Of course it is illegal for the Army to participate in law enforcement, but since when do laws like the Posse Comitatus Act matter to far left oligarchs bent on a radicalized agenda?
In this scenario the TEA Party comes into a town, occupies it without paying for permits, etc, and takes over parts of the town illegally, while ignoring the requests from law enforcement. Now wait a minute, who behaves this way? Oh that’s right, the Obama endorsed Occupy Wall Street movement that has resulted in dozens of rapes, several deaths, arrests measured in the thousands, organized efforts to resist, even with violence – law enforcement, mass vandalism, threats etc. But it is the TEA Party folks who show up with cute signs and flags, and always clean up after themselves that are the problem.
PJTV’s Trifecta and reporter Anthony Martin respond:
A retired U.S. Army colonel who now teaches modern warfare to soldiers at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. has co-written an article with a Civil War expert that has ignited a firestorm today among those increasingly concerned about what some say is a distinct anti-civilian tone that has infected much of the military and Homeland Security since 2009.
Retired Col. Kevin Benson and Jennifer Weber, Associate Professor of History at the University of Kansas, co-wrote an article for Small Wars Journal on a 2010 Army report titled, “U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 – 2028.”
The report describes how the Army will respond to threats “at home and abroad” in the coming two decades and in doing so has made clear that a monumental cultural shift has occurred in the thinking of those at the top levels of military command. This shift has some government watchdogs worried, particularly given that Benson is using the platform provided at Fort Leavenworth to educate military personnel in his vision of the nature of modern warfare in America. According to the vision articulated by Benson, future warfare will be conducted on our own soil. The military will use its full force against our own citizens. The enemy will be average citizens whose values resonate with those articulated by the tea party.
The fictitious scenario used in the Army report as a teaching tool is a future insurrection of “tea party activists” in South Carolina. As the scenario goes, the tea party group stages a takeover of the town of Darlington, S.C. The mayor is placed under house arrest and prevented from exercising his duties. The police chief, the county sheriff, and other law enforcement officials are removed from office and told not to interfere. The city council is dissolved. The governor of the state, who had previously expressed solidarity with tea party goals, does little to address the situation.
A news conference is called by the new town leaders, all tea party activists, who tell the media that due to the failure of central government to address the concerns of the citizens, the Declaration of Independence has been re-imposed and the local government has been declared null and void.
Several items of interest are to be noted in the scenario the Army uses to describe the tea party activists — “right wing,” “extremists,” “insurrectionists,” all of whom are lumped together with militias and organizations that are considered “racist” and “anti-immigration.”
By contrast, those who oppose the tea party are referred to as “mainstream.”
The obvious question that arises is why would this sort of scenario, with its obviously biased and skewed portrayals, be presented as a teaching tool to military personnel? Why would the U.S. military consider the tea party to be “extremist” or “insurrectionist?” And why would the tea party be classified together with groups that are “racist, “anti-immigration,” and “extremist right wing?”
In the numerous tea party rallies that have occurred across the nation no racism was noted by any observer. Speakers included persons of all races and ethnic backgrounds. No sentiment was expressed against legal immigration but outrage was directed toward those break the law and enter the country by illegal means. And the charge that the tea party is extremist right wing is difficult to justify given that the main thrust of the movement is the protest against runaway government spending that has placed the nation on the brink of economic ruin due to its enormous and unsustainable debt.
Yet repeatedly since the election of Barack Obama in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has referred to the tea party as “potential homegrown terrorists.“
More from Anthony Martin:
…the military under the Obama administration has made sure that the words “Jihad” and “Islamic” are deleted from all official documents concerning very real threats to the safety and security of citizens. The administration went out of its way, for example, to avoid referring to the Fort Hood terrorist as an “Islamic extremist.”
Yet when describing the frightening possibility that a U.S. city could be seized by an insurgency group, its mayor, police chief, and city council removed from office and placed under house arrest, the Army chooses to use the tea party, not an Occupy Wall Street nor a radical Islamist entity, as the insurgency group in the teaching tool.
When former U.S. Rep. Gabriella Giffords, D-Ariz., was shot along with others in the infamous Tucson massacre of 2011, the Obama administration, the mainstream media, and liberal activists were quick to blame the tea party, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Mark Levin for using “hateful rhetoric” that leads unstable persons such as the Tucson shooter to undertake such violent measures.
Yet none of the those mentioned as the sources for the hateful rhetoric have ever called for violence against anyone.
Several who posted comments on the PJTV video stated that they had attended Benson’s workshop and that each time someone would point out the threat posed by groups such as Islamic extremists, or the Occupy movement, workshop leaders would turn their comments around to continue the established scenario that ordinary citizens are the ones who pose the threat due to their hysteria over Islam and liberal insurrectionist groups.
Yet the ones who routinely call for violence against those who steadfastly resist their collectivist plans are the liberals in academia, government, the media, and left wing activist groups.
Time Magazine’s Joe Klein once accused conservatives shortly after the 2008 election that they were guilty of “sedition” and implied that sedition laws should be resurrected so that conservatives who resist the program being implemented by Barack Obama could be rounded up and jailed. Pamela Geller of the blog Atlas Shrugs has received countless death threats for merely reporting the facts on the activities of extremist Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood stated recently that America will be “brought to its knees.” Liberal commentators on various web sites have routinely called for the deaths of conservatives such as Dick Cheney and Michelle Malkin, and when former Fox News commentator Tony Snow was diagnosed with cancer, left wing hysterics stated that they hoped he would die a slow, painful death.
But these examples are only the tip of the iceberg. President Barack Obama stated in 2008 during the presidential campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Obama’s friend and political ally Bill Ayers called for young people to kill their parents when he launched the very first “occupy” movement in Chicago in 1969. Ayers is also on record as stating that he supports the killing of tens of millions of conservatives unless they agree to be reeducated in his extremist liberal agenda.
Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, have often stated that they have not changed their views at all since the 1960s and wish they had done much more to advance their agenda.
In addition, the Communist-Socialist-Marxist ideology is singularly responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people during the 20th century alone. Stalin murdered at least 20 million Russians. Chairman Mao murdered at least 65 million Chinese. Fidel Castro along with his henchman Che Guevara murdered hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans, a figure that many say is much too low. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge murdered at least 5 million Cambodians and Southeast Asians after the Viet Nam War.
An in-depth study conducted by a University of Texas professor in 1997 for the National Center for Policy Analysis places the figures cited above much higher.