Skip to comments.
Inside the Ring: Directive outlines Obama’s policy to use the military against citizens
The Washington Times ^
| May 28, 2014
| Bill Gertz
Posted on 05/28/2014 2:20:10 PM PDT by jazusamo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
To: GeronL
Seeing that Zero has set up military action against US citizens, with authorization to occur on his say-so alone, it appears to me we have (yet another) clear violation of his presidential oath, one which clearly contemplates removal of Constitution due process
at his whim.
There is no way this should not get a 100-0 vote for removal from a Senate that still represents the people.
HF
21
posted on
05/28/2014 2:51:56 PM PDT
by
holden
To: holden
The problem is that Congress for all intents and purposes is meaningless, since courts and the executive branch are making laws all the time now.
22
posted on
05/28/2014 2:53:21 PM PDT
by
GeronL
(Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
To: jazusamo; Old Sarge; null and void; Velveeta; Rushmore Rocks; Oorang; Myrddin; MamaDearest; ...
Ping.
Article, then # 3 # 5 , (and other comments.)
.
23
posted on
05/28/2014 2:54:38 PM PDT
by
LucyT
To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; albertp; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; ...
Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,
Libertarian ping! Click
here to get added or
here to be removed or post a message here!
24
posted on
05/28/2014 2:56:52 PM PDT
by
bamahead
(Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
To: holden
Exactly, but sadly we don’t have a Senate that even a bare majority represent the people
25
posted on
05/28/2014 2:57:12 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial: Thomas Sowell)
To: jazusamo
Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions, the directive states. So it's OK that the local Gauleiter moves in the 101st Airborne to prevent me from peeing behind a tree at the Yellowstone ranger station?
To: jazusamo
This has always been a possibility, thus the 2nd amendment.
27
posted on
05/28/2014 3:01:54 PM PDT
by
Nachoman
(Wisdom is learned, cynicism is earned.)
To: jazusamo
"The conditions include military support needed to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order. A second use is when federal, state and local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions. Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions, the directive states.
Right there is your Fort Sumpter
To: Billthedrill
That’s a very broad brush, isn’t it.
29
posted on
05/28/2014 3:05:45 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial: Thomas Sowell)
To: jazusamo
The SWAT team(s) for the TVA is because of the hydro-electric and nuclear power plants that are under their control.
But I guess you’d rather have muzzies or some ALF/ELF econut waltz right into one or two of their plants and destroy them as well as half of the southeast instead?
The rest of the agencies IMO do not need anything but a doorman to greet people and hold the door open. Then again, if I were president half those agencies would be gone or privatized.
30
posted on
05/28/2014 3:06:11 PM PDT
by
2CAVTrooper
(Politicians and diapers need to be changed for the same reason)
To: holden
From the article:
Directive No. 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders are provided emergency authority under this directive.
Why is this a current issue? Wasn't it addressed in 2010?
31
posted on
05/28/2014 3:12:45 PM PDT
by
foxfield
(Support the Tea Party. The Tea Party supports you.)
To: 2CAVTrooper
I’d rather have? I listed what was in the article, did you read it?
32
posted on
05/28/2014 3:12:46 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial: Thomas Sowell)
To: G Larry
The ranks are full of fellow travelers, Holder’s people, angry rad-fems, homosexual sympathizers, Obama’s sons and those who believe that any order given by the CinC is a legal order. Don’t kid yourself. They’ll shoot.
33
posted on
05/28/2014 3:14:52 PM PDT
by
clintonh8r
(I wish no harm on Gen. Shinseki, but perhaps he should consider seppuku.....)
To: Nachoman
“This has always been a possibility, thus the 2nd amendment.”
Bingo... And to the extent that the military turns on American citizens, these same citizens will turn on the military. And there’s a bunch more armed citizens than there are military.
34
posted on
05/28/2014 3:15:22 PM PDT
by
babygene
( .)
To: holden
Seeing that Zero has set up military action against US citizens, with authorization to occur on his say-so aloneNot to hijack this into a Civil War thread, but this is exactly what A. Lincoln did in 1861. And quite rightly too.
There was an emergency, and Congress could not be reassembled in time to address the situation.
When in an emergency, it is entirely right and proper for the executive authority to take emergency action.
To: foxfield
Why is this a current issue? Wasn't it addressed in 2010? And how did it change policy from that existing before, it if did?
To: G Larry
“It’s clear that BLM, Homeland, EPA, and IRS have no problem in their gestapo role, but I’m not sure how many GIs would participate in an Obama assault on civilians.”
Don’t forget we now have gays and transgenders in the military, openly. This isn’t our father’s military. Plus, Obama has been weeding out the high ranking military leaders that won’t be loyal.
To: Sherman Logan
Policy prior to the Dec. 29, 2010 directive is largely irrelevant. I assume the current policy is as stated in the Dec. 29, 2010 directive. Thaat's what matters. Unless I misread the article, it describes the 2010 policy.
38
posted on
05/28/2014 3:34:15 PM PDT
by
foxfield
(Support the Tea Party. The Tea Party supports you.)
To: foxfield
The implication of the article, and certainly of most of the comments, is that this is a new policy implemented by Obama to justify military assaults on Americans.
If so, demonstrate that by showing how this is a change from previous policy.
To: jazusamo
40
posted on
05/28/2014 3:39:08 PM PDT
by
Faith65
(Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson