Skip to comments.Does Army consider Christians, Tea Party, a terror threat?
Posted on 10/23/2013 12:45:36 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
Soldiers attending a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood say they were told that evangelical Christians and members of the Tea Party were a threat to the nation and that any soldier donating to those groups would be subjected to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
A soldier who attended the Oct. 17th briefing told me the counter-intelligence agent in charge of the meeting spent nearly a half hour discussing how evangelical Christians and groups like the American Family Association were tearing the country apart.
Michael Berry, an attorney with the Liberty Institute, is advising the soldier and has launched an investigation into the incident.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
...the Democrat party considers all those groups terrorists...
So Fort Hood has changed a bit since my tour with the 191st Combat Intelligence Company, 312th Military Intelligence Battalion of the 1st Cavalry Division? Who knew?
Preparing the troops to fire on American citizens when King 0bammy commands.
Need a correction-- "zampolit" is the correct term for KGB officers supervising the ideological correctness and loyalty to the Party of the armed forces.
Did anyone ever think you'd see the day when Christians and the domestic political opponents of the President would be treated as foreign enemies by officers of the armed forces of the United States?
Orwell is running America?
Any group that opposes Democrats / liberal progressive pond scum is considered “the enemy” and are herefore to referred to as “terrorists”.
Of course the soldiers in our military know exactly what’s going on; the “masculine” ones at least.
The premise is obviously absurd. Neither the Tea Part nor Evangelical Christians are violent, no have there been any instances of anti-military or anti-government violence by them or on their behalf. Can’t say the same about Islam, but strangely enough, it is not mentioned.
Over all, I’d say we are looking at a coup. The military is being trained and conditioned to attack the only likely opposition - conservative, libertarian and Christian patriots.
IIRC, this is the third instance of this kind of ‘training’ occuring in the army.
Chaos and Martial Law is coming.
He NEEDS to know His Military WILL fire on “the enemy”.
The problem is that this is going to force out all the good people in the service, leaving the less disciplined, more violence prone, and more ideologically driven.
That means the better soldiers will be on the other side when these guys get their orders. Our army isn’t big enough to spread out and take on all the gunowners of this country, no matter what delusions of the liberals are.
I need a little more evidence before I’ll run with this story. The part that makes me skeptical is the bit about prohibiting donations to certain conservative groups.
This is a sanctioned practice.
These are NOT “isolated incidents”, only isolated reporting.
I’m pretty sure that the Army does not consider Christians or Tea Party members to be terrorists. That being said, there are those who have been installed or promoted by the current administration (a small upper level group) who will ask how high when told to jump.
The officer who gave the briefing needs to be identified by name, and subpoenaed by Congress. If soldiers are being told not to donate to specific groups, there has to be a list of those groups. That’s part and parcel of procedural due process. Find that list and you’ve hit a lovely vein of gold that can be mined for quite some time. In the meantime, evangelicals and tea party members are to be congratulated. It’s important to have the right enemies.
That needs to go viral.
Whistling past the graveyard. I sure hope all the aces are up the sleeves of the citizens.
As Fred White said in Tombstone, "It's gettin' pretty spooky around here."
Yes, but we are not Russian, so nobody understands what that means. Just call them Thought Police.
“If soldiers are being told not to donate to specific groups, there has to be a list of those groups. Thats part and parcel of procedural due process. Find that list and youve hit a lovely vein of gold that can be mined for quite some time.”
Yeah, the military is a giant bureaucracy. If this guy was not shooting from the hip, then you can follow that paper trail, stamped in triplicate, all the way up the chain of command to whatever stooge of Obama ordered this.
And the anti-Christian vendette continues.
And that's a problem?
Need a correction— “zampolit” is the correct term for KGB officers supervising the ideological ....”
standard practice in the (old?) soviet forces.
~Obama regime purges 5th senior military officer: Cmdr of CENTCOM James Mattis~
Posted on March 6, 2013 by Blessed B.
Commentary by RDW
~ Seems that President Obama hasnt heard the saying Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. If he thinks hell be getting his friends into these positions who will be loyal only to him he better re-think this. Those who are eligible to be in these positions just may take a harder stance against him rather than for him.~
Posted on March 5, 2013 by Dr. Eowyn
Last December, in my post, Obama purges U.S. Command, Part 1, I wrote:
Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged:
Gen. Carter Ham, on October 18.
Adm. Charles Gaouette, on October 27.
Gen. David Petraeus, on November 9.
Gen. John Allen, on November 13.
