U.S. Army Trains to Take On Tea Party

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:34 pm

U.S. Army Trains to Take On Tea Party

On April 17, the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky, reported on a military exercise dubbed “Mangudai, named after the special forces of Genghis Khan’s Mongol army who could fight for days without food or sleep. The Kentucky newspaper portrayed the exercise as an effort to train soldiers to battle the Taliban in Afghanistan.

“Designed to test the limits of officers’ physical, mental and emotional endurance, the emerging Army exercise offered a revealing window onto modern combat training in the era of Iraq and Afghanistan, Chris Kenning wrote for the newspaper. “Over three days last week, participants had to crawl on their bellies under real machine-gun fire, shimmy commando-style over a single rope high in the air and march for more than 22 miles through forests.

But according to information received by The Patriot Post blog, there is another aspect to the military exercises not reported by local media.

“This week, I was contacted by a number of military personnel, enlisted and officer ranks, who expressed concern about a military exercise underway at Ft. Knox, the U.S. Bullion Depository. As with most such exercises, the Ft. Knox alert occurred in stages, as if real time intelligence was being provided at various intervals, writes Mark Alexander.

Alexander cites an intel advisory issued on Friday, April 23, 2010, that identifies terrorist threat adversaries as “Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party (see image below).

In short, the military was training in Kentucky to take on mythical militias — no word if they were of the FBI-created variety — and remarkably the non-violent Tea Party movement.

“Anti-Government – Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity during a protest at Fort Knox. The Tea Party “groups are armed, have combative training and some are former Military Snipers. Some may have explosives training / experience, according to the intel report.

An intel report update, dated Monday, 26 April 2010, noted that a “rally at the Militia compound occurred, and “Viable threats ¦ have been made¦ Many members were extremely agitated at what they referred to as Government intervention and over taxation in their lives. Alcohol use ‘fanned the flames.’ Many military grade firearms were openly carried. An ad hoc ’shoot the government agent’ event was held with prizes (alcohol) given for the best shot placement.

In addition to being drunkards, the report describes the Tea Party as bomb-throwers. “Components of bomb making are reported to have been on the site. Some members have criminal records relating to explosive and weapons violations.

In response to the this “immediate threat, the military established concentration camps for “mass arrests.

QRF, short for the Quick Reaction Force of the 16th Cavalry Regiment and the 194th Armored Brigade were placed on two hour recall. “The 26 April order gives specific instructions for the 5-15 CAV (a 16th Cavalry battalion) to have weapons, ammo, vehicles and communications at ready, and it places the other 2,200 members of the units on two-hour recall. In other words, these orders are to gear up for defending Ft. Knox against Tea Party folks and their co-conspirators who oppose nationalization of our health care sector, writes Alexander.

Military officers and enlisted personnel told Alexander about their concerns:

As one put it, the exercise “misrepresents freedom loving Americans as drunken, violent racists — the opponents of Obama’s policies have been made the enemy of the U.S. Army.

They were equally concerned that command staff at Ft. Knox had signed off on this exercise, noting, “it has been issued and owned by field grade officers who lead our battalions and brigades, which is to say many Lieutenant Colonels saw this order before it was implemented.

In fact, we can assume this “exercise was orchestrated at the highest levels in the Pentagon. Lieutenant Colonels merely carry out orders.

An Army document entitled “Army Continuity of Operations Program (COOP) spells out the militarization of the U.S. “Homeland under Northcom.

In July, 2009, Infowars reported on a Missouri National Guard unit out of Camp Crowder engaged in a training exercise designed to take on a fictitious militant group. An earlier exercise in the Black Hills of South Dakota trained soldiers to confront an “insurgent group with “a reputation for harassing convoys with ambushes and improvised explosive devices.

In September, 2008, the Pentagon announced the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team would be deployed in the United States under the control of Northcom. “They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack, the Army Times reported. (Emphasis added.)

Since the end of the Civil War deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act.

In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a bill containing controversial provisions granting the president the ability to use federal troops inside the United States in emergency situations. These changes (in Section 1076) were included in the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007. In 2008, Congress restored many of the earlier limitations on the president’s ability to deploy troops within the United States, but Bush issued a signing statement indicating he was not bound by the changes. Obama has taken up with signing statements where Bush left off.

A report issued in 2008 by the U.S. Army War College discussed the use of American troops to quell civil unrest brought about by a worsening economic crisis. The report from the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute warned that the U.S. military must prepare for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States that could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse or “loss of functioning political and legal order.

