To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Could the TEA party cause a little know plan (Operation Garden Plot) to be enacted?
Under Annex A, section B of Operation Garden Plot defines tax protesters, militia groups, religious cults, and general anti-government dissenters as Disruptive Elements. This calls for the deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil disorder.
With the TEA party growing in numbers and protesting The Obamas style of government could civil unrest happen within our life time?
Section 3:
This plan could be implemented under any of the following situation:
(1) Spontaneous civil disturbances which involve large numbers of persons and/or which continue for a considerable period of time, may exceed the capacity of local civil law enforcement agencies to suppress. Although this type of activity can arise without warning as a result of sudden, unanticipated popular unrest (past riots), it may also result from more prolonged dissidence.
This would most likely be an outgrowth of serious social, political or economic issues which divide segments of the American population. Such factionalism could manifest itself through repeated demonstrations, protest marches and other forms of legitimate opposition but which would have the potential for erupting into spontaneous violence with little or no warning.
(2) Planned acts of violence or civil disobedience which, through arising from the same causes as (1) above, are seized upon by a dedicated group of dissidents who plan and incite purposeful acts designed to disrupt social order.
This may occur either because leaders of protest organizations intentionally induce their followers to perpetrate violent acts, or because a group of militants infiltrates an otherwise peaceful protest and seeks to divert it from its peaceful course.
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (The Kerner Report), 1967
Chapter 12--Control of Disorder
Preserving civil peace is the first responsibility of govern ment. Unless the rule of law prevails, our society will lack not only order but also the environment essential to social and economic progress.
The maintenance of civil order cannot be left to the police alone. The police need guidance, as well as support, from mayors and other public officials. It is the responsibility of public officials to determine proper police policies, support adequate police standards for personnel and performance, and participate in planning for the control of disorders.
To maintain control of incidents which could lead to disorders, the Commission recommends that local officials:
* Assign seasoned, well-trained policemen and supervisory officers to patrol ghetto areas, and to respond to disturbances.
* Develop plans which will quickly muster maximum police man power and highly qualified senior commanders at the outbreak of disorders.
* Provide special training in the prevention of disorders, and pre pare police for riot control and for operation in units, with adequate command and control and field communication for proper discipline and effectiveness
* Develop guidelines governing the use of control equipment and provide alternatives to the use of lethal weapons. Federal sup port for research in this area is needed.
* Establish an intelligence system to provide police and other public officials with reliable information that may help to pre vent the outbreak of a disorder and to institute effective control measures in the event a riot erupts.
* Develop continuing contacts with ghetto residents to make use of the forces for order which exist within the community.
* Establish machinery for neutralizing rumors, and enabling Negro leaders and residents to obtain the facts. Create special rumor details to collect, evaluate, and dispel rumors that may lead to a civil disorder.
The Commission believes there is a grave danger that some communities may resort to the indiscriminate and excessive use of force. The harmful effects of overreaction are incalcul able. The Commission condemns moves to equip police depart ments with mass destruction weapons, such as automatic rifles, machine guns and tanks. Weapons which are designed to de stroy, not to control, have no place in densely populated urban communities.
The Commission recognizes the sound principle of local authority and responsibility in law enforcement, but recom mends that the federal government share, in the financing of programs for improvement of police forces, both in their normal law enforcement activities as well as in their response to civil disorders.
To assist government authorities in planning their response to civil disorder, this report contains a Supplement on Control of Disorder. It deals with specific problems encountered during riot-control operations, and includes:
* Assessment of the present capabilities of police, National Guard and Army forces to control major riots, and recommendations for improvement;
* Recommended means by which the control operations of those forces may be coordinated with the response of other agencies, such as fire departments, and with the community at large;
* Recommendations for review and revision of federal, state and local laws needed to provide the framework for control efforts and for the call-up and interrelated action of public safety forces.
For the people who will dismiss this as a tin foil hat conspiracy.
Why do a study and not come up with a plan to control the population? I know the study is about races but as most liberals on this site point out the TEA party is a racist organization so this will go along their ideas.
