Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Stealthy Moves against Freedom of Speech

Advocates and defenders of the First Amendment and freedom of speech are strung out like the three Roman legions that were ambushed and ultimately annihilated by barbarians in the dense Teutoburg Forest in Germany in 9 A.D.  Out of a force of about 36,000 fighting men, the Romans suffered between 16,000 and 20,000 casualties.
The First Amendment, appended to the Constitution with nine other Amendments which  became known collectively as the Bill of Rights, reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And that Amendment is all Americans have at present protecting them from censorship and a dictatorship. We are marching into an ambush by secular advocates of censorship and Islamic ones. Our political leadership is either as ignorant of the perils as were the Roman army's generals, or just as careless in its defense, or oft times even hostile to it.
No European nation has the equivalent of the First Amendment. As Bruce Bawer, an American journalist who has lived in Europe for years, noted in his October 2010 column on the trial of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who stood trial for "blaspheming" Islam (and who was subsequently acquitted of all charges):
 One of the most bizarre aspects of being an American in Western Europe — at least if you’re an American who has opinions and is used to expressing them freely — is getting accustomed to the fact that there’s no First Amendment over here. Some of us grew up thinking of Western Europe as part of the “Free World.” But how free is a country if it doesn’t recognize freedom of speech as a fundamental right?
Indeed. Just how "free" is the "Free World" when most of its members labor under various gradations of the welfare/regulatory state? The fact is that freedom of speech in Europe is granted by the various governments there, but it is a conditional granting by the state, and not a recognized inherent right of the individual. And the conditions are many and malodorous. The chief complainant in Europe has been Islam. Bawer notes:
In recent years, the superiority of America on this score has been affirmed again and again, as one Western European government after another has prosecuted individuals for saying or writing things that were deemed unacceptable. In a preponderance of cases, these prosecutions have been for statements about Islam. Some of the defendants — Oriana Fallaci, Brigitte Bardot — have been famous.
The superiority of the First Amendment lies in the fact that it expresses a fundamental requirement for existence, while European speech laws deal with incidentals, as though the "right" to express oneself were a spurious privilege, icing on the cake of a government permitting one to live and slave away for the collective. This premise, however, has been introduced into U.S. law in the guise of "hate speech" and "hate crimes."
Now, the problem with "hate speech" is that it is an anti-concept and an attempt to read men's minds. I hate Islam. So what? I can explain why I hate Islam, but a rational, and even an irrational explanation is irrelevant to "hate speech" law. So what if I express my "hate" in words or in images? Words and images and even gestures are not metaphysical entities that can be shot, catapulted, or flung at the object of hate. Words, images and gestures do not have the physical power to destroy or harm anything or anyone. Perhaps even a dhimmi American judge would concede those points. He should conclude: No crime has been committed.
However, if my "hate speech" provokes initiatory force or actions by those claiming defamation or being "hurt" by my speech, it is the "potential" provocation to action for which I could be punished, penalized and even jailed. The "potential" may not even realize itself, but woe to me if Muslims began taking physical action against me and others, resulting in injury, death, or the destruction of property. Look what happened to the "Innocence of Muslims" trailer-maker. His YouTube film was used as an excuse to blame "free speech" for the attack on Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of four Americans. He was arrested, held without bail, and subsequently sentenced to a year in prison. Initially, however, it was our own State Department via Hillary Clinton together with President Barack Obama that assigned the blame. It was later proven that the film had nothing to do with the attack.
Remember what happened after the publication of the Mohammad cartoons? Muslim mayhem. You wouldn't need to calmly examine Islam as a religious or political system. Even should you suggest that Mohammad had lice in his beard and was probably syphilitic, out would come the crazed, semi-literate Muslim hordes demanding your head on a pike. It would make no difference.
My speech could not by any definition be regarded as an initiation of force. But the actions taken by those who wish to punish me, or to suppress it before I have even spoken it – be they Muslims acting on their own, or the government itself on behalf of Muslims – can be. And the question is: Were my words provocative? In the final analysis, no. Men are free to agree or disagree with what I say, or even to ignore what I say. Absent any attempt by me to force others to hear what I have to say, to read what I have written, or even to acknowledge a physical gesture (such as giving Mohammad an "Italian salute"), then any physical or statutory "retaliation" against me is an initiation of force.
Only a government can employ censorship against a nation's citizens, that is, use initiatory force to silence anyone from expressing a viewpoint, disseminating information, voicing opposition to a political system, or even showing a picture. Only a government can "legally" punish an individual for expressing what is on his mind. And it is the mind which both a censorial government and groups such as Muslims wish to neutralize or extinguish.  
In the U.S. censorship is a mosaic of disparate instances that do not add up to blanket censorship one might otherwise associate with iron-fisted dictatorships like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist/Fascist China. Censorship by private individuals, corporations, newspapers, magazines and the like, however, is not censorship: It is the barring of viewpoints, language, images or behavior on nominally private premises, be they pages in a newspaper, over the airwave, physical private property, or an Internet venue (e.g., Facebook), because they are in opposition to the host's viewpoint or violate its rules. Absent in private "censorship" is the element of force. Individuals do not have a right to force others to act as their soapboxes for viewpoints or behavior others find objectionable or repellent. Nor have they a right to literally force themselves on another's property.
Europe continues to follow the path to a state of affairs concerning speech so restrictive that Europeans may as well not even bother opening their mouths or writing an essay, for the least criticism, especially of Islam, can be interpreted by Muslims and by European Union bureaucrats as "hurtful" or "defamatory" or an expression of "hate."
Soeren Kern, in his October 28th Gatestone article "EU Proposal to Monitor 'Intolerant' Citizens," reported:
While European leaders are busy expressing public indignation over reports of American espionage operations in the European Union, the European Parliament is quietly considering a proposal that calls for the direct surveillance of any EU citizen suspected of being "intolerant."
Critics say the measure -- which seeks to force the national governments of all 28 EU member states to establish "special administrative units" to monitor any individual or group expressing views that the self-appointed guardians of European multiculturalism deem to be "intolerant" -- represents an unparalleled threat to free speech in a Europe where citizens are already regularly punished for expressing the "wrong" opinions, especially about Islam.
 The proposed European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance was recently presented to members of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, the only directly-elected body of the European Union.
Kern goes on to explain that the focus of the proposed legislation is an unqualified "tolerance" that will not "tolerate" the least criticism of especially Islam, and provides a breakdown of the intent and method of enforcing "tolerance." Importantly, he emphasizes:
Section 6 states: "It goes without saying that enactment of a Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance does not suffice by itself. There must be a mechanism in place ensuring that the Statute does not remain on paper and is actually implemented in the world of reality."
An explanatory note to Section 6 (a) states: "Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, additional to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State." Another note adds: "The special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment. Strictly speaking, this preferential treatment goes beyond mere respect and acceptance lying at the root of tolerance." [Italics mine]
The "reality" in Europe is that Islam is setting the terms of every European's political existence. One after another, national and local governments capitulate to demands by Muslims that they be accommodated in terms of mosque construction, blaring calls to prayers, closing off public streets for mass prayers, the serving of Islamic halal food in schools and other "public" venues, and numerous other "concessions" to Islamic mores (such as they are).
Who actually are the new "members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups"? Non-Muslims. What do the architects of Islam's "preferential treatment" expect of non-Muslims "beyond mere respect and acceptance"? The total surrender of their minds and obsequious submission not only to Islam, but to the EU's totalitarian dictats. The Soviets, by forbidding and punishing all instances of independent thought, hoped to nurture the creation of a "Soviet Man," that is, an automaton that would unthinkingly do the Party's bidding. The EU hopes its speech suppression laws will produce the "Tolerant Person," an automaton that will "tolerate" its own destruction by being assimilated into Islamic society.
Jacob Mchangama, in an analysis of the origin and implementation of "hate speech" law in his December 2011 Hoover Institution paper, "The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws," writes that, indeed, hate speech laws are a legacy of Soviet totalitarianism:
All western European countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the EU adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.
Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression. [Italics mine]
Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent.  The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
That "divergence" between Europe and the U.S. is shrinking to a state of convergence.
Bruce Bawer also weighed in on the proposed legislation in his October 30th FrontPage article, "EU Unveils Crackdown on Free Speech."
The first thing I ever wrote about Islam was an essay for Partisan Review entitled “Tolerating Intolerance,” which was published a few months after 9/11. My argument, in brief, was that Islam is not just a religion but an ideology that teaches an extreme and violent intolerance – and that Europeans had a right to protect the freedom of their societies by implementing well-informed immigration and integration policies. Now the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), founded in 2008 and consisting largely of former European presidents or prime ministers, has issued a report whose thrust is – and I quote – that there’s “no need to be tolerant to the intolerant.”
But the argument of the report – which was presented to the European Parliament in late September and takes the form of a "Model Statute for Tolerance" that the ECTR hopes to see enacted by all EU member states, is light-years away from the one I made all those years ago in Partisan Review. The ECTR's concern is not with addressing the importation into Europe of Islamic intolerance but, rather, with addressing the purported intolerance of Europeans toward (among other things) imported Islam.
President Barack Obama pronounced at the U.N. in September 2012, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." But the future seems to belong to Muslims and Western judges who would persecute anyone who gave Islam and Mohammad a scholarly or visceral middle finger. To Islam, everything said about Mohammad by infidels is "slanderous."
Cooperating with the European Parliament is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with its recent Geneva Conference on speech and its United Nations Resolution 16/18, which seeks to ban and punish all "defamatory" speech, most and especially about or against Islam.
Deborah Weiss reported on October 22nd in her FrontPage article, "Geneva Conference Moves Toward Criminalizing 'Islamophobia'."
In its quest to criminalize speech that’s critical of all Islam-related topics, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)* endorsed the formation of a new Advisory Media Committee to address “Islamophobia.”
This past September, the OIC held “The First International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media.”  The conference endorsed numerous recommendations which arose from prior workshops on Islamophobia from media, legal and political perspectives.  A main conclusion was the consensus to institutionalize the conference and create an Advisory Media Committee to meet under the newly established OIC Media Forum based in Istanbul Turkey.
Note that the conference was not held to discuss the criminalization of "Judeophobia" or "Christophobia" or even "Atheistiophobia."
Supposedly, the purpose of the conference was to support an OIC campaign to “correct the image of Islam and Muslims in Europe and North America.”  By this, it means to whitewash the intolerant, violent and discriminatory aspects of Islam and Islamists.  The OIC has launched a campaign to provide disinformation to the public, delinking all Islam from these undesirable traits and attacks all who insist on these truths, as bigots, racists and Islamophobes….
Its present goal is the international criminalization of all speech that "defames" Islam, which the OIC defines as anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims, even when it's true (wrote Clare Lopez in American Thinker in 2011).
Its target is the West and one of its tactics is to accuse those who criticize Islam or its various interpretations as "Islamophobic." It is attempting to pass the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy codes in the West, using accusations of bigotry to silence anyone who speaks the truth about Islamic terrorism or Islamic persecution of religious minorities.
The OIC wants enforceable laws passed in Western nations that complement its wish to criminalize speech regarding Islam. In practice, this would mean that only Islamic clerics and spokesmen would be allowed to say anything about Islam. And Muslims, treated as "victimized" minorities in those nations, would be free to persecute, murder, rape, and terrorize Jews, Christians, atheists and other non-Muslims with impunity and indemnity everywhere and any time they wished. As they do now.
Can such Orwellian laws be passed in this country? The existence of "hate speech" and "hate crime" judicial decisions in American courts has prepared the ground for them here. It was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who invited OIC members to a conference in Washington to discuss how American law can conform to U.N. Resolution 16/18 and the OIC agenda. What difference can it make to her if Americans are gagged and threatened with prosecution for speaking out against Islam or drawing to the public's attention the gruesome facts of Islam in practice and in action?
Just remember, and to paraphrase that Orwellian warning: "Hate speech" is "hate crime." Just ask Audrey Hudson, the journalist whose home was raided by Federal and Maryland state law enforcement in search of evidence of her own "hate crime."
And so began Hudson’s nightmare – held captive by armed agents of the U.S. Coast Guard, Maryland State Police and the Department of Homeland Security as they staged a pre-dawn raid in search of unregistered firearms and a “potato gun.”
“I think they found a great way to get into my house and get a hold of my confidential notes and go through every other file in my office."  - Audrey Hudson, journalist
But instead of taking the potato gun, agents seized unrelated government documents and notes from the former Washington Times journalist.
Agents took Hudson’s records during a search for guns and related items owned by her husband, a civilian Coast Guard employee. They also confiscated her legally registered firearms, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The lesson here is that a search warrant no longer is a protection against the depredations of any government agency that has the power to expropriate one's property, or to intimidate anyone who has been critical of government policies, gaffes, failures and tyrannical behavior. Search warrants are now just a pretext to violate one's person and one's rights.
The barbarians and totalitarians inside and outside our borders are ready to ambush the First Amendment and render us helpless against their onslaught.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Our Military: Obama's Janissaries?

Last May, reading a British Daily Mail article about the umbrella incident, during which two U.S. Marines were ordered to hold umbrellas over the heads of President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden, other than expressing my disgust for the degrading chore the Marines had to perform (against protocol), something else tickled my memory. At the time, I was engaged in other issues and that little gray gremlin never came out of the closet. Specifically, it was the picture of Erdogan, a policy pal of Obama's, flapping his gums while a Rock of Gibraltar Marine stood stoically holding an umbrella over his head, which prompted the gremlin to make his presence known.
At the time, I couldn't make the connection between Erdogan and that elusive something.