For more than a decade the Pentagon has endeavored to acclimate Americans to the presence of troops on the streets. Instances of the Pentagon putting troops on the streets are numerous and have increased in frequency over the last few years.

In March of 2009, Infowars reported on U.S. Army soldiers dispatched in Samson, Alabama, supposedly in response to a rampaging gunman.

In December, 2008, the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center and the local California Highway Patrol worked together “in a joint effort to reduce accidents and drinking and driving in San Bernardino County, a blatant violation of Posse Comitatus.

The Iowa National Guard planned an exercise in the small town of Arcadia but rolled back the invasion after citizens complained about soldiers patrolling the streets of an American town.

Military police were positioned at the 2009 Kentucky Derby and in April of the same year 400 National Guard Combat Support Battalion troops were dispatched to “maintain public order at the Boston Marathon.

In April of 2009, an Infowars reader sent a page taken from the Hardeman County, Tennessee, Bulletin Times announcing a seat belt checkpoint to be conducted on April 4 “in conjunction with a Homeland Security training exercise by the 251st Military Police in Bolivar who recently returned from Iraq.

On April 15, 2009, Paul Joseph Watson reported on the Maryland National Guard put on alert in anticipation of Tax Day nationwide Tea Party protests. A Force Protection Advisory issued on April 11 instructed the National Guard to be on alert during the Tea Party protests because Guardsmen and Guard facilities might become “targets of opportunity. It was later learned that the Department of Homeland Security had put the protesters under surveillance.

YouTube - Police State 2000 Urban Warfare Training 1 of 11

Adding the Tea Party to the list of “insurgents is a new and especially surreal development, but hardly an unexpected one considering the fear of the establishment to this growing political movement.

A poll conducted earlier this month found supporters of the Tea Party to be primarily white, male, married and older than 45.

“Of the 18 percent of Americans who identified themselves as supporters, 20 percent, or 4 percent of the general public, said they had given money or attended a Tea Party event, or both. These activists were more likely than supporters generally to describe themselves as very conservative and had more negative views about the economy and Mr. Obama. They were more angry with Washington and intense in their desires for a smaller federal government and deficit, the New York Times reported.

They are not, as the DHS and the Southern Poverty Law Center would have it, disgruntled returning veterans, white supremacists, and violent militia members who hate Obama because of his skin color.

Over the last several months the government and corporate media have endeavored to portray this demographic as potentially violent and has fallaciously connected it to white supremacists and a mythical militia movement that is supposedly gearing up to attack the government.

If we are to believe the above report, the U.S. military is preparing to attack Tea Party supporters. All that will be required is an appropriate false flag event to set this act in motion.

YouTube - Alex Jones: Sets The Record Straight and Reaches Out to The Military

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:36 pm

You gotta love it. Just like Alex Jones said when joking about certain factions of the American Government and how they plan to deal with rebellious American citizens, "These people are crazy. They think we're going to arrest them all and throw them in jail. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to arrest them all and throw them in jail."

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:56 pm

"If we are to believe the above report,..."

That says it all.

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:10 pm

More Copy&Paste from Prisonplanet.

Talk about a one trick pony...

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:20 pm

Richard Bell;1307100 wrote: More Copy&Paste from Prisonplanet.

Talk about a one trick pony...

Well, I can't help it sometimes. I mean you should just be happy I didn't post something about Jennifer Aniston's new haircut from yahoo news or one of the major media networks.

Royd Fissure · Post by **Royd Fissure** » Tue May 04, 2010 2:16 pm

I can't see a problem with a country's military preparing itself to meet internal threats should they arise.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue May 04, 2010 8:18 pm

I love it. I mean whats the point of having a military if they cant roll a couple of tanks down Main St. every once in awhile?

I wonder if Miss Golly Gee Whiz You Betcha has what it takes to do a Tienanmen Square and just let that thing run right through her.

God I bet Fox would be all over that like white on rice.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 05, 2010 11:13 am

Spooky, it's the 40th anniversary of the Kent State shootings.

Shots Still Reverberate For Survivors Of Kent State : NPR

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Fri May 07, 2010 2:23 pm

I see what you guys are saying except the situation has the possibility to tear the country apart in many different ways if that were to happen. The ramifications of the American military cracking down on it's own people will cause political turmoil to the likes as has possibly never been seen before even during the civil war. If you think it's bad in Greece right now then you haven't seen anything yet because the American people are far worse because they know how to get their state involved and inevitably it could even lead to different states choosing to secede from the Union. It could be utter chaos. Try having a politician have to explain why 30 Americans were gunned down in violence after protesting something that the government didn't like. It wouldn't be a pretty picture at all. If something like that ever happened. Not here. Not in America.

