by Michael Gaddy

Members of all branches of the United States Military will soon be facing a most critical decision. The European Union Times is reporting here that Obama is using the deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan to cover for the movement of some 200,000 troops, presently on duty in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan, to USNORTHCOM to prepare for the “expected outbreak of Civil War within the United States before the end of winter.”

It would appear those who call themselves “public servants” believe the people they supposedly serve have become dissatisfied with their job performance and will resort to some form of civil disobedience, which will necessitate military intervention. According to the article, Obama believes the reason for this civil unrest to be an expected “implosion” of this country’s financial systems. Should these events occur, members of the military would be forced to decide whether they would support their government, which gave hundreds of billions to government cronies in the financial sector, or their country.

A prudent man would speculate if the government so fears coming civil unrest, will they move to seize firearms throughout the country and use these military forces along with law enforcement to do so? I believe the answer can be found in the events surrounding the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Government forces there not only seized firearms from private citizens but also relocated many citizens against their will.

Millions of Americans have prayed for the safety of the military as they fight the government’s wars all over the planet. Many believe the military to be defending the country from enemies that would take our weapons and our freedoms. What will their actions be when the US military becomes that enemy? Will the military willingly participate in such acts? Such are questions the future holds.

The government has spent decades defining those who oppose its unlawful exploits as enemies of the state. Those who can or will not differentiate between the government and the country have fallen hook, line and sinker for this demonization of those who demand the government operate within the constraints of the Constitution and moral law. Most of those who blindly support the illegal actions of the government have been bought and paid for with the taxes of those who actually produce something. Unfortunately, primary among those bought-and-paid-for entities are law enforcement and the military.

Both political parties have conducted this demonization of true Patriots. While the democrats have been traditionally anti-gun and liberty, the republicans bought into the program with the fascist Patriot Act and the illegal, unconstitutional War on Terror. The two dominant political parties in this country are two wings of the same vulture: blatant in-your-face socialism. There are no answers to our problems to be found in either political party.

Many on the right have bought into the ideas expressed by leaders of the military that all who oppose the state and its illegal agenda should be treated no differently than the “insurgents” the military has been facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nowhere is that better illustrated than here where a law enforcement publication is advocating military tactics promoted by General David Petraeus be used against those whom the state defines as its enemies. While the article inGuns and Weapons for Law Enforcement speaks specifically of gangs and drug activity, don’t forget the Department of Homeland Security has defined millions of patriotic Americans and veterans as possible domestic terrorists in its report sent to LE agencies on April 7^th of 2009. If you wonder if you fit the definition of possible domestic terrorist, you should check here.

If the European Union Times report is correct and Obama is moving to strengthen USNORTHCOM with anywhere near the numbers mentioned, indicates the fedgov fears its own citizens much more than it fears al Qaeda. Either the government is anticipating a total financial breakdown, there are plans to confiscate firearms, a new false flag event is in the works, or any combination of the three. Either way, they plan on this event occurring before spring of 2010.

On the minds of many Americans and politicians is exactly how will the military and law enforcement react if told to confiscate firearms or move American citizens to FEMA camps.

Consideration must be given to the militarization of law enforcement entities in this country over the past few decades and our gradual decline into a police state, thanks to the bogus War on Terror. That being said, some police blogssuch as this one indicate not all law enforcement personnel are on board with these illegal and corrupt practices. When considering possible actions of military personnel one must be aware of the felons and gang members who became part of the military when recruiters were falling short of their goals. Nothing could be better for a felon or a gang-banger than to actually be ordered to commit crimes with impunity. At some point in time, any true American serving in the military will be forced to ask themselves exactly what and whom they are defending and exactly what became of the “home of the free?”

What will be the reaction of the soldier from Colorado who is confiscating guns and placing so-called domestic terrorists in detention camps in Ohio when he gets word other soldiers are doing the same to his family and friends back home? Who will soldiers and law enforcement officers side with when push comes to shove: the government who has given over a trillion dollars to their cronies in the financial industry, failed to provide their brother/sister veteranscompetent medical care, denied disability benefits, denied compensation for treatment as prisoners of war, placedsingle parents in confinement and taken their children, or their family and friends who have lost their jobs and are seeing their homes and farms foreclosed by the same bankers who received huge bonuses from the bailout money? If military and law enforcement personnel begin to side with the citizens, will the fedgov call in United Nations forces to subdue those who cherish personal freedom and will fight to retain it?

