January 24, 2016 at 3:18 pm #46795
Even some towns that are bigger will not have the manpower. When talking to a LEO he told me the staffing of a typical shift. I almost passed out. I suspect that unless you are in a big city, the staff levels are a lot smaller than you would think.
Going to be kind of hard to rule with Martial Law with minimal staffing. Even adding the State Police, County Sheriff, and Military it’s going to be a tough battle for them to contain everyone.January 24, 2016 at 3:35 pm #46797
In my town what we have on patrol is a single deputy covering several towns, maybe 100 square miles with 5,000 people in all. This is a 40 hour a week job leaving us with 128 hours a week with no patrol at all. The Sheriff’s Dept would respond of course if something were to happen at any hour of the day. If any State Police were on duty in this area they’d respond too but like I said, there is no way the Feds could implement anything resembling the kind of martial law that some fear.January 24, 2016 at 5:21 pm #46798
Look what it would take to subdue some of the bigger western cities . I know Phoenix well , yes they could play with water and power , but it would only piss off the population more , in that metro area alone , there are over 6 million people , probably closer to 7 if you count all the un-annexed townships and cities . If only 1/5 th of the population decides to fight , thats over a million people . It covers an area bigger than some of the smaller North Eastern states ! Holding onto even a small part of that city is going to be a drain . It will be a Stalingrad for the feds in many areas . Then there is the factor of mutiny , defections , and desertion in the ranks as time goes on . When your doing things in your own country , on your own soil , it becomes a lot more tricky . Local law enforcement have the most to loose in that situation , as their families are from and in the area . Another thing in the bigger picture , that is dangerous for a government , is that when you declare war on your own people , and have severe internal strife . It takes a lot of manpower and resources to maintain control , this leave you very vulnerable to outside attack , we are geographically difficult to get to , BUT , US presence all over the globe could be wiped clean by countries that are not having problems internally , China and Russia come to mind , would definitely loose the middle east , others would follow .
” All plans fall apart on first contact with the enemy ”
Erwin RommelJanuary 24, 2016 at 10:55 pm #46799
[I readily acknowledge this is very long. Skip it if you want, instead of criticizing it just because of its length. Or skim it, and get a bit more curious. Whatever. It’s here for those that care. If you don’t, that’s your right, too. If you spend time on it and have further comment at that point, no problem either. I’ve been and will continue to be respectful to other reasonable points of view – and there have been some.]
I’m coming down in support of Tec’s original comment on the subject: “New potential for much grief, no matter who becomes (or stays) prez.”
I fully concur that it would cause much grief, and could tear this country apart. So, I asked myself, “Why would they want to do that?” And I realized as the question actually rose to full conscious thought, I’ve had that question about a whole lot of things that already HAVE come to pass. And we’ve discussed many of those here in the overall Forum under various topics. The answer very frequently comes up with some variation on the theme that both “official” political parties are simply two sides of the same coin, bent on delivering this nation to the control of a “global community.” Even those that won’t go quite that far, certainly will admit that both parties are unconcerned about truly being bound to (and by) the Constitution of the United States. It makes for good sound bytes in a press statement or quickie on-air interview, sounds good and patriotic to Ma and Pa Public, but we all know that the Constitution is of (at best) secondary importance when they want to accomplish something, and both parties have voted unconstitutional provisions into law time after time. Watch Russell Means “Americans Are The New Indians” video I posted previously. Yes, it’s long, but the insights are nothing short of mind-bending (not because they’re major stretches in logic, but because he’s hit the nail on the head with his analogy that what was done to the Indians is now what’s been done to Americans – and it’s so simply logical!).
So coming from that perspective, asking WHY McConnell would team up with Lindsey Graham (who reportedly wrote it) Orrin Hatch, and others [DARN! And I really wanted to like Joni Ernst!], one has to sit up and take notice immediately with that cast of three characters. We all know that those three cannot be trusted to uphold whatever it is the Republican Party is supposed to stand for anymore (let alone what it used to). Therefore, I detect a very distinct, even strong smell of something rotten – and it ain’t over in Denmark.
