The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S.Submitted by DrKrbyLuv on Fri, 08/14/2009 - 18:59
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.
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.”
The governors were not happy about this proposal, since they want to maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their 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.
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.”
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.”
There will be no national debate on this issue because the totalitarians running the country really don't care what the people think and the politicians prefer to take the Sargent Schultz approach - "I know nothing" while padding their pockets. Beginning in 2001, our rights were methodically removed under the guise of national security. We were in a vague war against "terrorism" with no clear objectives or end point.
Now, we are losing our freedoms under the guise of "pandemics" and "national emergencies." The President wants sole power to issue up the troops under any circumstances that he alone deems an "emergency." You may remember that during the October '08 bail-out;
Rep. Brad Sherman reported that Congress "was threatened with Martial Law" if the bill wasn't quickly passed .
Later, Paul Joseph Watson wrote that Senator James Inhofe revealed that Henry Paulson was behind the threats of martial law and a new great depression prior to the passage of the bailout bill, having made such warnings during a conference call on September 19th, around two weeks before the legislation was eventually approved by both the Senate and Congress.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was formerly Chief Executive of Goldman Sachs; which along with Morgan Stanley, benefited the most from the $700 Billion. Why did the corporate media ignore this colossal conflict of interest? Instead of recusing himself, Paulson bullied congress.
Henry Paulson is a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and has participated in the more powerful Bilderberg Group and not coincidently, the corporate media controllers belong to the same groups. Goldman Sachs is also one of the owners of the "all powerful" New York Federal Reserve Branch.
Will this president, or his treasury secretary, threaten and bully congress like Paulson did in 2008?
Do we want Obama, an imperial president, to unilaterally control 400,000 military troops anywhere he wants, within the U.S.?
Back in 2008, Naomi Wolf interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon to discuss the possibility that Bush could deploy the "First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, had been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency. for clarification. David Anton said "If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?" "Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders." "But these orders are now legal?'" "Correct."
How can we be sure that the 400,000 military force would be comprised of only Americans?
The article claims that "military personnel" would be used, but it does not say anything about where the 400,000 troops might come from. We have a number of agreements with the U.N. and allies (NATO for example) to help form "international" armies as needed by emergency or defense. And, FEMA has unprecedented power upon an "emergency." For example, they may use foreign troops as needed.
I think the reason why the ruling banking cartel wants foreign soldiers is that they are afraid that Americans will refuse to fire on and arrest their families and fellow citizens.
It has become painfully obvious that our government has been usurped by the international banking cartel. We have seen their ruthlessness in destroying national economies like Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Japan, et AL. And we have seen their cruelty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 1 million Iraqis have been killed under the false pretense of having WMDs.
Let me remind you that this scam is nothing new, it has been going on for centuries. For example, Napoleon offers us sound advice from the early 1800's "The Hand that gives will always be over the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; and financiers are without patriotism and without decency: their sold object is gain."
There is absolutely no logic or national equity to support our private central bank (federal reserve) system. It is designed to strip all power and wealth from the people in establishing a financial royalty and one world government for generations to come.