CFR & U.S. Army Chief of Staff: Use Army for Domestic Enforcement
-
Harold Pratt House _ CFR New York City
-
This article appeared in The New American. Below is a teaser section from the original article. Please click this link for the entire article, where you’ll find embedded links -
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
-
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) proposes that the U.S. Army be used to plan, command, and carry out (with the help of civilian law enforcement) domestic police missions. So says a story appearing in the May/June issue of the influential organization’s official journal, Foreign Affairs. The article lacks a single reference to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits such actions.
In an article penned by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno, the CFR would see the Army used to address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe from domestic disasters, including terrorist attacks. Odierno writes:
Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.
That’s right. Should the sheriff suspect that a particular citizen in his county poses a threat to security and feels he doesn’t have the proper “skills and equipment” to deal with the situation, he can just call out the U.S. Army and bring a “rapid response” force that is robust enough to eliminate the problem.
These are not the musings of an unknown academic written in an obscure journal of little importance. These are the black-and-white plans for “building a flexible force” as laid out by the man in charge and published for all the world to read by the people who may have put him there.
In order to justify this new (and illegal) mission for the Army, General Odierno points to three “major changes” that have precipitated the re-tasking of the troops: First, “declining budgets due to the country’s worsened fiscal situation; second, “a shift in emphasis to the Asia-Pacific region; and third, a “broadening of focus from counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and training of partners to shaping the strategic environment, preventing the outbreak of dangerous regional conflicts, and improving the army’s readiness to respond in force to a range of complex contingencies worldwide.”
There are so many things wrong with every one of these points that each deserves its own article focused solely on its deconstruction. Unfortunately, there is only so much space and each of these considerations has one critical flaw in common: no constitutional authority for any of it.
-
Finish reading at The New American -
-
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!
SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath
SUPPORT OUR NASCAR CAMPAIGN
June 10th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
It looks like the U.S. Military is about to become Domestic Terrorists & will have to be treated as such by the American public.
June 10th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
While standing armies are not unconstitutional – the Constitution permits Congress to appropriate money to that end for a duration limited to two years – our Founders DID provide for the state militias to be a guard against the need for a standing army and the danger to liberty that it poses.
_
Federalist Papers No 29
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
- Begin excerpt -
If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
- End excerpt -
_
Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
- Begin excerpt -
The Congress shall have Power …
- Skip -
… To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
- End excerpt -
_
Federalist Papers No 41
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
- Begin excerpt -
Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added. I will not repeat here the observations which I flatter myself have placed this subject in a just and satisfactory light. But it may not be improper to take notice of an argument against this part of the Constitution, which has been drawn from the policy and practice of Great Britain. It is said that the continuance of an army in that kingdom requires an annual vote of the legislature; whereas the American Constitution has lengthened this critical period to two years. This is the form in which the comparison is usually stated to the public: but is it a just form? Is it a fair comparison? Does the British Constitution restrain the parliamentary discretion to one year? Does the American impose on the Congress appropriations for two years? On the contrary, it cannot be unknown to the authors of the fallacy themselves, that the British Constitution fixes no limit whatever to the discretion of the legislature, and that the American ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term.
- End excerpt -
June 22nd, 2012 at 9:25 am
The streets of America will become just like Afghanistan. Armor will not be able to get through all areas and their will be troops going from building to building. There will be American resistance to this and Americans will be killing Americans. When troops realize that they are fighting the same people who were trained by the same people that they were trained by and get tired of killing fellow Americans (and believe me alot of them will die too) they will break and start refusing orders, when they see that they have become the very enemy that they are fighting. What the government proposes is so absurd it leaves all civilians/law enforcement/veterans thinking that they may have to start killing their own people. All in the name of some lunatic looking for cudos in government. It wont be the American people who fire the first shot. But we will have liberty and the tyrants will be hung from the tree of liberty.
June 26th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
the Constitution says we have certain unalienable rights and we the people have the right to remove any part of the gov. and replace them and they may not use our militia against us
July 2nd, 2012 at 1:13 am
I can see that my brothers in arms are already hunting this fox, by the content of their posts. It appears that we are all in basic agreement, in that the current government has gone completely astray from its duty to protect the rights of the people, and OBEY the constitution that they have all sworn to protect. They have, themselves, by their own actions, become the “domestic enemy.”
I will be very happy to see you all in Tampa! Gather at PaulFest, and prepare for the RNC convention. ITS TIME TO STAND UP!!!