So again do you think civil unrest on a national scale could happen in our life time?
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:44 am
by woodchip
Civil unrest is best performed at the ballot box
Re:
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:32 am
by Insurrectionist
woodchip wrote:Civil unrest is best performed at the ballot box
True, how about the re-election of Obama if it doesn't happen. Do you think that could result in civil unrest? I know it's years off but IMO I think that it could happen. As per the constitution "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" the government would have the right to crack down on the population. The population has already draw lines in the sand for right and the left.
\"The Militia\" as the law refers to it is the armed civilian citizen.
I don't think you will see anyone in government calling us to arms in response to either, Obama's re-election, or loss of re-election.
Could the people rise up in enough numbers to constitute an insurrection? Sure but since we have elections every two years you would see the ground swell for 'cleaning house' manifest itself at the ballot box and the results would relieve tension long before unrest could fester and grow to armed overthrow of government proportion.
Only if a political party/president tried to stay in power against the will of the voter or the law of the land will you see that kind of revolt. A family or small group of angry militia-wannabe's isn't going to justify marshall law across the country.
So, no, unless Obama tries to go full bore Hugo Chavez on us it isn't going to rise to that level.
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 pm
by Gooberman
I think the moose will be ok but that damn flying squirrel may get it in the end. Thats what I think.
Re:
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:57 pm
by Insurrectionist
Will Robinson wrote:"The Militia" as the law refers to it is the armed civilian citizen.
True, but they wouldn't use armed civilians as the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (The Kerner Report), 1967 points to using National Guard and Army forces not civilian milita.
U.S. Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle E > PART II > CHAPTER 1209 > § 12302
Allows the President to use up to 1,000,000 members of the Ready Reserve In time of national emergency declared by the President,
When Republican warmongers declare war - Tea Party members go strangely silent.
They retreat underground, to work in their hypocrisy mines i assume.
Where was the Tea Party while Bush was in power eh?
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:52 pm
by Spidey
There was no “Tea Party” during Bush’s administration.
Right from your Bible…
On January 19, 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a part-time trader and a member of Ticker Forum, posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to \"Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate\". The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach \"everyone that voted for the bailout.\"
And, only Congress can declare war in America.
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:46 am
by roid
i'd like an answer, not a lame sidestep.
Where were these \"stop spending our tax money\" hire-a-crowds when Bush was declaring a very expensive war against Iraq?
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:55 am
by Insurrectionist
The answer is there was no TEA party movement when Bush declared war. Simple enough.
Left-wing bloggers and demonstrators were wailing Support our troops, bring them home! seven days a week. Now President Obama won’t bring all those troops home, but has simply transfer combat forces from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Let's stay on the subject matter which is, U.S. Military Civil DIsturbance Planning:
Has nothing to do with Bush and the war.
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:57 am
by woodchip
Local news is reporting the militias were christian militias preparing for the end of days. Seems even the Michigan Militia thought them to be too extreme. Sealed court documents to be opened at the arrestee's hearing sometime this morning.
Now that the word \"christian\" has entered the discussion this thread ought to really go someplace.
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:33 am
by woodchip
\" Detroit -- Nine members of a Lenawee County-based militia group were planning to \"levy war\" against the United States and \"oppose by force\" the nation's government, according to an indictment unsealed this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
Seven of the defendants of the \"Hutaree\" militia appeared briefly this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit and were ordered held without bond until Wednesday, when bond hearings will be held. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet said he wants all the defendants held pending trial.
The five-count indictment alleges that between August 2008 and the present, the defendants were trying to use bombs and other weapons to oppose the U.S. government.
They had plans to kill a local law enforcement official and, once officers from across the country came to the funeral, to attack the funeral procession, the indictment alleges. \"
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:12 pm
by VonVulcan
Oh don't worry, Obama has already planned for this.
Obamacare Bill Establishes an Enforcement Service Corps to enforce healthcare \"reform\".
WTF!!!!! why does the Surgeon General need to be incharge of Military troops??????