Let’s go another step and actually look at the wording of the Resolution. Forget about the fact that it’s unconstitutional in the first place. I can’t believe I just typed that (“forget about the fact that it’s unconstitutional”), but we’ve lived with undeclared wars since Korea, with tens of thousands of dead Americans, and multiple hundreds of thousands, starting with Korea, of significantly wounded Americans (especially when you include the psychological wounds, including those inflicted on spouses and children of those so wounded). Why are we doing it yet again, with such covert swiftness last Wednesday? That should also be at least a yellow flag, suggesting a deeper look is in order. The fact that it isn’t making headlines is a function of the media propaganda arm of the government that slipped this in, like the Lautenberg Amendment (and so many others), when nobody was looking, combined with the fact that we are the frog in the pot, and we aren’t noticing the gradual increases in temperature that now have us near the point of being boiled to death.
So take a look at the following. Without digging into the legal, weedy details of all of the laws, for which I’m certainly not qualified as expert or even competent, it still becomes clear that the intent of this “Authorization” most definitely includes “Use of Military Force” (the very title of the “Authorization”) within the confines of CONUS (continental United States). It also sets aside certain other restrictions by its very wording in the 2nd of three “Whereas” statements below by giving the President “authority … at its maximum, [that] includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Given the use of Executive Orders and the ongoing AUMF’s of the past, plus the absurdly unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, Patriot Act, etc. by Congress, it would seem quite clear by easy implication that McConnell, Graham and Hatch fully intend to let the President take the law into his own hands with virtually no restrictions – and they’re giving it to THIS President with a year left in his transformation exercise.
Whereas ISIL poses a direct threat to the United States homeland that is equal to or greater than the threat posed by al Qaeda prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas, although nothing in this joint resolution limits the authorities of the President under article 2 of the Constitution of the United States, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) that ‘‘[w]hen the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate’’; and
Whereas ISIL, through the use of social media and its online magazine, Dabiq, seeks to radicalize Americans and to inspire attacks within the homeland: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, … [actual authorization details follow]
Read that again slowly, paragraph by paragraph. The first and third “Whereas” sections directly address ISIS within the United States. The second, as previously stated, removes every possible restriction the writers could come up with, without coming out and explicitly stating, “Forget the Constitution! It’s time we took the law into our own hands.” Yet that’s just what this says, effectively.
Posse Comitatus, you might say? What’s that? Who said anything about Posse Comitatus? That argument is null and void anymore – it’s been subtly and even flagrantly violated without so much as a peep on the floor of Congress for decades. It’s another one of those sacred safety valves that has no more legal weight anymore.
And back to the argument that there are too many of “us” and not enough of “them,” I actually agree with that – to a point. But I’ll counter with history, using just one of many instances. Many Germans didn’t want to believe what was really being done within their own and neighboring borders, and even when faced with it, allowed a MINORITY of government forces to subdue any meaningful opposition. It’s called fear and intimidation (note the comment from the Israeli contractor in the Katrina response in one of the videos below). Of course we would have a resistance movement. But I expect that a large (very large) percentage of “gun owners” will not step forward and openly resist, as long as TPTB (The Powers That Be) leave THEM alone. Even if a call-in of all privately held weapons was made, many would not turn them in, but would also not then actually use them against the tyranny imposed to implement that ban. In short, while the TPTB would not “win” in an outright sense, those little communities (even counties) where no fight ever took place would still be “wins” because there was no fight. We might be in chaos as a population within the geographical boundaries of what is called the US on a map, but perhaps that’s exactly the point. It’s really only an extension of the Cloward Piven strategy, and exactly what Marx called for not once, but twice in his three quarters of one page final chapter – destruction of the social and political order by any means necessary. Read it – it’s very explicit.
Paranoid? Sure. It could be. But history is on the side of saying it’s not paranoid, and is instead based in documented fact, time after time, brick by brick – the dismantling of the constitutional republic called the United States of America. Again – watch Russell Means’ video. It’s not delivered by a person you’d ever expect to hear it from, in a manner you’d ever expect to hear it in, or in such depth that you’ve likely ever heard it. Days after finding it, I am still deeply moved by the comprehension and depth displayed by Russell Means in that video. IF it’s truly comprehended by Americans, it could be a game changer. But it won’t be. We will just continue to be herded off to yet another reservation, with further freedoms taken away from us. The Indians have been the incubator for what has now been delivered upon the American People. If you haven’t watched that video, you can’t understand what this paragraph even means – let alone appreciate the depth of what Means was saying.