Ostensibly, Petraeus retirement and Allens suspended promotion are due to both mens moral conduct. But surely we are not so naive as to think that Petraeus and Allen are the only U.S. military officers whove ever committed adultery or written flirtatious email. As for Hams retirement and Gaouettes temporary re-assignment (reassignment to what?), there is not even a whisper that either mans morals or personal conduct is at issue.
So what should we make of all this? Is it all just coincidence or something more sinister?
Ann Barnhardt, in her blog of Nov. 13, 2012, didnt hesitate to call the purges, Obamas night of the long knives a reference to the last step in Hitlers quest for total, dictatorial power. On June 30, 1934, the Fuhrer purged the German military of any factions that were in any way autonomous and not 100% loyal to him.
Now add to the above list of four, Marine Corps General James Mattis (above), who has served in the U.S. military for 40 years and is widely revered by rank-and-file Marines for his blunt talk and leadership.
Three weeks after the purge of Gen. Allen came news that four-star Gen. Mattis was told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned, in March 2013, that is, this month. On Dec. 6, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that Mattis would be replaced by Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the vice chief of staff for the Army, subject of course to Senate confirmation.
Gen. James Mattis, 62, is only the head of the most important command of the entire U.S. military that of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM).
Before replacing David Petraeus on August 11, 2010, as Commander of CENTCOM, Mattis previously had commanded United States Joint Forces Command from November 9, 2007 to August 2010; served concurrently as NATOs Supreme Allied Commander Transformation from November 9, 2007 to September 8, 2009; and commanded I Marine Expeditionary Force, United States Marine Forces Central Command, and 1st Marine Division during the Iraq War.
The United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) is a theater-level Unified Combatant Command of the U.S. Department of Defense, established in 1983. Its area of responsibility includes countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq. CENTCOM has been the main American presence in many military operations, including the Persian Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan (2001present), and the Iraq War. Forces from CENTCOM currently are deployed primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan in combat roles and have bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Pakistan, and central Asia in support roles.
Writing for Foreign Policy on Jan. 18, 2013, self-described fan of President Obama Thomas E. Ricks claims that the word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bums rush out of his job as commander of Central Command because he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way on the Obama regimes policy toward Iran.
Reportedly, tough-minded realist Mattis pushed the civilians hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran with questions such as: What do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf?
But Mattis questions and plea for prudence were not welcomed by the White House.
Obama-fan Thomas Ricks points out that, in dismissing Gen. Mattis, The message the Obama Administration is sending, intentionally or not, is that it doesnt like tough, smart, skeptical generals who speak candidly to their civilian superiors. In fact, that is exactly what it (and every administration) should want. Had we had more back in 2003, we might not have made the colossal mistake of invading Iraq. [...] But I am at the point where I dont trust his national security team. They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated.
Ricks also warns that the Obama regime now have dissed the two Marine generals who are culture heroes in todays Corps: Mattis and Anthony Zinni. The Marines have long memories.
Even if we could scrape up 1 million fighting troops, with 4 million square miles and 300 million people, you’re talking pretty thin coverage, and that’s with a whole lot of other assumptions front loaded.
Best coverage would mean that for example, New York City would get around 27,000 troops spread over 300 square miles, our about 90 troops per square mile v. about 27,000 people per square mile average.
Does those sound like good odds to you?
NYC has around 500K city employees right now and about 35K police. If there were city wide riots, I really don’t think they could control it, much less if people were actively resisting, meaning it would take alot more than 27,000 troops to control NYC.
This would follow in every city in the U.S., leaving little coverage over the rest of the country where the guns are most plentiful. I don’t care how good your troops, 100 guys surrounded by thousands hitting you with scoped rifles from every hiding place at 200+ yards isn’t very good for survivability.
It would be a massacre.
I saw that on the gate at Dachau concentration camp. These slime bags, are preparing the Army to fire on American civilians. Unless things change, it is possible they might succeed.
Wiki:"In July 1941, consequent to the Red Armys defeats at wars start, the position of political commissar reappeared. The commissar had an influential role as a "second commander" within the military units during this time."
Sort of like the JAG officers 'helping' to advise on tactical operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama is responsible for the current monstrous deformation of the armed forces, but we shouldn't forget that this imbecility was greatly advanced by George 'The Religion of Peace' Bush.
What's more frightening about this case was that it was intel officer-- someone who is supposed to focus on detecting armed threats to the military-- now focused on American citizens as the prime threat.
Terrorists attack civilian targets, deliberately. If we attack it will be the oppressors in our sights, not innocent men, women and children. Those who give the orders to uniformed forces may think of themselves as civilians, but they’d better think again.
If we were terrorists we’d be going for their families and friends.
That’s not what ANY of the Founding Fathers thought!!!
Trying to punch God in the nose yields poor results. Evil people should measure the length of their arms before they try.
