Wargaming Termination of Tea Party Extremists
Our military planners are openly discussing how to kill "Tea Party extremists" who have taken over a small town in the USA. Is this "operational lay-down" merely a "cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario," as described by The Washington Times, or is it something much more malevolent?
The military scenario appears in the July 25, 2012 issue of the respected Small Wars Journal and posits that, while Obama will be thrown out of office in 2012, ten years of race- and immigrant-bashing by "right-wing demagogues" will have whipped white Americans into gang-like attacks on non-whites.
Then, in a carefully planned operation, a Tea Party-inspired militia occupies the city hall in Darlington, South Carolina, disbands the city council, detains the mayor, and disarms the local police and/or "turns" policemen to its cause. The story continues:
With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish 'check points' -- in reality, something more like choke points -- on major transportation lines. Traffic on ... [major roads] and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for 'illegal aliens.' Citizens who complain are immediately detained. Activists also collect 'tolls' from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition. They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted[.] ...
The article goes on to explain how true Americans will expect the military to efficiently kill, dissuade, and demoralize the "enemy" as effectively "as if it were acting overseas."
Apart from being, as the The Washington Times opined, "dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded," this scenario is noteworthy not only for the venomous description of the insurrectionists -- leaving little doubt about the authors' views of the American militia movement -- but also for the linkage of the militia with the Tea Party.
This raises a series of questions hinted at by Mr. Cary, which I ask straight out: should those of us aligned with the Tea Party be concerned with our government's incendiary posturing? Who, exactly, are these "extremists"? And precisely what activity is it that may precipitate military action?
To answer some of this, let's go back to 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security prepared its infamous report on right-wing extremism. There, we learned:
Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
While that report singled out disgruntled military veterans, in a footnote it explained who else is worthy of close scrutiny:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Since we know that leftists equate disagreement with hate, this report made it clear that our federal government is "watching," which is to say it has "linked with the militia" basically anyone who objects to the platform of the Democratic Party.
Now look at the law under which our government is planning to act. From the same article, and referring to Title 10 of the United States Code, we learn that the president may, at the request of a legislature or governor, use the military to:
§ 332 - Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.
§ 333 - Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.) (Emphasis in original.)
A comment following these statutory citations ought to raise eyebrows. It indicates that the authors believe that the law is "broadly written" and "allows the flexibility needed to address a range of threats to the Republic."
As a lawyer, I'm always concerned when those tasked with enforcement praise as "broadly written" and "flexible" a law they use to prosecute citizens. Beyond that, however, I'd like to know what the heck constitutes an "unlawful obstruction" or a "hindrance" of the execution of laws. What activity might "obstruct" or "impede" the course of justice?
It's not too hard to see where this is going. Listen to the likes of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other leftist shills who claim we want to kill the elderly, pollute the environment, starve the poor, suppress minority votes, etc. Is it a stretch to see these people argue we're already obstructing, depriving, and/or otherwise impeding the course of justice? What would we be facing if they were the ones advising the president on the scope and applicability of these "broadly written" and "flexible" laws?
Oh, wait a minute. They are the ones advising the president...
Let's add it up.
First, we have this "operational lay-down" in the Small Wars Journal which is as much a provocation as it is a threat. Add the 2009 "watch list" lunacy that puts virtually all conservatives in the crosshairs. Top it off with absurd accusations from the left that we are throwing Grandma and Grandpa off the cliff and blacks off the voter rolls...
What do we get?
Think of it. With the federal government incessantly hammering Americans with leftist policy and politically correct dogma, with Americans reflexively and defensively moving to the political "right," we now find the government coolly describing how Tea Party "extremists" will be killed should their civil dissent cross some very indistinct and amorphous line.
Think about Alinsky's Rule 14:
RULE 14: "Push the enemy so hard with outrageous situations and allegations that he is forced to push back." Whenever possible, cause the enemy to respond, and when he does, hold him up for ridicule; then push harder. (By threatening his security and way of life, you will always elicit a reaction that can be turned against him.)
Of course, Alinsky created only twelve rules. Rule Fourteen, like Rule Thirteen, is my creations. But does anyone doubt their truth or applicability?
Further, note where Rule Fourteen puts us. While on one hand, no one in the Tea Party is seriously thinking in terms of armed resistance, on the other, none of us could have envisioned that "occupying" a state house for redress of grievances might be considered "obstruction" or "impeding" of federal law, let alone civil unrest of a nature to possibly warrant military force!
Moreover, it's no cartoon that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams would be on Janet Napolitano's "watch" list. Nor is it funny that today, as revealed by the Small Wars Journal, their actions in pushing back, in effectuating the Declaration of Independence, would be met with deadly military force.
Sobering stuff -- especially when we are staring in the face a second term of Barack Obama -- a term in which he will be more "flexible."
So what should we do?
First, we must have our eyes open to how the left is manipulating us -- pushing us -- with Alinsky's Rules One through Fourteen. In baseball parlance, you can't hit a curve ball unless you know it's a curve ball. Next, we must reinforce and broadcast to the world that violence is not the answer. Finally, just as Tea Partiers effectively quashed the allegations of racism, we must police our ranks to insure that no one countenances anything even remotely close to what the Alinsky-inspired left is goading us to do. As Mr. Cary adroitly suggested, and as I hope I have crystallized with Alinsky's Rule Fourteen, the threat of a manufactured crisis is not just real. It's their goal.
Mr. Reddy blogs at www.cameronreddy.com. His controversial thriller, By Force Of Patriots, involves exactly the type of nightmarish scenario currently being war-gamed by our military. It's available at Amazon.com.