Thanks, Tec. The rest of you aren’t wrong, you’re just not extending the situation out to its end conclusion. They wouldn’t be putting this into effect unless they intended to have to use it. And if they do, all hell will break loose in this country. And THAT will be the point – it won’t be about simply subduing all the gun owners – they can’t. Just think about the added chaos within the military if implemented – on top of the military vs. civilian conflicts (remember Katrina?).
I doubt that more than maybe two people, maybe three, will bother to watch these short videos. So be it. They’re here anyway, and in an order that is intended (i.e. not just random for “entertainment” or emotional effect).
Ask yourself how FedGov was able to almost instantly mobilize these groups, and physically get actual personnel on the ground long before FEMA ever showed up (and remember: this was George W. and Darth Cheney, not Barry H.). Clearly, there are all sorts of contingency plans already on the books (that are effectively really off the books as far as true federal law is concerned, and therefore out of sight of We the People). Blackwater? Israeli contractors? Mexican forces? Say what?!? They’ve got all sorts of things on the shelves, in the background so it can be implemented on a moment’s notice, and this “Authorization” that entirely circumvents the Constitution further allows any/all of it to be put into effect.
WILL it be misused? Who knows. The point is, that US law used to be about putting individual and state protections into place, above all else, and those have gone by the wayside. It’s Russian roulette, at very best. Why do we fight further gun laws? Because we understand the concept of erosion. And this AUMF is significantly greater erosion. Why can’t we see the danger, and why is there no significant outcry (even among some here)?
Oh – and about the chaos that would be added by troops that refused to fight American citizens, it’s not theoretical. It’s happened – during Katrina. In case you’ve never seen this:January 24, 2016 at 11:17 pm #46803
Response to Tolik specifically: While I addressed it above, I want to make particular mention of your point – the chaos and destruction that would ensue if such plans were actually put into effect. I absolutely agree with you. But do you think McConnell, Hatch, and Graham don’t also know that? Then that begs the question, “Why would they bother, and why the need to surreptitiously slip this in, without any committee discussion and oversight, ready for a vote at any time, JUST as everybody is heading out of town to escape the blizzard of the millenium? Surely you’ve watched C-SPAN, with the lights in the background dimmed, as some senator or representative stands alone, seeming to debate an issue or even present a bill, to an empty chamber – except for the person with the gavel that sits, nodding off, up front. And in this case, this is exactly what happened:
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S.J. RES. 29
You betcha! “No objection.” And one of these days it will be slipped into the calendar for the day, probably with almost nobody present, presented, voted on by “unanimous consent” yet again, and bingo! Done deal. Why the need for such secrecy and cover of snowstorm?
Chaos indeed. Exactly what the doctor (Marx, in this case) ordered. It’s about the destruction of the constitutional Republic, not what makes sense to reasonable, thinking Americans old enough to remember a little bit about what that Constitution really means, or the difference between a representative government, with clear separation of powers (pre-1913), and what we’ve got now (pen-and-a-cellphone government in the hands of one man), as facilitated by the Congress.
Tolik, you’re right. You just didn’t look far enough ahead and consider Paul Harvey’s “rest of the story.”January 25, 2016 at 1:15 am #46805
I watched your videos GS and am reminded that I don’t understand the relative lack of lawsuits and media follow up to the law enforcement abuses in New Orleans at the time of Katrina. Though it was a no-brainer that such a hurricane would hit New Orleans at some point (and will hit them again someday), it was an unprecedented event nonetheless, and in a city that on a good day is borderline lawless. That doesn’t excuse how authorities reacted at all however. I don’t know whether a lesson was learned or not but we didn’t see a repeat when Sandy hit Metro NYC impacting vastly more people.
On the military authorization issue, I suppose I will have to read the actual proposal which to date I haven’t seen anywhere. Lots of folks are saying it means martial law in the US but I’d like to see it in writing. The part that I haven’t heard much discussion of is maybe “they” know a whole lot more of what the jihadis are planning and that is what is prompting this authorization being debated.,January 25, 2016 at 2:09 am #46808
MB, thanks for pointing out my omission. I feel strongly about providing references to quotes, and just plain forgot on the actual AUMF wording I posted. I just added it into the original post above, but for ease of finding it I’ll also post it here for those that have already gone through the long post above. Sorry ’bout that, and thanks.