Re:
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:18 pm
by AlphaDoG
CUDA wrote:WTF!!!!! why does the Surgeon General need to be incharge of Military troops??????
Well, she IS a general.
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:30 pm
by CUDA
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:34 pm
by Kilarin
Alpha Dog wrote:Well, she IS a general.
Best post of the week.
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:35 pm
by Nightshade
This \"christian militia\" seems to have adopted tactics used by islamic militants- though they thankfully were never able to use them for real.
Re:
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:43 pm
by Tunnelcat
roid wrote:i'd like an answer, not a lame sidestep.
Where were these "stop spending our tax money" hire-a-crowds when Bush was declaring a very expensive war against Iraq?
My question exactly! If these 'Tea Partyers' were really all about 'too much tax and spend', they should have piped up when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor and running up the National Debt for the next President to deal with! But alas, NOT ONE WORD or gathering to protest. Oh, that's right, little Dick Army wasn't against the 'war', so he didn't throw his money around from behind a shadow corporation, Freedom Works, to rile up a bunch of uninformed idiots to take on a fake cause! Astroturf, not grass roots.
I still think that racism is at the core of their hatred for this Presidency. That's the REAL reason for all the whining and vitriol. Why else are we having all the spitting, racist and bigoted name calling directed at our representatives right on the Capital steps!
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:12 pm
by VonVulcan
TC, this has got to be the lamest post I have ever seen you submit.
Cliches anyone? Step right up!
Re:
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:15 pm
by roid
Insurrectionist wrote:The answer is there was no TEA party movement when Bush declared war. Simple enough.
Yep, the Tea Party only mobilises when a democrat spends money.
To quote kilarin from another thread: If the "Party of No" really said NO more often, I might start supporting them. No to more taxes. No to more government interference and power. No to more bailouts. etc. They aren't "NO" enough for my taste. More the "Party of No to Obama and Yes to everything else"
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:14 am
by Insurrectionist
Again this is about what the US is doing and the lines in the sand by the left and the right. On the right you have the TEA party and on the left you have Democratic style of Socialism.
roid wrote:hire-a-crowds
It's not like the left hire people to organize.
Be a Paid Socialist Organizer!
Democratic Socialists of America is Hiring the Next YDS National Organizer!
As you can see by the tension on this site by the left and the right things could easily get out of hand.
Democratic Socialism: Real Change for a Change
Does this sound familiar to any one?
More of the people need to awaken before the crap hits the fan and see that the US is tearing it's self apart slowly.
The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7 trillion in today's dollars! Not counting the national debt of 12,700,083,514,655.16 and climbing.
So again how will the US government crack down on the people when the protesters on both sides get out hand?
Notice how I mention both sides not just one side. It's not just one side.
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:28 am
by Insurrectionist
Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to
meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our
government and economy must be radically transformed
Yeah the problem with rallies like that is they go nowhere. It's a ★■◆● and whine fest with no viable solutions. The whole point of the rallies is to rile people up and to get them to do \"something\". Half of the people in that rally were giggling and just there to watch a spectacle. The other half were pissed off when it was over but that was it. No plan. No good ideas. No solutions. Just a bunch of pissed off people all together in one spot. The problems only arise when you have 2 different opinions all occupying the same city block . Anybody rdy to throw down? .
I think your absolutely right Insurrectionist. Big crowds of differing views and EVERYBODY'S gonna get gassed. LOL
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:23 am
by Kilarin
TunnelCat wrote:If these 'Tea Partyers' were really all about 'too much tax and spend', they should have piped up when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor and running up the National Debt for the next President to deal with!
TunnelCat wrote:I still think that racism is at the core of their hatred for this Presidency.
This is not. Really. Conservatives hate liberals for being liberal. Remember how much they hated Bill Clinton, a southern good-old-boy? Racism hasn't been defeated yet, but it is just not the primary motivator for public policy anymore. I'm sure race plays a part, but it's a fairly small part.
Re:
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:29 am
by woodchip
roid wrote:
Insurrectionist wrote:The answer is there was no TEA party movement when Bush declared war. Simple enough.
Yep, the Tea Party only mobilises when a democrat spends money.