Royd Fissure · Post by **Royd Fissure** » Fri May 07, 2010 6:50 pm

Protests are dealt with by local law enforcement. Insurrections are dealt with by the military.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 08, 2010 12:35 am

TruthBringer;1308724 wrote: I see what you guys are saying except the situation has the possibility to tear the country apart in many different ways if that were to happen. The ramifications of the American military cracking down on it's own people will cause political turmoil to the likes as has possibly never been seen before even during the civil war. If you think it's bad in Greece right now then you haven't seen anything yet because the American people are far worse because they know how to get their state involved and inevitably it could even lead to different states choosing to secede from the Union. It could be utter chaos. Try having a politician have to explain why 30 Americans were gunned down in violence after protesting something that the government didn't like. It wouldn't be a pretty picture at all. If something like that ever happened. Not here. Not in America.

It has actually happened and the people didn't rise in revolt why do you think it would be any different now?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat May 08, 2010 6:49 am

gmc;1308789 wrote: It has actually happened and the people didn't rise in revolt why do you think it would be any different now?

The people rose in revolt in the 1770's. And, we ain't forgot how.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 08, 2010 7:54 am

hoppy;1308827 wrote:

The people rose in revolt in the 1770's. And, we ain't forgot how.

Yes but in more recent times when your troops gunned down unarmed demonstrators for protesting against the government no one rose in revolt did they? They probably still wouldn't.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat May 08, 2010 8:01 am

gmc;1308832 wrote: Yes but in more recent times when your troops gunned down unarmed demonstrators for protesting against the government no one rose in revolt did they? They probably still wouldn't.

Don't count on that now. If Obama did anything, it's that he united a huge portion of the USA against big government.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 08, 2010 9:39 am

hoppy;1308835 wrote: Don't count on that now. If Obama did anything, it's that he united a huge portion of the USA against big government.

Well it's a question, is it not, of whether Bush managed to anger more people than Obama is likely to. Why is it you are not angry at an insane foreign policy and at the banks and financial institutions that have almost wrecked your country?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat May 08, 2010 10:45 am

gmc;1308860 wrote: Well it's a question, is it not, of whether Bush managed to anger more people than Obama is likely to. Why is it you are not angry at an insane foreign policy and at the banks and financial institutions that have almost wrecked your country?

Don't think we aren't.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat May 08, 2010 6:11 pm

gmc;1308832 wrote: Yes but in more recent times when your troops gunned down unarmed demonstrators for protesting against the government no one rose in revolt did they? They probably still wouldn't.

America was born with it's own Spirit. Anyone who was born in this country has inherited that Spirit. Don't ever think the American people are passive. We are just easy to trust. But once we realize we have been swindled, the American Spirit will always appear. And it is rock solid. As rock solid as it was when we defeated the British. As rock solid as it was when we defeated Hitler and his minions. And as rock solid as it will continue to be as long as this country exists. If our government chooses to become an enemy of the people, then an enemy of the people it will be. And just like we have defeated all of our enemies of the past, this one would be no different.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat May 08, 2010 6:46 pm

Matter of fact, many people may not realize this, but America was born under the astrological sign of Cancer. And that means that for America it will always be that family is of primary importance. Don't mess with a Cancer's family (whether it be related family, unrelated family, hypothetical family, metaphorical family, whatever). That means that the Spirit of America will always be focused on family, because Cancer rules that arena. I should know, because I am one. But it is no coincidence that America is referred to in the female sense, because mothership is ruled by the female sex. And it is therefore important for people to understand that as far as America is concerned, the American people are America's children. We are America's family. And the true Spirit of America will shine through all of us, and when facing the toughest of times we will be forced to look at each other as Brothers and Sisters of our motherland. The individual born under the sign of Cancer will die to protect it's family. And that is the Spirit that has kept our country alive and safe for all these years.

Royd Fissure · Post by **Royd Fissure** » Sun May 09, 2010 2:53 pm

TruthBringer;1308892 wrote: America was born with it's own Spirit. Anyone who was born in this country has inherited that Spirit. Don't ever think the American people are passive. We are just easy to trust. But once we realize we have been swindled, the American Spirit will always appear. And it is rock solid. As rock solid as it was when we defeated the British. As rock solid as it was when we defeated Hitler and his minions. And as rock solid as it will continue to be as long as this country exists. If our government chooses to become an enemy of the people, then an enemy of the people it will be. And just like we have defeated all of our enemies of the past, this one would be no different.

