Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
So he "considered" the possibility of using the US military against an American citizen, over an issue involving cattle eating grass, out in the middle of nowhere?
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
So he "considered" the possibility of using the US military against an American citizen, over an issue involving cattle eating grass, out in the middle of nowhere?
Yah, he probably considered it for all of 10 seconds only because some yahoo proposed the idea to him.
LOL..Lefties calling an actual law a conspiracy theory...... Good, when a the Progressives are finally kicked to the curb and their sycophants start raising hell about it, this law can be used against them.
^^ Yep!! Can't see the forest for the trees. That the feds have contingencies for military operations against US citizens on US soil is hardly a "theory" of any kind, yet, if the bunnies just cower further into their hutcbes, and be quiet, they need not worry about that pair of nails on the wall with the blood on them and the club hanging next to them. All they need do is eat, poop, and breed, all is well. Its the noisy ones that disappear.
They find it so easy to just ignore what's right in front of them. The Bunkerville thing could have easily turned VERY nasty. I admit to rolling my eyes a bit at the "militia" types, and then raising them a bit at what were obvious contractors with BLM patches on their BDUs. Unshaven, unkempt hair, "uniforms" in disarray, weapons shining with fresh oil. The feds have built up a nice little army of these contractors, who's motivation is money. So, they WILL do as told to. They get paid whether they "vet some" or not.
^^ Yep!! Can't see the forest for the trees. That the feds have contingencies for military operations against US citizens on US soil is hardly a "theory" of any kind, yet, if the bunnies just cower further into their hutcbes, and be quiet, they need not worry about that pair of nails on the wall with the blood on them and the club hanging next to them. All they need do is eat, poop, and breed, all is well. Its the noisy ones that disappear.
They find it so easy to just ignore what's right in front of them. The Bunkerville thing could have easily turned VERY nasty. I admit to rolling my eyes a bit at the "militia" types, and then raising them a bit at what were obvious contractors with BLM patches on their BDUs. Unshaven, unkempt hair, "uniforms" in disarray, weapons shining with fresh oil. The feds have built up a nice little army of these contractors, who's motivation is money. So, they WILL do as told to. They get paid whether they "vet some" or not.
Contractors who can be blamed for anything gone awry.
Contractors who are not directly employed by the FedGov so the FedGov is not accountable.
Everyone blamed Blackwater contractors for anything wrong uncovered in iraq..remember ?
Even Congress official investigations placed the blame on them which left the FedGov innocent of any wrongdoing.
Contractors who can be blamed for anything gone awry.
Contractors who are not directly employed by the FedGov so the FedGov is not accountable.
Everyone blamed Blackwater contractors for anything wrong uncovered in iraq..remember ?
Even Congress official investigations placed the blame on them which left the FedGov innocent of any wrongdoing.
And the contractors know this going in. Its what they do, and risk is SOP. With base pay starting at around d ten grand a month for field types, they are just doing what they always did, working for Uncle Sam, only now they are being paid far better to put themselves out there. Is that so hard to see? Run, little bunny, run!!! Oh..wait, you're in a cage. Lol
Contractors who can be blamed for anything gone awry.
Contractors who are not directly employed by the FedGov so the FedGov is not accountable.
Everyone blamed Blackwater contractors for anything wrong uncovered in iraq..remember ?
Even Congress official investigations placed the blame on them which left the FedGov innocent of any wrongdoing.
And then they re-branded and the passive American populace moved on... Justice is swift if steal from or kill a person, do it to many, and it is non-existent.
..................... sane people don't have time to entertain consipracy theories.
Yep, because our government would NEVER do harm to its own people. No sireee! Nothing to see here. I guess you forgot about slavery, separate but equal, and supression of women's rights...you know... perfectly acceptable under law at one time. But hey, who's counting, right?
Give them an inch... they'll take a mile. I say vote all of the bums on both sides of the aisle out!
Yeah..but Obama was supposed to be different..the new messiah..
Hey, propaganda genius.....that's all based on DOD 5525.1, which I drafted and edited selected parts for the ACS.
It was published in 1986.....Reagan was president, right?
DOD 5025.1 was Bush the Elder. Or maybe Clinton. I think Clinton modified it, due to base closures and realignments, plus some administrative changes within federal agencies.
It was modified again in 2007.....when Bush the Younger was president.
Anyway, it's your government's plan, not Obama's plan.
Learn and understand the difference. Presidents are temporary employees....but the Bureaucracy? Those are career fanatics and the ones you should fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
This was eye opening:
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
So he "considered" the possibility of using the US military against an American citizen, over an issue involving cattle eating grass, out in the middle of nowhere?
Well, that is the problem with directives and regulations, when written using ambiguous language.
When you look at para I(2) here...
When duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions.
What does it mean "provide adequate protection"?
That is highly subjective and in the eye of the beholder....or eye of the beHolder....or eye of the tyrant.
The language can be much more precise, avoiding bizarre interpretations which are subjective (especially interpretations which are abusive or lead to abuses).
Bureaucrats obviously prefer ambiguity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
Yah, he probably considered it for all of 10 seconds only because some yahoo proposed the idea to him.
A yahoo that Obama selected to be on his White House Staff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic
While that might seem on the surface to be the most civil way, civil wars are seldom civil.
They are extraordinarily violent, because they are intensely personal, being based almost exclusively on ideology, be it religions or political or social ideology.
You can't get more personal than someone's own belief system, right? It's pretty intense.
Outlining...
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No sireee! Nothing to see here. I guess you forgot about slavery, separate but equal, and supression of women's rights...you know... perfectly acceptable under law at one time. But hey, who's counting, right?