Regardless of which series of events occur, Americans will be the losers. Brace yourselves and prepare, this is going to get real ugly.

by Kurt Nimmo

In an article published in the February, 2010, issue of Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement (a print magazine not available online), Donald J. Mihalek argues that suspected criminals in the United States should be treated the same way “insurgents” are in Iraq.

	A scan of the article. Click the above image to download the article in PDF format.

“With violent crime increasing in many American cities,” writes Mihalek, “it is easy to think of criminals as an ‘insurgency’…. This growing insurgent behavior includes shootings of civilians, a growing trend of gang violence and an increase in narcotics related kidnapping. The trends point to a need for a renewed strategy to fight violent crime.”

Mihalek suggests cops borrow from General David Petraeus, who formulated an eight point counterinsurgency plan to deal with elements in Iraq opposed to the occupation of their country. Petraeus’ FM 3-24 is a final draft on counterinsurgency and spans nearly 250 pages.

Petraeus’ COIN (the popular acronym for counterinsurgency) doctrine is an extension on the Pentagon’s “full spectrum dominance” as devised by the neocons prior to and during George W. Bush’s tenure in the White House. Full-spectrum dominance is a military concept whereby a joint military structure achieves control over all elements of the “battlespace” using land, air, maritime and space based assets.

“It’s important to recognize the most important overarching doctrinal concept that our Army, in particular, has adopted — the concept of ‘full spectrum operations.’ This concept holds that all military operations are some mix of offensive, defensive, and stability and support operations. In other words, you’ve always got to be thinking not just about the conventional forms of combat — offensive and defensive operations — but also about the stability and support component,” Petraeus told Foreign Policy, a a bimonthly magazine founded by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and subsequently purchased by The Washington Post Company.

In FM 3-24’s overview, Petraeus and his coauthor write that the Iraq COIN doctrine contains both new and old elements. Traditional COIN tactics used in the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaya, Northern Ireland, Algeria, and much of the third world include population control (relocation of the population), “oil spot” (concentration of counter-insurgent forces into an expanding, secured zone), population monitoring (checkpoints and national identity cards), and cordon and search.

The U.S. COIN doctrine includes psychological warfare (planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions) and information warfare (spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize the enemy and the public). Psychological and information warfare are currently used against the American public (for instance, the US Army 4th Psychological Operations Group was active at both NPR and CNN, while the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird compromised a large segment of the corporate media beginning in the early 1950s).

For COIN to work domestically, the United States will need to be turned into a police state under military occupation. Think Fallujah and the so-called “Strategic Hamlets” of Vietnam. Think Gestapo, Stasi and secret police.

In Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990,Michael McClintock writes about the change in COIN after World War II, particularly during the Kennedy administration. “As terror was seen as integral to guerrilla tactics, the counterguerrilla would apply counterterror; guerilla organization (e.g., recruitment surveillance) would be mimicked by counterorganization. Counterorganization, taken to its entail, could (and often did) entail placing hundreds of thousands of people under virtual totalitarian control. Which combined with the psychological warfare technique of ideological indoctrination, totalitarian potential could become reality.”

For COIN to work as Mihalek suggests the United States will necessarily become a totalitarian military dictatorship (a process already well underway, as evidenced by the the passage of the Patriot Act — now used against suspected criminals in lieu of actual terrorists — violations of Posse Comitatus, the increasing presence of military troops on the streets in collaboration with law enforcement, and the ever-encroaching high-tech surveillance grid intruding on many aspects of public and private life).

It should be noted that terrorism is part of the COIN doctrine and it was advocated by so-called terrorism experts and the defense establishment in the 1980s. Pentagon legal consultant William V. O’Brien, for instance, writing on special operations, has justified wholesale terrorism as a way to win “low-intensity” conflicts. O’Brien has advocated “exceptions to the normal moral and legal constraints” on military action. Murder and terrorism “may be presumed to be justified by a high and urgent necessity that may require sacrifice of other values such as some of the normal moral — legal constraints.”

“The suggestion that war crimes are acceptable in small doses, the selective ideal of special warfare, recalls the 1967 army manual’s warning that only selective counterterror is legitimate (’i.e. genocide is not an alternative’),” writes McClintock. “O’Brien’s warning not to go too far bears the same double message — that war crimes are to be expected but should not be excessive in number.”

Donald J. Mihalek argues that these horrendous and illegal techniques (although he does not mention them specifically) should be brought to the United States and practiced by police against “civilians” who may or may not be guilty of a crime.