This morning, after having imbibed over the past year a number of stories of how Obama goes out of his way to emasculate the U.S. military or turn it into his personal policy enforcer (Libya, Syria, etc.), the gremlin emerged, garbed in a tall funny hat with plumes and long robes and brandishing a wicked-looking scimitar, and greeting me in Turkish – Uyan, yavaş zekâlı biri! – and in Bosnian – Probudi se, tupoglav jedan!*
Who or what were the Janissaries? They were a private army of Turkish sultans recruited from prisoners of war, chiefly from the Balkans. A Harvard Center for Middle East Studies study document describes this special military arm of the Ottomans:
The Janissary Corps, yeniceri ocak or "new soldier corps," was one of two main branches of the Ottoman armed forces, the other being the Sipahis or provincial free-born Muslim cavalrymen, organized in the fourteenth century. The Janissaries were the kapukulu, "slaves of the sultan." The corps members were educated and trained for the Ottoman military and government service and became the private standing army of the Ottoman Sultan. The Janissaries became an efficient and formidable fighting force and the most outstanding army in Europe. Over time the Corps' essence and behavior and the empire's needs changed and the corps was abolished in 1826.
The Janissaries were recruited from captured Christian adolescent boys who were made to convert to Islam. They were a key element in the final capitulation of Constantinople in 1453.
Were it not for Obama's blatantly pro-Islam policies and stance over the last five years, the notion that he regarded our military forces as Janissarian tools would never have occurred to me. It didn't occur to me under George W. Bush, even though he parroted the Islamic line that Islam is a "religion of peace," nor even under Bill Clinton, in spite of his Bosnian intervention in favor of Muslims.
From his "New Beginning" speech at Cairo University in June 2009 through his Libyan intervention of 2011 to the staffing of key federal government posts with Muslims that rivals the Soviet infiltration of the government from the 1930s on through the collapse of the Soviet Union, one cannot help but think that, consequently, our U.S. military, supposedly dedicated to defending this country and the Constitution, has become a toy of Obama's  ambitions. There is, of course, his friendship with the Muslim Brotherhood and his sending Marines to Saudi Arabia to train Syrian "rebels" or "insurgents" (aka jihadists) fighting in the civil war. There is the ongoing indoctrination of American military personnel – as the Balkan adolescents were – on the "beneficent" nature of Islam. Let us not forget his 2012 order to the FBI to excise all references to Islam and Muslims from the agency's training materials, and his "open immigration" policy that allows tens of thousands of Muslims to settle in this country. The instances are legion.
So, the question is: If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, is it a duck?
That is: If, aside from his hateful moves against the military, Obama regards it as his personal palace guard ready to do his bidding, can it be said that he is treating our military as a instrument of his own personal foreign policy? Given the pro-Islam character of that foreign policy, are there not grounds for suspecting or thinking that?
This is a theme, not a charge. An analogy, not an accusation. But all the ingredients are there, and they comport with Obama's character and agenda, an agenda that is overtly pro-Islamic, proto-totalitarian, and designed to ally this country with its ideological enemies.
If we can characterize our military as a pliable force of Janissaries, why not our intelligence agencies, and law enforcement entities, as well, from the FBI on down to the local police? In Britain, local police forces act as arms of the Home Office and its policies vis-à-vis government speech codes and immigration.
For example, in 2012, the Guardian reported on the constraints on freedom of speech in Britain, citing the Public Order Act of 1986:
Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says a person "is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".
There are two things wrong with this catch-all wording. First, unlike section 4 of the same act, and Britain's legislation on incitement to hatred on grounds of religion or sexual orientation, it does not require evidence of an intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The standard is just "likely to". Who decides what is "likely to" be caused harassment, alarm or distress? On the street, the police do.
This would account for British newspapers refusing to refer to Muslim murders, gang terrorism, rapes, and the like, but adopting instead the euphemism "Asian." It also accounts for the victims of Musim crime being harassed by the government and by Muslims, such as the woman who confronted Lee Rigby's killers in May of this year.
Is such a law possible here in the U.S.? Yes, if the Department of Homeland Security has any say in the matter. The DHS, governed for years by retired Janet Napolitano, regards itself as sacrosanct and above the law, although some journalists have attempted to uncover the corruption and waste endemic in the agency. Recently, The Daily Caller reported that a journalist's home was raided in the wee hours of the morning by federal agents, ostensively looking for guns, but actually after the journalist's notes about corruption in the Air Marshall program.
An investigative reporter in the Washington, D.C., area says armed federal agents stormed her home in August and confiscated stacks of confidential documents, leading her to fear that her undercover government sources have been exposed.