Ummm...you forget about a certain New York congressional election where the Tea Party backed a little known conservative and not the anointed republican candidate? Forcing said republican to drop out of the race?
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:36 am
by CUDA
CMON Wood, why ya want to rain of their parade
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:06 am
by Gooberman
Tea Party candidates are a bad idea for conservatives. On a local level they can gain support, but on the national level it would truely be a divide and conquer strategy for the Dems.
Weighted by the fact that, \"by 2023, the bureau said, more than half of all children will be minorities,\"This is CNN and so far, almost all blocks vote in a higher percentages for liberals.
Many of the centrist republicans that do get elected take positions that get them more votes amonsgst these groups (ex: John McCain, and George Bush on immigration), and it works, but Tea Party people want to go to a traditionalist style of conservatism, that has never polled well among those groups as a whole, and would lead to a disaster on the national stage.
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:44 pm
by Spidey
Yea, you conservatives better start learning how to pander to the minorities.
What makes you think the two party system is going to last forever? It’s very possible with that big a shift in demographics, this will also change.
I’m looking forward to the day when all the little “minority” groups are running their own candidates, and the Democrat/Republican parties bite the dust.
That huge coalition where a lot of people have to bite their tongue and hold their nose to vote, might not last forever. I know a lot of black and Hispanic people who don’t really feel the Democrat party fits with their social values, but they vote Democratic because they pander (promise) the most.
Re:
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:06 pm
by Tunnelcat
Kilarin wrote:
TunnelCat wrote:I still think that racism is at the core of their hatred for this Presidency.
This is not. Really. Conservatives hate liberals for being liberal. Remember how much they hated Bill Clinton, a southern good-old-boy? Racism hasn't been defeated yet, but it is just not the primary motivator for public policy anymore. I'm sure race plays a part, but it's a fairly small part.
I don't think racism is a 'motivator' for the Tea Party Rallies, Congressional stupidity and arrogance is. But what's different NOW seems to be the emotion behind all this activism. It's far more hateful and violent looking than when Clinton was being a jerk. Even I wanted the bum thrown out of office because of his arrogant stance, so I voted him out. However, racism seems to be driving emotions at a basal, gut level at today's rallies and I think the right is using this basal fear to stoke up fervor and regain power. Remember the 'Southern Strategy' during Nixon's time?
Instead of spitting and name calling with racial and bigoted epitaphs, carrying signs with hateful pictures and slurs, a campaign stumping Palin putting crosshairs on certain Democrats on her web site, members of one party standing up and cheering at protester rants in the gallery and rallying against a phamtom 'Socialist' threat, why aren't all these people rallying against the real threat to our country, Corporatism and it's takeover of our government from the people? These bozos are even being supported by corporate interests! If they were serious about preserving the nation, they'd be rallying against all of Congress and the lobbyists that control them.
And my original question still stands, why NOW and not when Bush was trashing the Constitution, running up the debt with hidden war spending (he kept it off the books back when he was pres.) and spying on us all in the name of 'fighting terror'? Why didn't these 'Tea Partyers' find religion back then and demonstrate against Bush? It's the hypocracy that now stinks!
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:32 pm
by CUDA
I think your forgeting about all the anti Bush rally's that were held, some vile, angry and hateful things said there, you yourself have even echo'd some of them on this BB
Re:
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:10 pm
by woodchip
tunnelcat wrote:
And my original question still stands, why NOW and not when Bush was trashing the Constitution, running up the debt with hidden war spending (he kept it off the books back when he was pres.) and spying on us all in the name of 'fighting terror'? Why didn't these 'Tea Partyers' find religion back then and demonstrate against Bush? It's the hypocracy that now stinks!