That this disturbing article was published in a trade journal tailored for law enforcement is another indication that police around the country — increasingly federalized and militarized — are being indoctrinated to believe police work is related to the activities of the military.

by Paul Joseph Watson

Former Special Forces Colonel says violence hit town is a “laboratory” as Washington Post advocates nationwide implementation

The U.S. military is aiding police in a California conduct “counterinsurgency” operations as part of a crack down on gang related violence in the city of Salinas, a relationship officials admit pushes the boundaries of the constitutional bar on the military operating within U.S. borders but one that should be expanded nationwide.

“Since February, combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have been advising Salinas police on counterinsurgency strategy, bringing lessons from the battlefield to the meanest streets in an American city,” reports the Washington Post.

“This is our surge,” said (Mayor) Donohue, who solicited the assistance from the elite Naval Postgraduate School, 20 miles and a world away in Monterey. “When the public heard about this, they thought we were going to send the Navy SEALs into Salinas.”

The head of the program, former Special Forces career officer Col. Hy Rothstein, who oversaw counterinsurgency operations in Colombia and Central America, describes the program as a “laboratory”. The Washington Post article implies that the members of his team are retired veterans, yet later admits that the men are “mostly naval officers taking time between deployments,” meaning that they are active duty, not retired.

Another slick form of spin on behalf of the Post is the claim that the program doesn’t violate constitutional blocks on the military engaging in domestic law enforcement because Rothstein’s team are helping on a “voluntary” basis. This is completely contradicted in the second paragraph of the article when it is admitted that Mayor Dennis Donohue “affirmed his decision to seek help from an unlikely source: the U.S. military,” meaning that the program isn’t voluntary at all, the Mayor of the city instigated the military’s involvement. At the end of the article, a nationwide version of the program is also advocated.

Rothstein explains how his team employ methods used against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan to get the job done in Salinas, using military software that “tracks crimes and links suspects and their associates by social, geographic and family connections”.

Rothstein also admitted how part of the program utilizes military psyops tactics to thwart the public from hearing “negative messages,” suggesting control of the local media.

The Post article goes into great depth to depict the town as being under siege from dangerous Hispanic gang members in an attempt to push the justification of military involvement. At no point is it mentioned that if the police were tough enough to deal with real criminals in the first place, rather than feeding on the fat hog of the law-abiding American taxpayer, the need for army involvement would have never arisen.

How many stories do you read every week about women, people in wheelchairs, people with mental problems and other easy pray being tased by cops in comparison to gang members and drug dealers? Perhaps if the cops concentrated on going after the thugs rather than sinking their teeth into the fat, dumb and happy middle class American, then cities like Salinas wouldn’t be full of gang-banger scum.

The crucial part of the Post article is right at the end, when the trial balloon goes up for the U.S. military’s involvement in domestic law enforcement to be implemented nationwide in this context.

“The $1 trillion invested so far in Iraq and Afghanistan could pay a dividend in American streets,” states the article, before quoting Leonard A. Ferrari, provost of the Naval Postgraduate School, who states, “The idea was, not just Salinas, but is there a national model for this?”

Why is one of the biggest newspapers in America, a Bilderberg-owned publication, pushing for the nationwide use of active duty U.S. military units in domestic law enforcement, specifically to combat a “counterinsurgency” amongst U.S. citizens? Is this another progression in the preparation for martial law in response to mass civil unrest, race riots, and even a future civil war?

Or is this merely another gradual blurring of the lines between the police and the military as an ailing banana republic begins to decline into a failed state bossed by a militarized dictatorship?

by Kurt Nimmo

In a report posted on the Wired website, Noah Shachtman mentions a CIA plan to hunt down and kill “jihadists, drug dealers, pirates and other enemies of the state.” Shachtman cites a report produced by the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations University suggesting a global assassination team. “Report author and retired Lt. Col. George Crawford instead would like to see a permanent group with clear authority, training, doctrine and technology to go after these dangerous individuals,” writes Shachtman.

The National Guard has trained to take on “militias” as dangerous domestic terrorists.

Beyond the obvious illegality of such a program — executing assumed terrorists and drug dealers without the benefit of trial — the suggested murder program has another big problem. It would allow the government to define who is an enemy of the state.

The now infamous DHS report on domestic terrorism defines militias, returning veterans, and Second Amendment activists as dangerous extremists who pose a threat to the national security of the country. For several months the corporate mockingbird media has engaged in a concerted campaign to characterize “rightwing” activists as an ominous threat. Open-carry activists protesting at Obama events were characterized as a threat to the president.

