” of cars or homes, and we’ve officially permitted Soviet Russia right in the front door with little more than a smile, a nod, and the simple question of “Will American Idol still be on Fox?”


66 posted on 06/05/2012 11:00:50 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
First, thank for your commitment to this country. I apologize if I insulted you or your service.

You did not; I'm just having a bit of a depressive point in life (unemployed, no "vision", no [felt] accomplishments, etc) and almost regretful of my service: I'm not exactly "standard-issue" and doubt that my service had much lasting impact, especially my idealistic side.

Second, they are provided to protect against invasion. This article plainly discusses their use in police actions. How this is Constitutional is beyond me.

And insurrection. I have little doubt that should the armed forces be used against the general population, especially if it is only a few localities, that it will be considered insurrection and that the resultant deaths [and mistreatments] will be, like Fast and Furious, "rough spots"/"botches" in the operation.

This garbage recently where they handcuffed a bunch of drivers at an intersection to search for bank robbery suspects was a test-bed, in my opinion, to see how far the police state can stretch its legs without having too much push back from people.

Agreed. However, let up flip things around a bit: what would your reaction be if someone stepped up with say a PS-90 (50-round mag, semi-auto) and killed the police that were present? (Let's assume that he got gunned down because he was outnumbered.) Now let's change that assumption and assume that God was watching out for him and he survived without a scratch, later to claim that he was protecting his fellow-citizens and the Constitution from domestic enemies; how would you react then?

How would the general public react? (Let's ridiculously assume that the media didn't spin/edit it when presenting it.)

Therein lies the problem: the philosophy that any reaction against those in authority is wrong. (And the corollary that those in authority earned it and thus deserve respect.)

You change the enforcers from law enforcement to military with tanks and explosives, and you’re essentially permitting the imprisonment of the People BY the People (read: the military) for any purpose north of simple shoplifting, and even that might turn out the same way.

There is little to no difference between the police and military right now aside 1) uniform, and 2) possible deployment overseas. The police have already been militarized.

The Federal government’s purpose should be to protect the several States from incursion on the outside or insurrection from within barring peaceful insurrection at the ballot box.

You're making the mistake that authority = legitimate, that insurrection /= legitimate.
I think TN's Constitution says it well, Art 1, § 2:

Doctrine of non-resistance

That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

You start putting armed troops at polling stations and riding around conducting “checks” of cars or homes, and we’ve officially permitted Soviet Russia right in the front door with little more than a smile, a nod, and the simple question of “Will American Idol still be on Fox?”

We already experienced that; don't you remember the New Black Panther/Philadelphia polling-place incident.

67 posted on 06/05/2012 12:33:27 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

We’re on the same page, Shark. I have no doubt that we would have quite the conversation over a brew.

As far as your situation, let me offer you this: I was unemployed recently for close to 6 months. I had been “on the wagon” and alcohol-free for 2 years prior to losing my job, but I fell hard off that wagon and was so despondent as to be unable to get out of bed most mornings.

I was regretful of my education, my job experience. I was feeling like how I envision most Liberals feel on the daily basis. I wanted to be a “titty baby,” as my fiancee calls it, and wanted to be coddled.

When I watched the news on a daily basis and spent the days trolling FR, it lit a fire in me to get up, get out, get motivated, and get employed. My tax dollars may go to supporting these idiots, but when the SHTF, I’ll be better armed, better prepared, and better off than any of their stinky asses.

Your service to our country is honorable, and I, for one, am proud to know you. Please keep your chin up and remember there are men and women out there working for you and with. You are in my prayers.


68 posted on 06/05/2012 4:43:21 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

“NWO. We’ve been headed this way since 1989. The ‘R’ and the ‘D’ are just for decoration.”

Agreed. The masses are being conditioned to squabble over what are relatively mundane fine points put forth by politicians and pundits. Each side stakes out their pet issues so that there is something to argue about and to differentiate the two.

The real purpose is to prevent the sheep from shining their spotlight on our entire corrupted system. The masters of globalism are driving the loss of our sovereignty, Treasury, Bill of Rights and freedoms. They are being quickly eroded by the same string pullers of both sides. It is an orchestrated sham and in the end we the people will have nothing (including our Bill of Rights) while the few will have it all including our firearms.

We need to think beyond the either/or of the red and blue, and consider what is happening to the red ,white, and blue.


69 posted on 06/05/2012 7:35:53 PM PDT by apoliticalone (Honest govt. that operates in the interest of US sovereignty and the people, not global $$$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

They’ve been massaging this for years now...Slipping little pieces of it under the tent flap for a long time...

We can take care of it when (and if) the time comes...No problemo...

Fortune favors the prepared, and fools like me I suppose...hehe


70 posted on 06/06/2012 10:00:21 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy; Travis McGee
Americans with Italian heritage are pretty American to me.

Odierno Name Meaning

Italian: from the personal name Odierno, which is of uncertain origin, perhaps a nickname from Latin hodiernus ‘of today’, i.e. ‘transient’ or ‘ephemeral’.

71 posted on 06/06/2012 12:51:02 PM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: x1stcav
Odierno needs to be taken out and tarred and feathered.

Please. The Constitution which we follow, even if they do not, prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishments.

Cruel or unusual, take your pick.

Of course, if they suspend or abrogate any of the other Constitutional provisions, all bets are off. And remember:

Constitution for the United States, Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...

72 posted on 06/06/2012 1:02:02 PM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson