15 votes

Military used against Civilians? Did you know about Patton?

The link below is a video of old news reels regarding the 1932 attack in DC of military agains WW1 veterans!! This remided me of OCW without the Orwellian technology.

http://youtu.be/sNOsIB5VMSQ

http://www.brasschecktv.c...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nothing has changed. Get

Nothing has changed.
Get citizenship! Join the army young immigrant. You will be rewarded.
Black mark on Hoovers career.

Southern Agrarian

Jesus would still be alive if he had guns

Lmao...

He is alive!

And he is coming back.

I won't hold my breath

nor give someone 10% of my earnings and 100% of my mind.

I don't really care if any of the religions are true...none of the gods own me, I'm not their slave. If they exist, they probably have the power to bully me after I die...but I damn sure am not going to let gods' middle men bully me before I die.

If this is news to you, ever heard of Maj Gen Smedley Butler?

Grandpappy Bush and friends tried to overthrow the US Government and install a Nazi government, Smedley Butler stopped them. Well, delayed them a generation or two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXGUgFXoRu4

This BBC presentation says something like "If these accounts are true" and that is whitewash, the facts are well documented.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

excellent post fishy...

excellent post fishy...

Fascinating story...

Great find.. I guess this was the original occupy DC.

Can't believe the story of Patton.

I'd be nice to see the veterans do this again to protest the war...

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

this is a perfect reason why 2nd amendment is important

would have been a completely different outcome if those vets were arms.

This may even be a different country right now if those guys were armed.

may have ended differently if they were armed

would have changed the whole demeaner of the military

Returning Veterans Treated Poorly

Sound familiar?

Korea - ignored, unimportant, "you guys didn't lose... but you didn't win".
Vietnam - despised, feared, outcast, "you guys lost".
Gulf 1 - Gulf war Syndrome doesn't exist, "it's just a headache".
Today - 4 Tours & got PTSD? "Here's some pharmaceuticals, now rotate stateside".

And if any of you "get out of control", we will throw you in jail.

"The Wounded Platoon": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/woundedplatoon/

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Dd you know about Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/

Didn't take long after the Consitution was enacted for the fed power grabs to begin.

Bait and Switch

The lie told today is that the National Government, so called, is the thing used to defeat the British during the Revolutionary War.

That is false.

The timeline starts with events that lead to The Declaration of Independence.

Then 13 State government representatives decide to create a voluntary government under The Articles of Confederation.

That is the "Union" that defeated The British.

There were 13 competitive (or "free market") constitutionally limited governments to choose from in those days.

Then Massachusetts and some other States began to be taken over by really bad people in really high places in finance and government.

There was then what is called the last battle of the Revolutionary War called Shays's Rebellion.

Here is a reference:

http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-...

The Revolutionary Forces lost the battle in Massachusetts and the "elite" (so called) won, and the defeated Revolutionary War Veterans fled Massachusetts and they fled to Vermont.

Since the "Union" so called was still working under The Articles of Confederation and so there was not yet a "National Government" (monopoly) and therefore the Slave Traders in Massachusetts (depots) had to ask the Statesmen in Vermont (not despots) to return the runaway slaves (Revolutionary War Veterans) and Vermont Statesmen ignored the request.

Then Hamilton and the other "elite" (Central Bankers) got George Washington to lie, or be an "Indian giver", or go back on his word to retire, and Washington conspired with the other "Federalists" (who were actually Nationalists/Monarchs/Central Bankers/"Elite"/Despots) to pretend to "improve" The Articles of Confederation, when their real aim was to make slavery legal (slavery by fraud and extortion made legal).

So they made The Constitution.

You can't even say that I'm making this up.

Look here:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/virginiatime...

Example:

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles?"

Patrick Henry wasn't the lone conspiracy theorist who "smelled a rat" then either.

Some people do know more than they are told because we question authority.

Like this:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

"Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Lies are lies, they prove themselves to be lies in due time.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Sheep people, like everyone else, get what they pay for.

Joe

Well of Course

He was not stupid. He was a military/officer man. Napoleon did this etc.

If you want to get anywhere in the military/promotions you have to do these things ie. follow orders imo.

donvino

UCMJ

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#809.%20ART.%20....

http://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

The "I was only following orders" excuse made by criminals with badges was not given any credit in the past.

Example:
http://constitution.org/mil/mil_attn.htm
_____________________________________
After World War II, Nazi war crimes were prosecuted at Nuremberg, and those trials established an important principle: that is the responsibility of every individual to make an independent determination of the legality of any law or official act. No one may delegate that duty to others, not to superiors, and not to judges. It is no defense that you were "just following orders".
______________________________________

I think that many Military Soldiers aught to be given the credit due them for their very generous choices to disobey unlawful orders.

Examples:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5133444.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-ameu.html

Quote:

"1729: Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, commander of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, protests decision to recall rescue planes to Secretary of Defense McNamara. At that point President Johnson comes on the phone and says he didn’t care if the ship sunk, he would not embarrass his allies. Admiral Geis tells Lt. Commander David Lewis, head of the Liberty’s NSA group, of the remark, but asks him not to repeat it until after he dies. It is a promise Lewis will honor."

In that case the order is to shut up.

Now look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBD6Gm6VoDM

Time 38:18

"Everyone knew what worse meant."

If good people do not credit good people for making the ultimate sacrifice, such as disobeying criminals with badges, then we are not good people.

Joe

Does not apply

...to the victor.

Did not see any communist torturers and murders prosecuted; even after communism ended.

donvino

donvino

If you could elaborate on the words "does not apply" as a response to the information I posted before your response to the information I posted then the connection between "does not apply" and the information I posted can be made without ambiguity.

What does not apply to what?

Joe

Jefferson's picture

This

article tells some of the rest of the story after the veterans were offered encampment in the Florida Keys which was hit by one of the worst hurricanes to hit the mainland. Talk about bad luck.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bonus-march.htm

Luck

Luck. or?

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Jefferson's picture

Well

said. It wouldn't surprise me if they knew something would hit there. The place where they were stationed couldn't have been a worse choice (or better choice depending on how you look at it) to put disgruntled, unpaid veterans.

From main OP

Today people speculate if US troops would ever be used against US citizens.

"Only a country deep in 'historical amnesia' could ask such a question."

Any questions?

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Only ignoramuses

who have never heard of the Whiskey Rebellion or the war to prevent southern independence would have any doubt. They are ITCHING to kill us.

Business as usual

Sometimes the good guys win:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm

Joe

Which is why when revolution comes it will not be a

concentration of rebels in one place. It will be guerrilla warfare; sabotage, assassinations, small scale hit and run attacks, bombings with improvised devices, and it will be as much neighbor killing neighbor as it will be rebels fighting the army.

The rebels will be indistinguishable from those who support the government, and will be difficult targets for an army.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Not to mention "The New York Draft Riots"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

This is why secession will never work. This is why "getting off the grid" will not work, at least not by itself. We are dealing with psychopaths with guns. To paraphrase Michael Biehn in "The Terminator". "This thing is not human; it has no feelings, no compassion, no respect for human life or dignity. It is almost impossible to kill; but, unless you do, it will never, ever, ever stop."

Allow me, Bob -

This is the direct quote from Kyle Reese: Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Powerful words, indeed...put this quote in another context and it makes your skin crawl...doesn't it?

------------------
BC
Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry