The Civil War Of 2016: U.S. Military Officers Told To Plan To Fight Americans...

[BlindBoo]

"...an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens."

God damn right I would want the army to go in and take control of the city back from an "extremist militia. Who in their right mind would support a militia taking over a town and holding it's elected offical hostage?

 

[The Gadfly]

Spent a brief time in the military police and one of training programs was crowd control, we used bayonets and advanced on the make-believe crowd using bayonet thrusts. The military has often been used to control civilians, think of the Whiskey Rebellion, the bonus veterans, Little Rock and others. The primary job of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States. The questions politicians have, is how can I capitalize on this event to make the other political party look evil.

Quite so. This is why, in those exercises, your primary objective was to disperse the crowd; inflicting casualties was secondary, and if avoidable, undesirable. There is a large difference between using the military abroad, and using it on home soil. Abroad, you want to use overwhelming force and maximum violence; "shock and awe", so as to win quickly; the destruction involved is secondary as it is being done on enemy soil. At home, the opposite applies; here you don't want to use a sledgehammer to swat a fly (that may be OK outside, but in your own house, it tears up the walls and the furniture); you do not want to tear up your own infrastructure, nor (for political reasons, if nothing else) do you want to create even the appearance of a "massacre". Bod brought up Kent State, which is a good case in point; there, you had a small National Guard unit that panicked and fired (as much over a crowd as into it). Even though having the troops there was reasonably justified, the shooting was not, and even the relatively few casualties that resulted were seen as the result of massive "overreaction". For purely pragmatic reasons, if not moral ones, you don't want that.

I've seen enough combat, to know that you do not want that on American soil, unless it is absolutely unavoidable. I caution both sides on this; it is a horrible thing to contemplate, yet I have seen some on both sides here take a rather cavalier attitude toward the possibility. The thought of my beloved army being dragged into such a hideous thing is repugnant to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected. But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.

The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

 

[paulitician]

The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected. But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.

The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

Sounds like Socialist/Progressive wishful thinking. This stuff is very disturbing.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Spent a brief time in the military police and one of training programs was crowd control, we used bayonets and advanced on the make-believe crowd using bayonet thrusts. The military has often been used to control civilians, think of the Whiskey Rebellion, the bonus veterans, Little Rock and others. The primary job of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States. The questions politicians have, is how can I capitalize on this event to make the other political party look evil.

Good points. It's all about forcing agendas on others. Unfortunately, that's what our Nation has become. Very few Americans fight for real Freedom & Liberty.

And today people are brainwashed into believing tyranny is liberty.... That tyrannical laws are actually liberation laws.... That eliminating liberties is actually liberating because those said liberties are occasionally abused.

I could care less if liberties are abused. You don't let a few spoiled apples ruin liberties for all...

That's why those who seek to destroy the Bill of Rights are the domestic enemy - not those defending those liberties.... Politicians that legislate tyrannical laws are the domestic enemy.... Just because 535 people all concur on a law and that said law is not challenged that doesn't mean that said law is "legal" considering that law violates the Bill of Rights - even more so those tyrannical laws set legal precedent for more tyranny.

 

[BlindBoo]

They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.

9/11 was planned long before Bush ever took office and was in motion long before he became President. What you must have meant is if Clinton had taken the Middle East seriously.
Or are you claiming the 9/11 terrorists did not start planning until Bush was elected and did not start assembling training and intel gathering till he was in office?

Ohh and be specific what policy or policies did Bush implement between Jan 2001 and September 11 2001 that caused the attack?

Ah the old blame it on clinton routine.......

Following the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the new president sent stringent anti-terrorism legislation to Congress as part of his first crime bill, including new deportation powers and a federal death penalty for terrorists. The passage of portions of that legislation many months later was the last time he would enjoy real cooperation against terrorism from congressional conservatives. When he sought to expand those protections in 1995 after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, he was frustrated by a coalition of civil libertarians and anti-government conservatives, who argued that his “overreaction” posed a threat to constitutional rights.