I won’t get too hung up on the “Martial Law” debate that’s being thrown around at this point. The AUMF awaiting a quick vote in the Senate doesn’t mention that term, unless I just plain missed it. I don’t think the mention of the term is all that important. Yes, it’s a hot-button term for many (myself included), but if the President exercised his authority under this Authorization, the effect is what would be important, not what he called it. My aging brain may be forgetting it, but I don’t recall Bush ever declaring martial law in New Orleans – but even then, that didn’t stop him. This goes even further, by ceding Congress’ authority entirely to the President, at his wish and (literally) command, from my reading of it. (Oh – big deal – he has to report back to Congress ever 60 days on his use of his powers. [sarc/OFF] )
Basically, my concern about this new “Authorization” is that it simply hearkens back to the War Powers Act of 1973, and plays word games of justification through the vast majority of the “Whereas’s,” and then weaves in the middle of three “Whereas” statements I included in my post. There, Congress is effectively saying, “The President can do whatever he wants to do, all the way to the absolute limit of his authority, and we [Congress] hereby add our authority as well to his capabilities.” This 2011 NYT article, concerning the mess we had with Presidential “authority” with respect to our incursion into Libya, is an excellent step toward understanding the extremely slippery slope of almost undefined “authorities” available here. I maintain the War Powers Act is fundamentally unconstitutional. For that matter, so’s the Lautenberg Amendment, among many other “laws.” But then the Supremes didn’t consult me.
Adding in the formal congressional authorization for the use of military force (since that’s what he’s Commander-in-Chief OF) within the borders of the United States, would merely formalize what’s been going on anyway for years in one fashion or another. At Waco it really did include the US military (not well publicized, but clearly documented). In New Orleans, it was apparently “just” National Guard and quasi- (but not officially) military operations like Blackwater, supplemented by various police jurisdictions from around the country. (I can verify that US Army active duty troops also went to New Orleans, but I can only verify that they were for search and rescue and other humanitarian reasons. I have no knowledge of them being used for law enforcement purposes, if that actually did happen.) Now Congress is giving away any last claim to Posse Comitatus, if that even still existed by now anyway.
(Just as an aside, I wonder whatever happened to Obama’s 2008 declaration that he wanted a national civilian police force just as big and well funded as the DoD. Maybe he figured out he can use his pen and cell phone more than he had any idea he’d get away with back in those days – a mere seven years ago.)January 26, 2016 at 5:17 am #46822
GS, Thanks for your “long” post, above. You rightly pointed out that this is just the next incremental step in the ongoing de facto trashing of the protection of rights that the Constitution was/is alleged to guarantee. Every small step into serfdom has been primarily due to some seemingly minor change in law, often said, at the time, to be unimportant ,or something that would never be enforced, except in some dire emergency, unforeseeable at present, unlikely ever to occur.
And then, Pow! The “unforeseeable” condition, or some reasonable simulation manifests, and the authors of the latest “necessary” step in “top-down democracy” are proven to be prescient! (Or part of the Plan, all along.) But by then, it doesn’t matter, because it’s already law, and the guys with the guns are ordering people to do what the Constitution says they can’t.
As for the armed rebellion that is supposed to develop in response, it all depends on how the “necessitating” matter develops, how it is presented to the troops/officers expected to enforce it, how it is presented by media to people not on scene, and just how the affected people react. But even a successful local uprising could only lead to more government reaction, and potentially, an opportunity for foreign involvement, none of which is likely to benefit an oppressed people trying to salvage their remaining rights, or keep their nation from further degradation.
Perhaps it has always been so, but at least within my lifespan, to date, and within the scope of my reading, most of the laws that have nullified or blunted our rights have been inspired by a single source — the central bank and its hellish quest to own the entire world, plus five percent, i.e., to have the entire population of the planet, except themselves, in lifelong bondage. For such people, enough can never be enough.
For those who’d like to see a free well-researched/written pamphlet outlining the history, and leading to the near-present, see:
Follow The Money pamphlet format, 31 pages.
If you’re interested enough to read (also free) in greater depth, see:
Money: Defending Your Prosperity book format, 150 pages.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.