July 9th, 2012 at 5:20 am
The American people have used great restraint in resorting to the force of arms with the the direction and destruction this Country is heading. I want to believe that there are good Police officers, CIA officers, and Military personnel who are faithful and loyal to the American People and to the Constitution. For those of you who are not. If you think for a moment that you and your gang of thug SWAT Teams with badges in black uniforms with guns will be able to walk into American homes, confiscate their fire arms, food, and whatever you think you may want to take. You are completely delusional! You will wind up getting your ass shot to pieces! When the America people are pushed to the point to seriously commence armed resurrection against the tyranny government and the corrupt System of the New World Order. There will be no stopping it! It will not take long for the American people to win the Good Fight. Fathers and mothers, sons and daughters who wear the Uniform of the United States Military will see the Truth and will join in with their family members and friends in the fight against tyranny. The American people will not be able to go head to head and toe to toe with the U.S. Military on the open field. However, asymmetric warfare is devastating. Once American patriots become adept in the art of ambush, fire, and maneuver as well as acquire captured military weapons systems. Criminal Military and law enforcement unites will begin to get a reverse lession in what it’s like to have Ordinance coming in on your ass! This was well illustrated throughout the jungles of Vietnam by the VC (Vietcong) and NVA (North Vietnamese Army) against the U.S. Military. Even with the use of massive air power, smart bombs, and electronic trail sensors to detect moment, the U.S. Military were still not able to defeat the VC and NVA. No Army in world history has ever been able to win in an asymmetric warfare. There are thousands of private individuals who own a variety of heavy and light machineguns; miniguns; wheeled Artillery, and many other types of weapon systems. Just go to the Knob Creek gun range in Kentucky and see for yourself. Once a year they hold a Shoot and these types of Shoots are held all over the Country. I went to one and was thunderstruck at the type of weapons in perfect firing condition that were owned by private individuals. One guy had Quad-4 barrel 50 caliber machineguns mounted on wheels, and it fired just as awesome as the ones I saw in Vietnam. He was out there chopping trees down. You need to take heed and re-evaluate your position working for the Corrupt System of the New World Order. As an ex Army Vietnam Veteran, I’ve seen the other side of the Beast. As stated in another article, U.S. soldiers are in a unique position in the middle of this plague of political power gaming. They are the first to bear witness to the blunders (or crimes) of government because often times they pay with their blood and with their lives. They get to experience up close and personal on the ground where decisions go wrong and how. They are among the first to witness the changes of mood within our political dynamic, and the first to know when a government has gone rogue. When these soldiers leave the service as veterans, many have seen the ugliest of the ugly faces of the officialdom running the show. They become a liability to the carefully crafted image of the U.S. government and the military industrial complex because they know the ultimate truth. The Dumping of bodies in a landfill of American Soldiers killed in Action struck a nerve in me in a bad way and made it crystal clear to me. Crystal!
July 9th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
This is an article I saw today. It’s by Forbes.com
U.N. AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE ALL GUN OWNERS UP IN ARMS
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
More from contributor Larry Bell
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.
There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.
So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.
Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.
Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.
July 9th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
I strongly believe that there is a concerted and ongoing effort by the Federal government to ban all fire arm and ammunition sales to American citizens at large with the sole goal to confiscate all fire arms and Ordinance. An armed resurrection by the American people against the criminal government would indeed be their worst fears and concerns with the thoughts in their diabolical brains of being tried and sent to prison for Life for criminal corruption and High Treason against the American People and the Constitution. The botched Fast and Furious scandal by the ATF allowing fire arms to freely be transported across the Mexican border was a propaganda attempt to project fire arms as the main cause of the chaos in Mexico with the goal of fire arm banishment. But it backed fired on the ATF because a U.S. Border Patrol officer was shot and killed by one of the very fire arms allowed to cross the border. The AK 47 assault rifle was discovered on location at the scene of the shooting. That’s why DOJ does not want to release documents to certain members of Congress pursuing the matter because it would reveal DOJ criminal activity and their blatant disregard for the rule of conduct and the rule of law. There was a statement the other day in regards to the Colorado wildfires and that gunfire was the main cause of the wildfires. Only a blundering fool would believe a propaganda story like that. You cannot start a fire with small arms gunfire. My question to the Arms Companies, are they going to openly comply to ban all fire arm and ammunition sales to American citizens? The founding Fathers were keenly aware when they drafted the Second Amendment for the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms. It was not about hunting and fishing because back then if you didn’t hunt and fish, you didn’t eat. The sole purpose of the Second Amendment was instilled so that if the government ever got out of control, the American People would have the means to rise up and get control of it. I’m quite sure that Blackmarketeer fire arm dealers will glady step up to the batting plate to provide Guns & Ammo.
July 17th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Dear Soldier, While you have come to confiscate my weapons and take my life, leaving my wife and daughters defensless against rape and murder, another soldier is at your family’s house confiscating their weapons leaving your family defenceless.
September 1st, 2012 at 6:02 am
General Odierno needs to be reminded that he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and that any action he takes that is over and above our Constitution is a national feloney and needs strict repremand. From what you have presented here, Gen. Odierno has to go before a trial of his peers and the least punishment has to be a loss of stripes and a loss of authority because he obviously doesn’t understand that he has broken his oath.