Last week, the Washington Times mentioned the fact that the Obama administration seriously considered using military force against Cliven Bundy and his supporters during their standoff back in April. This should come as no surprise after we reported that there was word that the Defense Department had approved a drone strike.
Apparently, the Obama administration considered a strike on protesters, exercising their First Amendment rights, which ironically, are supposed to be protected by the same administration under the US Constitution.
The Times reported:
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.
The Times also said the consideration was based on Directive No. 3025.18, "Defense Support of Civil Authorities," which was issued on December 29, 2010 and signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn.
The revelation came up during as the Times discussed the fact that the directive "contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers."
However, as Mac Slavo pointed out on Friday, the directive is being twisted by this administration to target US citizens against "domestic unrest."
The directive reads in part, "Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances, unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority."
"In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances" under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed "to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order." A second use is when federal, state and local authorities "are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions."
"Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions," the directive states.
However, the issue is that it is the duty of the militia to deal with these issues, under the direction of Congress, not the Executive Branch and certainly not the US military. According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:
"The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions...."
Yet, the fact that this was even considered or brought up as a possible scenario is frightening. No violence occurred by the members of the Bundy family nor any of their supporters, but there was plenty of violence from federal agents and clearly a show of force from them, including snipers and scores of agents with tasers and fully automatic weapons. And for what?
No violent crime had occurred. People simply were exercising their right to free speech, something the federal government was created to protect, not encroach upon.
The fact that a no-flyzone was imposed for a month over the Bundy Ranch is a tell-tale sign that the Obama seriously considered using this directive to bring military force down on law abiding protesters.
I wish people had listened to Ron Paul years ago and we could have avoided this entire mess. We have forgotten that our rights come from God, not government, and that government is instituted by God for the punishment of evil doers and the protection of those that do good. Instead of remembering these things, we began to buy into the ideology of trading liberty for security. Look where that has gotten us.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.