Quite easy to answer TC. Back in the Bush days unemployment was only 5% (yet Demoscamers were trying to paint 5% as horrible...remember?) and, while Bush was running yearly 500 bil deficits, that pales to Obama's 1.6 trillion deficits. People are justly horrified that politicians can spend so much while the country is in the throws of the deepest recession in 50 years. For 1 1/4 year, instead of job creation via working with small business, all the Dem majority could do was concentrate on creating another entitlement program costing trillions of dollars even while medicare and social security funds are dwindling. All those millions of protesters were not "hired" but were genuine concerned citizens who let their respective representatives know their displeasure. When mocked and scorned by the Dems, the tea party types lashed back by voting out Dems like the governor of New Jersey and "gasp" even voted in a republican to take over the "Lion of the Dem. Party Ted Kennedys vacant seat. Even still the Dems, so blinded by health care, didn't get it.
Why didn't this rage happen with Bush? Simply because the majority of the people approved of him protecting us. The majority now do not approve of health care and the obscene spending spree Obama and co. are on. All we see now is a arrogant disregard of what the majority wants by people who now run the risk of total ruin in the fall with the resultant repeal of health care by new republicans who hopefully understand why they were approved to represent us.
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:14 pm
by Insurrectionist
Maybe it's happening now because the people don't want another 8 years of out of control spending and more freedom being taken away. People voted for change but not the change that is driving our country faster and faster towards the cliff. The TEA party is slowly be taken over by the republican party which I think is a big Mistake to even allow any of the politicians from Washington in to the movement. The people are angry, with millions of people who have finally had enough of Washington DC after decades of out of control government.
I really do believe the country needs to change. Would be nice for every person in the US not to have to worry about health care, housing, and food but as it is going now we are going to fall do to the lack restraint from the politicians on spending and giving money away to people who don't need it.(BIG BUSINESS)
Do you really think the taxation of the rich isn't going to affect the middle class? There is a class warfare going on but it will not affect the rich or the poor. The rich will find a way to pass it on to the middle calss making the middle class poorer and the poor will still be poor.
Re:
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:29 pm
by Duper
Insurrectionist wrote:Maybe it's happening now because the people don't want another 8 years of out of control spending and more freedom being taken away. People voted for change but not the change that is driving our country faster and faster towards the cliff. The TEA party is slowly be taken over by the republican party which I think is a big Mistake to even allow any of the politicians from Washington in to the movement. The people are angry, with millions of people who have finally had enough of Washington DC after decades of out of control government.
I really do believe the country needs to change. Would be nice for every person in the US not to have to worry about health care, housing, and food but as it is going now we are going to fall do to the lack restraint from the politicians on spending and giving money away to people who don't need it.(BIG BUSINESS)
Do you really think the taxation of the rich isn't going to affect the middle class? There is a class warfare going on but it will not affect the rich or the poor. The rich will find a way to pass it on to the middle calss making the middle class poorer and the poor will still be poor.
I dunno Insurr. go ask an Polack or Russian that lived in the USSR from 1950 to 1985.
I'd rather not go down that road. Socialism doesn't work. Your utopia can't. it's not human nature. If you're really that hard up for being taken care of by "big brother" (or whatever you want to call it) China would love you have you. :\\
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:54 pm
by Insurrectionist
Not saying I want it either Duper just saying it would be nice for every person in the US not to have to worry about health care, housing, and food. As you stated it will never happen because of human nature. The country still needs to change back to the what the founding intended for this great nation.
Maybe I should have clarify it better than I did. Before you started exporting me to another country.
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:05 pm
by Sergeant Thorne
Insurrectionastically Inclined wrote:Would be nice for every person in the US not to have to worry about health care, housing, and food
Institute legal slavery (housing and food) and get rid of health insurance. Companies will always charge what people (or their insurance companies) are in the end willing to pay.
I'll be running in 2012 on a platform of re-instituting slavery apart from race. Can I count on everyone's vote?
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:22 pm
by Krom
Slavery is such a strong word... Perhaps if you called it something softer like \"Mandatory Employment\" and promise food, housing and health care as compensation people would be much more likely to go along with it.
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:27 pm
by Sergeant Thorne
Hey, everyone's gotta do their part.
Sergeant Thorne taps Krom for Vice President. (does that word grate on anyone else?)
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:34 pm
by Spidey
I’m game, as long as I get to be a master…errrrr employer.