In July, the Missouri National Guard trained to engage in combat with militia groups. The Kansas City-based 205th Area Support Medical Company and the Springfield-based 206th Area Support Medical Company trained to fend off attacks while performing their medical duties,” a Pentagon writer reported on June 30.

In April, the Maryland National Guard was put on alert in anticipation of Tea Party protests, revealing that the government considers constitutional activists to be “insurgents” and “militants,” Infowars reported.

In March, the United States Army Reserve Command published a Force Protection Advisory recommending “situational awareness” and “mitigation measures” in response to End the Fed protests.

On November 22, 2008, Alex Jones led a rally at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas Texas. The Dallas protest is specifically mentioned in the official Army document. Ron Paul’s brother was also in attendance. The event was monitored by the Pentagon.

On June 15, Infowars reported on a Department of Defense multiple choice test that defined constitutionally protected protests as “low-level terrorism.”

Rex 84, Operation Chaos, COINTELPRO, Garden Plot, Rose Bush, Punch Block, Steep Hill, Lantern Spike, Quiet Town, Gram Metric, Cable Splicer, and numerous other military and intelligence programs and operations have consistently characterized law-abiding Americans as terrorists and “enemies of the state.”

The CIA may kill a few patsies in the “global war on terror” in order to create the impression of a threat to the homeland. The CIA not only created, organized, and funded al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other false flag terrorist organizations, it also runs deadly drugs for the banksters on Wall Street. Carlos Lehder, Pablo Escobar, Amado Fuentes, Matta Ballesteros and Hank Rohn — these are employees for the offshore bankers that make billions laundering illegal drug money. The CIA and proxy governments may assassinate them for propaganda purposes, but they will not shut down the lucrative international drug cartel business.

The real “enemies of the state” are the American people, not African pirates and drug dealers. It remains to be seen if the government will assassinate leaders of the patriot movement in the United States.

We may be one major staged false flag terror event away from finding out, especially if such an event is attributed to American citizens.

by Paul Joseph Watson

Under the pretext of “helping” local communities short of police in difficult economic times, as well as preparations for a potential swine flu pandemic, U.S. troops are now occupying America as the country sinks into a state of de facto martial law.

We have been inundated with reports over the last few weeks of uniformed soldiers and National Guardsmen running internal checkpoints all over the country as a frightening “Red Dawn” scenario unfolds not with a bang but with a whimper.

The military are now being called upon to undertake roles normally designated to police as Americans are incrementally acclimated to accept the presence of troops on the streets as an everyday occurrence.

The latest case occurred in Kingman Arizona, where National Guardsmen were filmed “providing security” and directing traffic.

Another similar example occurred in Newport Kentucky earlier this month when military checkpoints suddenly appeared downtown on September 6. Military Police from the U.S. Army National as well as Marines were purportedly conducting “traffic control” because the city was strapped for funds and did not have enough police to do the job.

The excuse that troops are stepping in to help because there is a lack of police doesn’t wash. Crime is down over the last 20 years, there are around three times more police and the state is not calling out the National Guard, they are being put on the streets as a result of the harmonization of police and military, a process that has been ongoing for decades, long before the economic recession hit. Troops also have guns and their primary function is to search people and vehicles, not direct traffic.

Members of the WeAreChange Ohio group interviewed some of the troops, who when asked if they would be prepared to “confiscate guns, shoot resisters in the back of the head, or throw people into ovens to incinerate bodies,” refused to categorically deny that they would follow such orders.

Watch the video below.

However, this was by no means the first time that troops have been used to fulfil roles normally ascribed to police in Kentucky.

During the Kentucky Derby on May 2 this year, Military Police were on patrol to deal with crowd control. An Associated Press photograph shows armed MP’s detaining a man who ran onto the track following the 135th Kentucky Derby horse race at Churchill Downs.

“The military has NO BUSINESS policing the citizens except during extraordinarily exceptional times of national emergency by an executive order. This is very disturbing and completely un-American. Maybe even more disturbing is that no one seems to care how quietly and easily we have accepted the burgeoning police state,” one respondent to the photo stated.

As we reported last year, U.S. troops returning from Iraq are now occupying America, running checkpoints and training to deal with “civil unrest and crowd control” under the auspices of a Northcom program that by 2011 will have no less than 20,000 active duty troops deployed inside America to “help” state and local officials during times of emergency.

Read more here.