Posted on 08/08/2012 4:50:24 PM PDT by EveningStar
Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I read far too much of it, but I stopped reading when they had the Ku Klux Klan joining up with the Tea Party and Minutemen. I know a lot of folks who consider themselves members of the Tea Party movement, and not a single one of them would have anything to do with leftist anti-Christian groups like the KKK.
You should read the original thread on this topic here:
Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future (CW2 Ping)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2914855/posts
You should read the commentary in that thread by Travis McGee, bayouranger, and Steel Wolf in particular.
And if at all possible, I encourage you to have COL Benson read the same. Strongly encourage. They “get” a lot that I don’t think he does, there on the banks of the Potomac (figuratively if not literally).
“breakup of the old US Army in the days leading up to the First American Civil War”
Do you have any recommendations for good reading on that subject? That’s a subject I just haven’t come across much and I am very interested in. Thanks.
And the Taliban is made up of people who have a culture, all the way back to Alexander the Great, of never surrendering. They will fight, because that is who they are. Will that happen here? Most of the “TEA” party is older, conservative, and set in their ways. That is not the group you turn to in a war. They have to much to loose.
The scenario will not be open warfare, at least not after the tanks roll in and crush open dissent.
But, and this could be a very interesting but, a developing resistance could wreak havoc on the country and its masters.
The military could obviously subdue open revolt in all of the major urban areas. That is a very long way from true control of the country. And more importantly, control of its economic activity.
They could rule the country by force in principle. The reality could be very different. What size standing army would be needed to successfully stamp out guerrilla warfare in a county this large and diverse *if* (a significant if, I'll grant you) there were sufficient numbers in resistance?
That is why Big Brother is taking control incrementally. A sudden move would invoke chaos.
“Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion.”
Would never happen in a million years. Tea Partiers respect law and order. They’re NOT anarchists like the bottom feeders at OWS.
However......when has logic, reason, or the Constitution ever stopped the F[r]eds (Feds + Marxist indoctrination= F[r]ed) from doing whatever they want whenever they want to whomever they want ?
you said
Ever seen a civil war in a nation where over 50% of the population own firearms, and 10% own scoped deer rifles capable of hitting a soldier on guard or checkpoint duty at 400+ yards?
I ran the numbers and here’s what I got..
That would give us..
10% of South Carolina’s population for Snipers are 467,923
50% of the population own firearms & are True Hunters, give or take 3 or 4 are 2,339,615
Free Fire Zone would cover..but not limited to
Total area - 31,189 square miles
Land area - 30,111 square miles
Inland water area - 1,006 square miles
Coastal water area - 72 square miles
on our on home ground advantage. plus..
Some of them Georgia boys would not want to miss out so add another couple 1000 or 2
Col. Kevin Bensonr would wet his pants if those number were a fact, and they could be. Time will tell.
And plenty of outside muscle to help things progress, open borders to provide more assistance and obama telling ICE to release if they catch, the list goes on and on...I think we've progressed beyond "interesting times" and into something new.
THAT is a pile of BS.
Article 4 section 4
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.
And on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive means the STATE governments, not the federal one.
This does not, however, says Barbeyrac, hinder but each confederated state may provide for its particular safety, by repressing its rebellious subjects. And herewith the present constitution of the United States fully agrees. For although congress are bound to guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government, and to protect each of them against invasion; and also against domestic violence; yet this last is only to be done where the legislature, or executive of the state (where the legislature cannot be convened) shall make the application.
George Tucker Of the Several Forms of Government, SECTION XII
At the same time it is properly provided, in order that such interference may not wantonly or arbitrarily take place; that it shall only be on the request of the state authorities: otherwise the self-government of the state might be encroached upon at the pleasure of the Union, and a small state might fear or feel the effects of a combination of larger states against it under colour of constitutional authority;
William Rawle
Any federal government action without a request from the State is unconstitutional on both the federal AND state level.
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
***
ALL the States have these, and they tie directly to this:
Article VI. - The United States
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
-----
Thanks so much for posting that text, IM.
That link gets me no where. Is there another way I can search for the comment?
There are at least 20X the number of veterans still of useful age with appropriate knowledge and experience, than there are on active duty plus LEOs and FLEAs.
Even if 10% of those numbers came to bear it would scare the poop out of any army. That’d give 200,000 well equipped and well trained fighters that know their State, the ground, the waterways, and the resources, and you can believe the other States will keep busy as well. It just isn’t a fight the entire world’s armies could survive.
We could say the same about another kind of fighting: Politics.
Certain political parties (er, both) would rather win elections than tell the truth, stick to an ideal, do what's right, etc.
Still, it's laughable to think all these old grandparents are going to "take" Darlington, arrest mayors, cops, and sherrifs, stop traffic on the interstates, pull illegal aliens out of cars, etc.! I don't think they'd need the Army to put that down!
That last pic: Waco.
Holder was part of that.
He’s no longer in uniform, he’s retired. He works as a contractor and can be fired at the drop of a hat (may already have been as far as I know).
Yeah, but none of their dogs will survive!
No.
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you need to threaten to report me to the Admin if I don’t add you to the list...
LOL. Thanks for the Pings.
Dammit, if you don’t add me to the list, I’m reporting you do the Lead Moderator! And he’s closely related to the Graphite Moderator!
I don't think most folks believe the “military” has gone against “citizens”. The National Guard has maybe put down some “hippies” or other riff-raff to “restore order”. But surely that could never happen to them. They are not hippies or riff-raff after all.
That is also why I love authoritarian “conservatives” who love government force so long at is used against “them”.
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.