No anti-terrorism legislation reached Clinton’s desk until more than a year later. Thanks to an increasingly obstreperous Republican majority on both sides of the Capitol, law enforcement officials were denied new authority for roving wiretaps and new powers to monitor money laundering that Clinton had requested. All that would have to wait until after Sept. 11.

Back then, Sullivan was among those who accused Clinton of having “shredded civil liberties in the war on terrorism,” a concern that no longer seems to disturb him. His memory of the actual legislation is pretty dim, anyway. He wrongly claims that the administration’s 1996 bill “focused on domestic terrorism” rather than “dealing with the real threat” from al-Qaida. Among that bill’s most controversial provisions were new powers to turn away suspect immigrants, swifter deportation procedures and a new deportation court that can view secret evidence.

Recalcitrant Republicans, led by then-Senator John Ashcroft, later defeated another potentially crucial White House initiative. Along with computer-industry lobbyists, they rejected proposals to tighten controls on encryption software and to ensure that law enforcement officials could crack the kind of coded messages found on the laptop owned by Ramzi Yusef, the man who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Intelligence experts believe that encrypted computer links were probably used by the Sept. 11 plotters and their masters in al-Qaida. Some Democrats, no doubt swayed like their GOP colleagues by the generosity of industry lobbyists, joined the Republicans to deny this important tool to law enforcement.

The Clinton administration’s attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged “further study.” (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)

While Clinton and Gore certainly share responsibility for failing to push Congress and their own bureaucrats harder, the aviation industry could rely on conservative ideologues and PAC contributions to stymie burdensome reforms.

Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that “two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage” would amount to “a cost per life saved of well over $300 million.” The cost of such libertarian dogma must now be measured in thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Even before the Gore Commission report, the Clinton administration had moved to place bomb-detection equipment in major airports and to upgrade background checks on airport personnel. Unfortunately, as Samuel Skinner, former transportation secretary in the first Bush administration, told an interviewer in 1996: “[T]he airlines decided it was not in their short-term best interest to pay for these services from their own pocket, so they made a concerted effort to make sure that [they] didn’t have to pay for this and didn’t have to charge passengers for it.” Also unfortunately, congressional Republicans had repealed a tax on airline tickets that would have financed high-tech improvements in baggage screening and passenger security.

If corporate lobbyists pursued their own narrow interests at the expense of national security, so did Clinton’s adversaries on Capitol Hill.

Among the most egregious was Senator Phil Gramm, who blocked an administration bill to close loopholes that let terrorist groups launder money through offshore banks. The Texas Republican denounced that legislation, now belatedly endorsed by the Bush White House as necessary to dismantle al-Qaida, as “totalitarian.”

Don’t blame Clinton - Salon.com

 

[paulitician]

This is incredibly disturbing, no matter which side is planning it. And make no mistake about it, both sides are very willing to concoct such plans. This is only proof of one side's attempt to oppress those who oppose their agendas. It can go both ways though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you talking about yourself, paulitician, because nothing is inherently socialist or progressive or moderate or reactionary about a government fulfilling its constitutional duty to overthrow domestic terrorists.

Your kind of statements demonstrate why the responsible right wing cannot take you as a serious commentator on American affairs.

The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected. But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.

The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

Sounds like Socialist/Progressive wishful thinking. This stuff is very disturbing.

 

[Katzndogz]

Military officers take an oath to protect and follow the US Constitution, not the POTUS....so he would make a serious mistake trying to put himself above the Constitution with the military. He would be locked away in some hole if he tried.

Look around you. How many people believe that obama and the nation are interchangeable. Dissent with obama is disloyalty to the nation.

 

[Mr.Nick]

"...an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens."

God damn right I would want the army to go in and take control of the city back from an "extremist militia. Who in their right mind would support a militia taking over a town and holding it's elected offical hostage?

A more realistic scenario would be OWS taking over Wall Street and holding traders hostage..

The Tea Party never demonstrated any sort of violence yet the Tea Party is used as the faux aggressor in this fictional scenario?

