Polster says "pre-revolutionary" Americans

[chubcobear]

http://www.infowars.com/pollster-ame...revolutionary/

[H-D]

"Should violence plague American streets as a result of a deepening economic crisis, U.S. troops have already been prepared to deal with such a crisis."

Yeah I wonder which side they will be on when they get another pay cut ?

[sliclee]

Our military would never fight against the citizens of this country BUT THE POLICE WOULD.
As the Supreme Court has stated on several occasions, the duty of the police is to protect the govt and not its citizens.
Thats why the next few years after they stated this the words on police cars To Protect and serve and all the rest were removed.

[BillM]

Originally Posted by sliclee

Our military would never fight against the citizens of this country .

ROTFLMAO. Never heard of the "Bonus Army" and how they were dealt with?


Check the left hand column in the link below. The US military is no stranger
to "fighting against the citizens of this country".

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html

[redwing carson]

Ole Honest Abe Linclon was the first one to use troops againsit American citizens. The Draft Riots broke out in New York City during the Civil War. The Union Army killed many protestors of the then new draft.

[rentalguy1]

Originally Posted by redwing carson

Ole Honest Abe Linclon was the first one to use troops againsit American citizens. The Draft Riots broke out in New York City during the Civil War. The Union Army killed many protestors of the then new draft.

More like good ole George Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion.

[The Duke]

Dont ever believe NEVER...the army will and has in the past been used against citizens of this country...

Posse comitatus law; But read on to Martial Law.
The Act prohibits members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.
The statute prohibits Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, not by the Act itself.[1][2] The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.

HOWEVER; There is Martial Law. This has been used quite a few times in my state and Im sure elsewhere. It allows the military to control everything and suspend the constitution.

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order.[1] Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest-ranking military officer would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.[1]

[carver]

Remember the 1992 Los Angeles riots: The riots, beginning in the evening after the verdicts on the Rodney King arrest, and beating by the police, peaked in intensity over the next two days, but ultimately continued for several days. A curfew and deployment of the National Guard began to control the situation; eventually U.S. Army soldiers and United States Marines were ordered to the city to quell disorder as well.

[Gun Geezer]

Most of the riots that have occurred in this country involved looting, burning, beating and general lawlessness and violence. An organized or spontaneous uprising to overthrow a corrupt government is pretty much uncharted territory and I don't think we can make any accurate prediction as to what the police or army might or might not do. After all, the police and soldiers are taxpayers and have a vested interest in the outcome as well. Especially in today's information age, if the media is truly unbiased, the facts will get out to everyone. They are already reporting that only 17 % of the population has any confidence or trust in their government. If that number should drop to 10% or less I'd think we would see wholesale resignations of politicians or at least mass recalls. It doesn't make sense that the military and/or police would continue to support leaders whom they no longer trust.

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by BillM

ROTFLMAO. Never heard of the "Bonus Army" and how they were dealt with?


Check the left hand column in the link below. The US military is no stranger
to "fighting against the citizens of this country".

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html

Wouldn't you think the US gov would just hire a bunch of mercenaries? They know the military won't fight its own citizens.

[The Duke]

Geezer...It would be very interesting to say the least, if the soldiers would disobey orders from a superior...Ultimately the commanding generals who are usually qualified but also politically connected to the adminstration at the time may get 'presidential' orders and then send through the chain of command...If enough soldiers/airmen/marines refused to obey what they perceive as unconstitutional orders, the generals may or may not have what would amount to a 'Coup d'état'...In my estimation, as opposed to use of force, they would have a 'private chat' with whomever sits in the oval office and tell them it aient gonna work and they aient gonna do it...If the powers what be, insisted and took further steps to control the armed services, this country would be on the brink of civil war...We see it now in Lybia, Syria and other middle eastern countries....There could be 'side taking' amongst the military and that would bring about a terrible delima for this country.

I have little respect for todays government, excepting our troops, who have my deepest and longest lasting respect. I hope and pray they will never be forced into a situation where they must make such a decision. (That ringing sound you hear is the alarms at the NSA, meaning this post gets sent up the line for review.)

[The Duke]

Hogger...Obummer already had that idea...Remember his 'National Security Force' that would be as well manned and equipped as the military? Did someone call them "Brownshirts"? Adolph did the same thing and had total dictatorial control.

[BillM]

Originally Posted by hogger129

Wouldn't you think the US gov would just hire a bunch of mercenaries? They know the military won't fight its own citizens.

Ummm---If it gets to that point, what are they going to pay them with?
A bucket of hundred dollar bills will have less real worth than a roll of
toilet paper, and if I were a merc I sure as H3ll wouldn't be taking any
US Govt. IOU's!

[millwright]

Originally Posted by BillM

ROTFLMAO. Never heard of the "Bonus Army" and how they were dealt with?


Check the left hand column in the link below. The US military is no stranger
to "fighting against the citizens of this country".

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html

[bold added]

The Bonus Army was comprised of jobless veterans of WW1 that, at the height of the Depression, marched to Washington D.C. and camped on Anacostia Flats, petitioning Congress to pay them the promised "serving bonus" they would receive at a set age after the Great War. Congress didn't pay. Instead it sent the US Army under the leadership of Douglas McArthur - with the assistance of Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton among others - to disperse the campers. The army set fire to the hutments and physically dispersed the veterans. >MW

[HunterAlpha1]

Originally Posted by millwright

[bold added]

The Bonus Army was comprised of jobless veterans of WW1 that, at the height of the Depression, marched to Washington D.C. and camped on Anacostia Flats, petitioning Congress to pay them the promised "serving bonus" they would receive at a set age after the Great War. Congress didn't pay. Instead it sent the US Army under the leadership of Douglas McArthur - with the assistance of Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton among others - to disperse the campers. The army set fire to the hutments and physically dispersed the veterans. >MW

if only the Bonus (un)Army had been armed, i think the story would've had a much different ending. in fact, i think that if they had, the United States today would be unrecognizable, and wonderfully so.