I'm glad the attorney is doing something about it. But, if this is true, then why isn't Congress hauling someone's butt up to Capitol Hill for questioning?
I spent 30 years as an instructor and a training developer for the US Army Armor School. The command had to know what was being taught in a high level training event like a pre-deployment briefing. If the instructor inserted bootleg lesson material, he could be summarily dismissed. I am sure the command is covering this up as fast as possible but here is a flash view of what the queers and Obamites are huckstering.
Probably junior enlisted or NCO, not a commissioned officer. I get these briefs every year, and without fail the "special agents" are arrogant liberal wussified punks. They build the brief themselves (pulling stuff from internet, etc.) without much oversight from their chain of command (based on stupid errors both factual and grammatical) so my guess is they pick whatever groups they want to illustrate the points, so given their liberal bias, the result is what you see here. In my briefs they do suggest conservatives bad, Muslims good, but they don't go this far. Of course in my case, they are briefing senior civilians and officers, and they would get called out on something this over the top as well as a not so nice call to their chain of command.
Ya know..I do believe you are onto something.
This is happening a lot more, I suspect there is pressure to do it
That’s exactly it.
Take control of strategic transportation and power grids and you can starve the population into submission. A large force would not be needed.
Yep and then economy grinds to a halt, and the tax base dries up. What do you pay, the welfare, interest, bureaucrats, or the troops? Forgo the welfare and pay the troops, and the cities burn, meaning more troops to the city. Forgo the interest and we default. Think anyone’s going to buy our debt?
We are not in a position to juggle at all any more. The states and the people at some point will take control of their own security. It’s uncharted territory as to what will happen. As the largest, most populous, armed capitalist country in history, there are no easy choices for the govt.
This administration is anti-christian, and the military services are being required to implement anti-christian policies.
“Take control of strategic transportation and power grids and you can starve the population into submission.”
That’s a two-way road. Take control of transportation, food, water and power and starve DC into submission. It’s more likely we can do that to them than vice-versa.
Quite simply, the DC liberals don’t have the manpower or the logistics to starve out anything more than the immediate DC suburbs. How many troops would the federal fascists need to send to control Iowa cornfields and Georgia peach orchards? Try 25 divisions to start, and that’s before they start taking return fire. Once resistance starts, the DC fascists would need a half million troops to try to suppress rebellion. That’s in two states.
Incidentally, how many thousands of troops would desert their units and return to their home states to defend their families? The most recent example in the Libyan civil war tells us that 75% of troops would desert, taking their weapons with them and joining state militias.
The US had a hell of a time trying to control Vietnam - equivalent to one US state - using the full force of the military. In an all-out war, multiply that times 25 states. And no, you will never muster an elite fighting force from liberal states whose majority population hates war, despises guns, doesn’t want to work, watches American Idol and has no martial tradition.
Yes, but it is a sad thing to see a country turn on the principles that made it work.
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Does Army consider Christians, Tea Party, a terror threat?, sheikdetailfeather wrote:
I just heard Hannity talking about his on his radio program.
Fortunately this scarey stuff has been secreted out and making the rounds also heard in on Joe Walsh’s show WIND am 560 Chicago. Name the names of these instructors for future assignments on Wake Island counting Dodo birds.
Do not underestimate the blue state liberals' ability to take up arms and fight. Many, if not all, are driven by a fanatical hatred for conservatives and would embrace the opportunity to slaughter their enemies if it came. They do not despise guns or wars so much as they despise the people who own and fight them.
the purpose of the political officer was to ensure “morale” and well being, within the ranks. also to detect disloyalty to the state. these positions, though maybe inferior in rank, would in reality carry considerable power. (including over riding ranking commanders orders)
“Kritika and samokritika, criticism and self-criticism respectively, were a core function of the mandatory Party meetings. At these meetings, the political staff was required to not only note who spoke, but exactly what was said. Party members of the enlisted ranks or junior officers were encouraged to freely criticize the military decisions or personal habits of the higher officers if these actions did not fit Party doctrine or norms.(38) The effects of this practice on the commander’s authority must have been devastating. ..”
Kent J. Goff, MAJ, MI, USAR
“Do not underestimate the blue state liberals’ ability to take up arms and fight.
Let’s not make these fat, 70 IQ blobs to be Rambos. They more closely resemble the professional, leech lifetime bureaucrat you find in France - puffed up with self-importance, cowardly and weak. Remember how well the French buearecrats fought the Nazi occupation? Oh, wait, they joined the Nazis.
The last real example we have of American leftists mustering a fighting force was the Lincoln Brigade. They got their butts kicked by Franco in Spain.
I prefer to live in reality rather than fantasy.