Supposedly various militia groups are on the rise according to the hate mongers at the Southern Poverty Law center. Be that as it may, why, I ask, would the American people feel the need to form such groups? Which, by the way, are allowed by the Constitution. Could it be a result of the oppression that many view as the de facto mission of the current administration? Or could there be more? This excerpt is from The Liberty Alerts Newsletter; H/T to Texas Fred
| U.S. Preparing a Military Response to Coming Social Chaos |
|
As the shocking confidential information contained in this briefing shows, the threat of social meltdown and chaos is so large a domestic law-enforcement arm of the U.S. military (referred to by The Army Times as the “Consequence Management Response Force”) has been created to deal with what U.S. officials believe to be a coming, unprecedented wave of massive social chaos. Later I’ll show you why many Washington insiders (including officials directly involved in homeland security) are personally making emergency preparations for social chaos. In addition, outgoing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told Sen. James Inhofe and Rep. Brad Sherman that so much financial mayhem lies ahead U.S. troops may have to impose martial law to deal with social unrest. |
|
Yes, U.S. Officials Are Quietly Preparing for BIG Trouble Ahead |
|
A new report by the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute states flatly 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.” Late last year, The Washington Post noted the incoming Obama Administration is going to “earmark” at least 20,000 troops returning from Iraq to deal with “domestic emergencies.” Since then, the Army Times has broken the story that the domestic emergency army unit has been increased to 80,000 troops, who are being trained right now in Georgia. In short, U.S. officials expect big trouble ahead — but they are not warning the general public about the danger (much less urge the unsuspecting masses to make basic preparations). A rare critic of the government’s keep-the-public-in-the-dark mentality is former head of the U.S. Commission on National Security, Stephen Flynn. He noted in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: “Too many officials believe telling the truth to Americans about the risk would set off a nationwide panic. Thus, they keep us sheep in the dark for our own good.” |
Tags: Liberty Alerts, militias, News, Politics, SLPC
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 
August 15, 2009 at 07:16
Related; from the Patriot Post
“Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends,” the Associated Press reports. The story is headlined, “Officials see rise in militia groups across US,” but the “officials” turn out to be just those researchers for the far-left race-baiting Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the Southwest are also growing amid the public debate about illegal immigration.” Oh, and there’s the one guy from the ATF, whose lone quote about the growing movement is, “All it’s lacking is a spark.” Like the one at Waco?
The CBS Early Show joined in the fun, as co-host Russ Mitchell also cited the SPLC. “A report out this morning says anti-government and white racist militias are regrouping around the country. The Southern Poverty Law Center says it is in part a reaction to the election of America’s first black president.” Early Show correspondent Bob Orr expounded: “The report says 50 new militia training groups have popped up in just the last two years. Gun and ammunition sales are skyrocketing, and right-wing extremists, historically motivated by a distrust of government, are now especially angry about the election of America’s first black president.” Granted, conservatives are angry about a lot of things Obama is doing, but his race has nothing to do with it.
And as columnist Ann Coulter notes, “Throughout the presidential campaign last year, liberals were champing at the bit to accuse Americans of racism for not supporting Barack Obama. That was a tough argument on account of the obvious facts that: (1) for every vote he lost because he’s black, Obama picked up another 20 votes for being black; (2) Obama won the election in (3) a country that’s 87 percent non-black. So the accusations of racism had to be put on hold until … the first note of dissent from his agenda was sounded.”
LikeLike