[Gun Geezer]

What we're seeing here are accounts of specific incidents that involved who might be referred to as "special interest groups" who probably broke some statutes regarding civil disobedience and the military or police responded. What I'm referring to would be totally different. Upwards of 90% of the general population who are fed up with a government who flaunts the rules of their conduct, the Constitution, disregards the will of the people, their employer, is totally unaccountable for trillions of dollars of taxpayers money and indentures future generations in almost unimaginable debt. Also, what is being asked is that new representatives be chosen who will simply follow existing Constitutional laws on which this country was founded by the method described in the Constitution, the highest law of the land. Hell, the military and the police should stand shoulder to shoulder with the protesters until the so-called government capitulates. It could happen.

[mncarpenter]

Interesting thread. We can't muster enough people to give a rat's butt about the general well being of the country, or even have a clue as to what is going on in this administration, let alone get out a decent majority to vote the bums out in a decisive manner. It always comes down to a "hanging chad" or some idiotic recount.
Where in the hell are all the "revolutionaries" going to come from?

[jlloyd73]

To be honest, where would we start.............it looks like voting someone else in just isn't working.

[whirley]

Originally Posted by rentalguy1

More like good ole George Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion.

You should read your history. The rebellion wasn't about whiskey, but about the refusal of Gov't to provide easily accessible courts in western Pa. so people could settle land claims. At that time land ownership disputes could only be settled in Philadelphia between April and September. That's a 30 day walk from Pittsburgh, then wait until they schedule a hearing, then 30 days back home. That's a whole growing season while your family starves. Western land grants were made by Pa. and Va. causing overlapping titles.Most of Morgans Rifles came from western Pa, and they had fought Indians for 30 years, but when scouts reported that Washington had joined the New Jersey Militia at Cumberland, everyone went home, "Because we aren't going to fight against our General. The Whiskey title was put out by Alexander Hamilton, a scurrilous person, justifiably shot by AAron Burr some years later. Jefferson also was a less than honorable person. It's all in the Pa. colonial records and the Pa. archives. So gov't has been shafting citizens since the very beginning.

[whirley]

I read that there's a "Day of Rage" scheduled for September 17 2011 in all the State capitols in the Nation. I read that on the internet. I wonder if it will happen, and if so will it be used as an excuse for Martial Law nationwide?????

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by whirley

I read that there's a "Day of Rage" scheduled for September 17 2011 in all the State capitols in the Nation. I read that on the internet. I wonder if it will happen, and if so will it be used as an excuse for Martial Law nationwide?????

Well...
If people start pillaging/razing their capitals, I would hope so.

If it's thousands of armed but peacefull protestors in every state, I hope that would get some attention. Excuse for matrial law? Nope.

Sorry to disagree with some here, but the military and LEO are FAR outgunned in the civilian sector. How many cops do you have in your neighborhood? If 1 died in every 100 attempted door beat downs, how long would they last? They don't have the manpower to survive those numbers. After 15-20 officers are killed, who else would volunteer?

I don't know about the rest of ya'll, but if the military has a reason to walk down my street, EVERYTHING will be loaded and ready. Army cammo don't make you a friend.

[millwright]

HA1,

No reason - except for civility - they weren't ! Most had brought home a variety of "war trophies" that included machine guns. No law against it at the time.

The real reason the vets weren't armed was they thought it was their right and priviledge as written in the constitution they defended with their lives to petition Congress in an orderly manner for the "bonus" - earned in combat - to be paid in advance of its due date to help them when it was most needed ! Congress - when their press coverage started to turn more sympathetic, I suspect - soon disabused them of that fantasy !

I've wondered if Gen. DDE's venture among the "pre-invasion airborn troops" on the eve of their departure wasn't to atone , (in his mind) for his part in the affair. >MW

[HunterAlpha1]

Originally Posted by millwright

HA1,

No reason - except for civility - they weren't ! Most had brought home a variety of "war trophies" that included machine guns. No law against it at the time.

The real reason the vets weren't armed was they thought it was their right and priviledge as written in the constitution they defended with their lives to petition Congress in an orderly manner for the "bonus" - earned in combat - to be paid in advance of its due date to help them when it was most needed ! Congress - when their press coverage started to turn more sympathetic, I suspect - soon disabused them of that fantasy !

I've wondered if Gen. DDE's venture among the "pre-invasion airborn troops" on the eve of their departure wasn't to atone , (in his mind) for his part in the affair. >MW

precisely what i was saying. they should have been armed on general principle. a crowd of peasants gathered at the castle gate will most likely attract little more than amusement from the nobility, annoyance at most. an armed crowd of peasants on the other hand, will draw the undivided attention of their rulers.

[marlin795]

If the world goes bad friends ill be one of the military who stand with you even if it calls for me to fight till death. I support and defend the Constitution of these United States not the government if they go against it.

[carver]

When that day comes, if it ever does, there will be mass defections of both the police forces, and our military, but, there will be those that will take, and obey un-constitutional orders form a corupt government. And they have a lot of fire power! I hope I never see that day, nor my children, but there are enough comunist in this country that it would be possible to field an army of people to stand against the rest of the population. IMHO!