Besides, why the hell would a libertarian militia take a town when there would be no strategic point in doing such? - it would be more practical to take over the local military base itself.... The military would have big fucking problems if a base was seized....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.

Spent a brief time in the military police and one of training programs was crowd control, we used bayonets and advanced on the make-believe crowd using bayonet thrusts. The military has often been used to control civilians, think of the Whiskey Rebellion, the bonus veterans, Little Rock and others. The primary job of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States. The questions politicians have, is how can I capitalize on this event to make the other political party look evil.

Good points. It's all about forcing agendas on others. Unfortunately, that's what our Nation has become. Very few Americans fight for real Freedom & Liberty.

And today people are brainwashed into believing tyranny is liberty.... That tyrannical laws are actually liberation laws.... That eliminating liberties is actually liberating because those said liberties are occasionally abused.

I could care less if liberties are abused. You don't let a few spoiled apples ruin liberties for all...

That's why those who seek to destroy the Bill of Rights are the domestic enemy - not those defending those liberties.... Politicians that legislate tyrannical laws are the domestic enemy.... Just because 535 people all concur on a law and that said law is not challenged that doesn't mean that said law is "legal" considering that law violates the Bill of Rights - even more so those tyrannical laws set legal precedent for more tyranny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's why we are not having an election?

Military officers take an oath to protect and follow the US Constitution, not the POTUS....so he would make a serious mistake trying to put himself above the Constitution with the military. He would be locked away in some hole if he tried.

Look around you. How many people believe that obama and the nation are interchangeable. Dissent with obama is disloyalty to the nation.

 

[GoneBezerk]

While you're busy telling your lies, please tell us about how Democraps put up barriers to prevent the FBI and CIA from sharing info they had on the 9/11 terrorists.

You know, you liberal nuts that hate the intel community and FBI, that believe the FBI and CIA are nothing but troublemakers for Joe Schmoe "spying" on them 24/7.

Nevermind the handful of times Bill Clinton told the CIA to stand down on killing UBL in Afghanistan because of fear of his wives and children possibly dying in a raid. Yes, it is more important to let the #1 terrorists live than possibly harm his little kids in collateral damage.

They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.

9/11 was planned long before Bush ever took office and was in motion long before he became President. What you must have meant is if Clinton had taken the Middle East seriously.
Or are you claiming the 9/11 terrorists did not start planning until Bush was elected and did not start assembling training and intel gathering till he was in office?

Ohh and be specific what policy or policies did Bush implement between Jan 2001 and September 11 2001 that caused the attack?

Ah the old blame it on clinton routine.......

Following the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the new president sent stringent anti-terrorism legislation to Congress as part of his first crime bill, including new deportation powers and a federal death penalty for terrorists. The passage of portions of that legislation many months later was the last time he would enjoy real cooperation against terrorism from congressional conservatives. When he sought to expand those protections in 1995 after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, he was frustrated by a coalition of civil libertarians and anti-government conservatives, who argued that his “overreaction” posed a threat to constitutional rights.

No anti-terrorism legislation reached Clinton’s desk until more than a year later. Thanks to an increasingly obstreperous Republican majority on both sides of the Capitol, law enforcement officials were denied new authority for roving wiretaps and new powers to monitor money laundering that Clinton had requested. All that would have to wait until after Sept. 11.

Back then, Sullivan was among those who accused Clinton of having “shredded civil liberties in the war on terrorism,” a concern that no longer seems to disturb him. His memory of the actual legislation is pretty dim, anyway. He wrongly claims that the administration’s 1996 bill “focused on domestic terrorism” rather than “dealing with the real threat” from al-Qaida. Among that bill’s most controversial provisions were new powers to turn away suspect immigrants, swifter deportation procedures and a new deportation court that can view secret evidence.

Recalcitrant Republicans, led by then-Senator John Ashcroft, later defeated another potentially crucial White House initiative. Along with computer-industry lobbyists, they rejected proposals to tighten controls on encryption software and to ensure that law enforcement officials could crack the kind of coded messages found on the laptop owned by Ramzi Yusef, the man who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Intelligence experts believe that encrypted computer links were probably used by the Sept. 11 plotters and their masters in al-Qaida. Some Democrats, no doubt swayed like their GOP colleagues by the generosity of industry lobbyists, joined the Republicans to deny this important tool to law enforcement.