History is an amazing teacher and we can learn much from it. For example, the War of Independence/Revolutionary War would not have been won by the colonists without the French. The Nazis and the Japanese Imperial Forces would not have been defeated by the Allies without the US. But waging international war is a very different prospect from insurrection.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sun May 09, 2010 3:27 pm

Royd Fissure;1309005 wrote: History is an amazing teacher and we can learn much from it. For example, the War of Independence/Revolutionary War would not have been won by the colonists without the French. The Nazis and the Japanese Imperial Forces would not have been defeated by the Allies without the US. But waging international war is a very different prospect from insurrection.

Right and I was talking more about protecting our country from within and by doing that defending against it from those who would seek to do it harm from without.

Declaring war on other nations is not a Cancer's strength. The crabs true strength comes from it's defensive abilities. Not it's aggressive abilities. Without the crabs defensive shell it is nothing more than a skinny little crustacean that would not survive for very long. It's shell is what gives it it's strength. So America should always be looking to defend from within first (which is why I strongly believe in strengthening the protection along our borders even if that involved militarizing them for the time being).

Of all of the astrological signs, the crab is the master of defense. We have never been beaten on our homeland but that is because few countries have ever dared to attempt to defeat us here. If we lose our shell though (our sense of protection and awareness), we will be defeated just like a crab would be mincemeat without it's protective coating. Hermit crabs will only leave their shell to find a new one, and they do it as fast as they can before it's too late. If America doesn't focus on protecting itself from within which we have always been awesome at doing up until this point, and if we don't stop focusing so much outwardly on the problems of the World and disregard our own, then we will suffer the same fate as those little hermit crabs who were unfortunate enough to get eaten while defenseless.

It's no different. We MUST protect our borders, we MUST strengthen our defenses and our security from within. It's the only way for us to ensure the survival of our nation for many many years into the future.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Mon May 10, 2010 7:46 am

So¦ if people started rising up within the USA and blowing up stuff and attacking government buildings¦the law enforcement is suppose to do¦. Nothing?

I don’t think so

It was not all that long ago when the 3 students in Kent State University in Ohio were shot dead and that was a peaceful protest.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Mon May 10, 2010 4:17 pm

mikeinie;1309111 wrote: So… if people started rising up within the USA and blowing up stuff and attacking government buildings…the law enforcement is suppose to do…. Nothing?

I don’t think so

What are you talking about? Where did I say that?

In fact protecting ourselves from within is exactly where I say we should place most of our focus on. But the fact remains that the borders are not secure. We are dealing with many problems on many fronts right now, and illegal immigration is having a backlash on our economy.

I don't think waging more than one war on one front is a smart idea for the United States. If we attacked Iran or any other major player right now we would be opening up a whole new can of worms. We should withdraw our forces and place them here in the United States where they are most needed. We could use them to secure our borders, and we could use them to keep watch here in the garrison rather than being out there living in the field like some kind of wild-men of Africa. No offense to the wild men of Africa, but they live on the go. Our troops can not live on the go, the war in Iraq didn't make too much of a difference for our country (in fact things have gotten worse since then - not in terms of terror but in other areas), and so it's time for the troops to come home and stay home for the time being.

We have to fix our own problems first, our own cancers, before we can attempt to help heal the World. And we do have many problems to deal with here on our home turf.

Royd Fissure · Post by **Royd Fissure** » Tue May 11, 2010 12:42 am

It's an interesting point, about locating your (US) military. But ti seems to me that since the invention of civil (not "civilian") law enforcement (and its been around well before 1829) the military in a polity has been used primarily for defence of that polity, of its interests and the prosecution of the economic interests of the state and/or some of its members. Having a huge standing army at home isn't really necessary outside of those three categories I think.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue May 11, 2010 4:01 am

TruthBringer;1309241 wrote: What are you talking about? Where did I say that?

.

My comment was not directed at you, it was at one of the other statements

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 12, 2010 7:11 am

mikeinie;1309111 wrote: So¦ if people started rising up within the USA and blowing up stuff and attacking government buildings¦the law enforcement is suppose to do¦. Nothing?

I don’t think so

It was not all that long ago when the 3 students in Kent State University in Ohio were shot dead and that was a peaceful protest.