Audrey Hudson, a freelance reporter for Newsmax and the Colorado Observer, said the Department of Homeland Security and the Maryland State Police raided her home in Shady Side, Md., in August….
But Hudson told the Daily Caller that agents also confiscated documents containing information on sources within the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. She said no subpoena was presented for the documents and said the confiscation was outside the bounds of the warrant.
She said about seven officers dressed in full body armor arrived at her home at 4:30 a.m. Aug. 6 and presented her with a search warrant. Hudson said an investigator with the Coast Guard’s Investigative Service identified her as the reporter responsible for writing a series of articles critical of air marshals for The Washington Times newspaper.
Is this the wave of the future? Pre-dawn raids on journalists, or even on bloggers like me? An administration that would side with totalitarian Islam would have no qualms about establishing a police state in this country. It would be imposed under the rubric of "law and order," or "public safety." It wouldn't be fair to charge the Democrats exclusively with that predilection. Most Republicans are just as capable of wanting to set our minds right with a law and a billy club and a "night in the box."
As part of the indoctrination of our military about how Islam is a "religion of peace," and how to behave in the presence of Muslims, the Army has been calling Christian groups, as well as the Tea Party, "extremists" capable of terrorism, and warned that any soldier discovered contributing to any of those groups would be punished according the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The most bizarre instance of the military's brainwashing of its ranks was its deeming the Founders as "extremists." Infowars reported on August 24th in its article, DoD Training Manual: ‘Extremist’ Founding Fathers ‘Would Not Be Welcome In Today’s Military:
Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch recently obtained a Department of Defense training manual which lists people who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” who are likely to be members of “hate groups.”
Freedom as an "extremist ideology"? Does anyone still remember Napolitano's 2009 internal memo about the dangers posed by "right-wing extremists"? As the Washington Times reported then:
The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias. A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says….
The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”
It says the federal government “will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months” to gather information on “rightwing extremist activity in the United States.”
Finally, suppose things reached a point under Obama that the government sensed there was an uprising afoot against his policies, or at least mass civil disobedience vis-à-vis ObamaCare or illegal immigration? The Small Wars Journal in July 2012 published a paper, by Kevin Benson and Jennifer Weber, "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A 'Vision' of the Future." The authors project a Tea Party-aligned group seceding from the Union by taking over a South Carolina town, and how the federal government would deal with it. It discusses in detail how to quell a rebellion against "big government."
In this paper, we posit a scenario in which a group of political reactionaries take over a strategically positioned town and have the tacit support of not only local law enforcement but also state government officials, right up to the governor.  Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed.  In the situation we lay out below, even though the governor refuses to seek federal help to quell the uprising (the usual channel for military assistance), the Constitution allows the president broad leeway in times of insurrection.  Citing the precedents of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Dwight D. Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957, the president mobilizes the military and the Department of Homeland Security, to regain control of the city.  This scenario requires us to consider how domestic intelligence is gathered and shared, the role of local law enforcement (to the extent that it supports the operation), the scope and limits of the Insurrection Act--for example maintaining a military chain of command but in support of the Attorney General as the Department of Justice is the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) under the conditions of the Act--and the roles of the local, national, and international media….
The design of this plan to restore the rule of law to Darlington will include information/influence operations designed to present a picture of the federal response and the inevitable defeat of the insurrection. 
Forbes Magazine's Michael Peck, in his November 15th, 2012 article, "How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Tea Party Rebellion," notes:
Curiously, the authors don’t really delve the fundamental issue of American soldiers firing on American civilians, except to note that troops would have to comply with standing rules on force, which require graduated levels of violence. Civil support in South Carolina makes counterinsurgency in Kabul look like a picnic.
The old gun lobby line that a pack of civilians with hunting rifles will stop a tyrannical federal government is silly. This isn’t 1776, the U.S. military is a tad better equipped than King George’s redcoats, and if the U.S. Army decides to crush an insurrection, it will do so.
However, the real question is this: under what circumstances should federal troops conduct military operations against American citizens on American soil? Is this scenario likely enough that the U.S. military prepare for such operations, or should we worry that preparation will inevitably lead to action?
And there we are. Have the rank-and-file of our military been so thoroughly brainwashed by politically correctness and fear-mongering propaganda that they would act as American Janissaries against their fellow citizens? Most of the officer corps, regardless of the service, has already been suborned and co-opted. Americans face a dark future if our military no longer exists to defend our freedoms, but to quash them.
A police state established to "protect our liberties" is an ideological non sequitur and an ideational obscenity.
America has three more years of Obama. Anything can happen between now and 2016.
 *Translation: Wake up, slow-witted one!