Image

"Dmitry Comes Marching Home" or 400,000 troops in US

User avatar
Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Troops in US or when "Dmitry Comes Marching Home"


Comrades,

This indeed is most interesting and good news today!

Papa Obama, being a excellent student of history, knows all too well that sometimes socialist revolutions can be messy. As such, in all his Greatness, Papa Obama, had the Pentagon seek authority to post almost 400,000 troops in the US.

From the article:

The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster.

This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation's governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

(Honestly comrades, if the Constitution won't stop us, who cares about some old law passed by Republicans anyway)

In June, the U.S. Northern Command distributed a “Congressional Fact Sheet” entitled “Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters.” That proposal would amend current law, thereby “authorizing the Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve, to active duty for a major disaster or emergency.”

Taken together, these reserve units would amount to “more than 379,000 military personnel in thousands of communities across the United States” . But NorthCom's Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”

That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.

(Would we have it any other way?)

That section also defines “major disaster” by citing plenty of specifics: “hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought,” as well as “fire, flood, or explosion.”

But the definition of “emergency” is vague: “Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.”
So the new proposed legislation would greatly expand the President's power to call up the Reserves in a disaster or an emergency and would extend that power to the Secretary of Defense. (There are other circumstances, such as repelling invasions or rebellions or enforcing federal authority, where the President already has the authority to call up the Reserves.)

(Vague indeed- of course this gives Papa Obama just the kind of flexibility that he needs to direct a successful socialist revolution)

The ACLU is alarmed by the proposed legislation. Mike German, the ACLU's national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”

(Comrades, I must say I am most disappointed in our normally dependable colleagues from the ACLU. Granted, I could see them questioning this if it was that war-monger Bush. But Papa Obama? I say down with the ACLU! )

User avatar
The first thing that the the troops must do is crush the town hall meetings. Why do people think that they have a right to assembly? Except of course for Democrat and union, but I repeat myself, rallies? These town hall meetings are horrible affairs. These are the people that you would see doing their yards, playing golf, at church, volunteering in the community. The women are the pink ladies at the hospital, volunteering. The men drive sick people to hospitals.

<i>These are self-reliant people who volunteer to help other people</i>. This is an intolerable amount of self-direction and it must be stopped.

And lots of them are on social security and as we all know, if you're not paying into the system and you're not voting with the system, the system must use accounting to kill you off.

It's only fair, for the sake of the children(tm).

User avatar
It's only fair, for the sake of the children™.


Very wise Comrade.

I believe also that we could have Papa Obama declare a weekly “emergency” to better promote his socialist goals.

Perhaps, we could use the troops to escort seniors to "mandatory end of life counselings" or even use them for searching the homes of racist traitors reported to the White House snitch line for anything "fishy".

Oh comrade, the possibilities are endless!
I am sure I speak for our fellow socialists when I say,

"What an exciting time we live in today "

User avatar
Uhh-bam-uhhhh appears to have trouble with zeros. 400 thousand troops is not greater than 30 million gun owners.

And as we all know, the military by and large is politically conservative. Many will defect taking their guns with them before they obey orders to fire on civilians. The oath taken by officers is different than the oath taken by the enlisted. They do not swear to follow the orders of the President.

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

Enlisted Oath

“I, _____, 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.”

(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer Oath

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

(DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. We only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a Presidential Usurper).

Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constitution. Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters. The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.

User avatar
"The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster."

It is obvious that our comrades at the ACLU believe that these troops will not be used to bring about a glorious socialist state, but to prevent it. Why would the warmongers at the Pentagon ask for this? They must be planning to use these troops to stop our Premier from finishing his job. I can see why the ACLU are worried.

User avatar
Image
Whoopie, thanks for the oaths. I will remember that. I do appreciate it.

I have no brief for the ACLU but it does have its uses. I have a friend who is on the board in Nevada and he's told me of cases which the ACLU has taken up and which all of us would defend. The ACLU is by <i>no</i> means as nuts as the legacy media. In one case a woman was pissed at a jewelry store. She protested. She was told to stop. She then got a protest sign and crossed the street at every light change and was arrested.

Now that's strange behavior but that is free speech and the ACLU took it on. And I say bully for them.

My friend is by no means a moonbat; we wouldn't have been friends since 1972 if he were. So in this case let's give the ACLU some credit.


 
POST REPLY