I referred to that as well with equally no response. I find many american posters either are unaware of the incident, entirely understandable since it was forty years ago. prefer not to think about it. Or, like many at the time think it is quite OK for the government to gun down those who dare to protest or are unpatriotic in their eyes. Certainly at the time many seemed to think the action justified.

I suppose the point is they weren't gunned down for protesting against the government but for protesting against going to war for no good reason. If someone makes you fell guilty about an action you supported you either listen or try and shut them up.

I was a teenager at the time. I remember finding it incredible that in a free country there were armed troops at a protest.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed May 12, 2010 8:37 am

gmc;1309646 wrote: I referred to that as well with equally no response. I find many american posters either are unaware of the incident, entirely understandable since it was forty years ago. prefer not to think about it. Or, like many at the time think it is quite OK for the government to gun down those who dare to protest or are unpatriotic in their eyes. Certainly at the time many seemed to think the action justified.

I suppose the point is they weren't gunned down for protesting against the government but for protesting against going to war for no good reason. If someone makes you fell guilty about an action you supported you either listen or try and shut them up.

I was a teenager at the time. I remember finding it incredible that in a free country there were armed troops at a protest.
I never met an American who was unaware of this incident. I also haven't met one that thought it was OK for this to happen, most of us believe it was more accidental than purposeful.

Here is an article at Kent edu that gives what may be a decent unbiased look at the catastrophe.

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 12, 2010 9:15 am

YZGI;1309655 wrote: I never met an American who was unaware of this incident. I also haven't met one that thought it was OK for this to happen, most of us believe it was more accidental than purposeful.

Here is an article at Kent edu that gives what may be a decent unbiased look at the catastrophe.

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm

I have but I can't claim to know a representative example. I also remember many of the comments in the press at the time and there was a lot of hostility to the anti-war movement. Although not being an american you can only judge by what you see. We refused to get involved in the vietnam war which was something that annoyed many americans. I had an uncle to whom I commented that i couldn't imagine a british government using troops against it's own people at a demonstration. It was an eye opener for me as he had been a boy in Glasgow and had seen the tanks and troops ready in the saltmarket to be used against strikers, that conversation started my interest in political history. What you see isn't always the way it happened.

Different perspective from someone who was there.

Rep. Alan Grayson: Kent State: "They Can't Kill Us All"

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed May 12, 2010 9:22 am

Isn't it funny that Vietnam caused so much internal unrest, but Iraq, which is just as futile, ill-thought-out, and wrong gets nothing but a blurb on the fourth page of the daily newspaper?

No protests.

No signs.

No sit-ins.

Nothing. Kind of sad how we all just kind of gave up on that war.:-3

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed May 12, 2010 10:06 am

gmc;1309663 wrote: I have but I can't claim to know a representative example. I also remember many of the comments in the press at the time and there was a lot of hostility to the anti-war movement. Although not being an american you can only judge by what you see. We refused to get involved in the vietnam war which was something that annoyed many americans. I had an uncle to whom I commented that i couldn't imagine a british government using troops against it's own people at a demonstration. It was an eye opener for me as he had been a boy in Glasgow and had seen the tanks and troops ready in the saltmarket to be used against strikers, that conversation started my interest in political history. What you see isn't always the way it happened.

Different perspective from someone who was there.

Rep. Alan Grayson: Kent State: "They Can't Kill Us All"
Seems I've read about some protests in England not long ago where protesters were injured or died. It can happen anywhere.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 12, 2010 10:27 am

YZGI;1309685 wrote: Seems I've read about some protests in England not long ago where protesters were injured or died. It can happen anywhere.

Yes, the G20 protests in London a year ago - a cop hit a passer-by a bit too hard with his truncheon and he died of a haemorrhage. Another case has recently been back in the news from thirty years ago where a similar thing happened.

Totally unacceptable - but very different to the army opening fire on unarmed protesters.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 12, 2010 10:52 am

YZGI;1309685 wrote: Seems I've read about some protests in England not long ago where protesters were injured or died. It can happen anywhere.

We have a very long history of violent protest and riots But you don't see troops deployed. Northern ireland was an exception but even there troops opened fire on very few occasions.

posted by saint

Isn't it funny that Vietnam caused so much internal unrest, but Iraq, which is just as futile, ill-thought-out, and wrong gets nothing but a blurb on the fourth page of the daily newspaper?

Maybe because there is no call up. There is plenty said here and most people oppose it, even those who were taken in by Balir and Bush. Yet we are still there.