The Clinton administration’s attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged “further study.” (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)

While Clinton and Gore certainly share responsibility for failing to push Congress and their own bureaucrats harder, the aviation industry could rely on conservative ideologues and PAC contributions to stymie burdensome reforms.

Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that “two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage” would amount to “a cost per life saved of well over $300 million.” The cost of such libertarian dogma must now be measured in thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Even before the Gore Commission report, the Clinton administration had moved to place bomb-detection equipment in major airports and to upgrade background checks on airport personnel. Unfortunately, as Samuel Skinner, former transportation secretary in the first Bush administration, told an interviewer in 1996: “[T]he airlines decided it was not in their short-term best interest to pay for these services from their own pocket, so they made a concerted effort to make sure that [they] didn’t have to pay for this and didn’t have to charge passengers for it.” Also unfortunately, congressional Republicans had repealed a tax on airline tickets that would have financed high-tech improvements in baggage screening and passenger security.

If corporate lobbyists pursued their own narrow interests at the expense of national security, so did Clinton’s adversaries on Capitol Hill.

Among the most egregious was Senator Phil Gramm, who blocked an administration bill to close loopholes that let terrorist groups launder money through offshore banks. The Texas Republican denounced that legislation, now belatedly endorsed by the Bush White House as necessary to dismantle al-Qaida, as “totalitarian.”

Don’t blame Clinton - Salon.com

 

[paulitician]

Are you talking about yourself, paulitician, because nothing is inherently socialist or progressive or moderate or reactionary about a government fulfilling its constitutional duty to overthrow domestic terrorists.

Your kind of statements demonstrate why the responsible right wing cannot take you as a serious commentator on American affairs.

The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected. But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.

The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.

Sounds like Socialist/Progressive wishful thinking. This stuff is very disturbing.

Like i said, this is Socialist/Progressive wishful thinking, and an awful affront to Freedom & Liberty. If they won't go along with your agenda, just label them 'Anti-American Terrorists.' It's as Un-American as it gets.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your talking, pauli, is "wishful thinking" and nothing more.

You are no patriot, and your are no defender of freedom or liberty.

 

[paulitician]

Your talking, pauli, is "wishful thinking" and nothing more.

You are no patriot, and your are no defender of freedom or liberty.

This is your fellow Socialists/Progressives' plan, yet you're blaming me? Take it up with them. And then stop defending it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.

Let's keep matters straight here.

You are merely a fun sideshow on this Board.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.

Good points. It's all about forcing agendas on others. Unfortunately, that's what our Nation has become. Very few Americans fight for real Freedom & Liberty.

And today people are brainwashed into believing tyranny is liberty.... That tyrannical laws are actually liberation laws.... That eliminating liberties is actually liberating because those said liberties are occasionally abused.

I could care less if liberties are abused. You don't let a few spoiled apples ruin liberties for all...

That's why those who seek to destroy the Bill of Rights are the domestic enemy - not those defending those liberties.... Politicians that legislate tyrannical laws are the domestic enemy.... Just because 535 people all concur on a law and that said law is not challenged that doesn't mean that said law is "legal" considering that law violates the Bill of Rights - even more so those tyrannical laws set legal precedent for more tyranny.

You mean the authoritarian right wing that are on the same page as the authoritarian progressives?

That's why libertarians see no difference between most republicans and progressives - you're all for government and NEVER for liberty or the people.... You do as you're fucking told just like some little lap dog...

Because to you liberty takes a back seat to security....

This country wasn't founded on security it was founded on liberty...

 

[paulitician]

I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.

Let's keep matters straight here.

You are merely a fun sideshow on this Board.

Projection. And pretty weak too.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.

Let's keep matters straight here.

You are merely a fun sideshow on this Board.

You're a big government authoritarian fuck that is extremely confused.