Col. Writes Article on how U.S. Military Might Squash Tea Party Type Insurrections

Well, there are lots of articles published and lots of contingencies to plan for. Every angle needs to be examined. Remember that first and foremost the Army's oath both enlisted and officer says something about protecting against all enemies foreign and domestic. Now we can debate until the cows come home what a domestic threat is...needless to say, however, the vast majority of the American people are not ready for some kind of "Go-Time" whatever that means.

You are also switching horses in the middle of the stream. You are talking about an article written by a retired Army colonel and then you start referring to DHS.

DHS should be of greater concern than the US military, although now that the wars are winding down, the DOD will be looking for new threats and domestic terrorism could fill the bill. The idiots in Arizona, Colorado and Wisconsin have only reinforced that.

And...just how do you eviscerate these new homeland security protocols?...

Do I think that the US will implode? Most definitely, but not the way you think it will. Eventually government will get so gridlocked that it will cease working, and regional "autonomous associations" of states might form based on political philosophy, perhaps ethnicity and race, and resources unique to a particular region, but I won't see it in my lifetime, you might. We will clunk and clamor around a while longer.

The problem is that too many people buy into the perception that is laid out before them. Long before the 'homegrown terrorist' became a household buzzword and associated with rampaging psychopaths with tactical vests, I had pointed out repeatedly that both the USG and the media intended to shift the focus on 'terrorism' away from the terrorists 'out there' to those among us. It did not make a difference that such terrorists did not exist at the time, or at least not in the sense they do today, because that is their very job- shaping perception. Convincing people that Taliban is good against the Soviets, but bad afterwards. That Al Queda was bad then, but okay now since they've assisted the insurrections in Syria and Libya. Really? Give me a break. What's the new flavor of the day? Oh yeah, Constitutional supporters. This is just another way of blanket designating those opposed to the trampling of our liberties as potential terrorists, and we know it, and yet we allow it to happen.

For those people still living in fear wake the hell up. The terrorists are among us, but they're not the ones who support the Constitution. The actual terrorists occupy some of the highest positions of government and influence. They are the same ones who created Al Queda and allowed it to thrive as a 'terrorist network' to allow them to expand their sphere of control and dominance over the entire globe using fear and violence. Full spectrum dominance, isn't that the term? And what more, they have us all fooled because they are the ones in power, supposedly enforcing the laws while doing the complete opposite. Opium production up nearly 70% in Afghanistan since we invaded more than 10 years ago, the CIA having a field day exporting drugs from Mexico and South America and running underground child sex slave operations, all while using taxpaying dollars and black funding from the drugs they sell throughout the world to monitor our every step.

The point is, the whole myth of the 'homegrown' terrorist is nothing more than that- a contrived trap for us to walk right into. Just like Al Queda, who is now no longer our enemy but our ally? You can't make this stuff up. Just refuse to buy into it. When people try to use terms like Homegrown Terrorism laugh at them, it's a story being told until people actually believe it, so don't.

Non-Com Oath of Service:

"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Commissioned Officers Oath Of Service:

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Please note that non-commissioned personnel swear an oath to follow the orders of the POTUS while commissioned officers swear no allegiance to the POTUS only the Constitution. Congress has the power to revoke the commission of Officers at any time. If Congress acted on that then the only commander that enlisted service men would have would be the POTUS. Non-Commissioned Officers could easily take command and be bound to follow the orders of the POTUS exclusively.

Originally Posted by FreeWillie

Non-Com Oath of Service:



Commissioned Officers Oath Of Service:



Please note that non-commissioned personnel swear an oath to follow the orders of the POTUS while commissioned officers swear no allegiance to the POTUS only the Constitution. Congress has the power to revoke the commission of Officers at any time. If Congress acted on that then the only commander that enlisted service men would have would be the POTUS. Non-Commissioned Officers could easily take command and be bound to follow the orders of the POTUS exclusively.

Meh shear Symantics!

Still have to be lawful orders.