Thread: Drudge Report: Directive outlines Obama policy to use the military against citizens

Drudge Report

Directive outlines Obama policy to use military against citizens...



Inside the Ring: Directive outlines Obama’s policy to use the military against citizens

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what...
The Washington Times|By Bill Gertz

Inside the Ring: Directive outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens

By Bill Gertz-
The Washington Times
Wednesday, May 28, 2014

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
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.

---

PHOTOS: Top 10 U.S. fighter jets

---

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“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,” the directive states.
“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.”

---

PHOTOS: Conservatives in Hollywood: Celebrities who lean right

---

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
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 Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon website: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/302518p.pdf.
Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.
Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.
The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.
President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”
HOUSE HITS ONA DOWNGRADE
The House defense authorization bill passed last week calls for adding $10 million to the Pentagon’s future warfare think tank and for codifying the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) as a semi-independent unit.
The provision is being called the Andrew Marshall amendment after the ONA’s longtime director and reflects congressional support for the 92-year-old manager and his staying power through numerous administrations, Republican and Democratic.
Mr. Marshall’s opponents within the Pentagon and the Obama administration persuaded Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this year to downgrade the ONA by cutting its budget and placing it under the control of the undersecretary of defense for policy. The ONA currently is a separate entity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Members of the House Committee on Armed Services objected and added the $10 million to the administration’s $8.9 million request, along with a legal provision that would codify ONA’s current status as separate from the policy undersecretary shop.
The committee was concerned Mr. Hagel’s downgrade would “limit the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range comparative assessments,” the report on the authorization bill states.
“The office has a long history of providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge the ‘group think’ that can often pervade the Department of Defense,” the report says, noting an increasing demand for unconventional thinking about space warfare capabilities by China and Russia.
In addition to adding funds, the bill language requires the ONA to study alternative U.S. defense and deterrence strategies related to the space warfare programs of both countries.
China is developing advanced missiles capable of shooting down satellites in low and high earth orbits. It also is building lasers and electronic jammers to disrupt satellites, a key U.S. strategic military advantage. Russia is said to be working on anti-satellite missiles and other space weapons.
“The committee believes the office must remain an independent organization within the department, reporting directly to the secretary,” the report said.
Mr. Marshall, sometimes referred to as the Pentagon’s “Yoda,” after the Star Wars character, has come under fire from opponents in the administration, who say he is too independent and not aligned with the administration’s soft-line defense policies.
The ONA is known for its extensive use of contractors and lack of producing specific overall net assessments of future warfare challenges, as required by the office’s charter.
One example of the ONA’s unconventional thinking was the recent contractor report “China: The Three Warfares,” which revealed Beijing’s extensive use of political warfare against the United States, including psychological warfare, media warfare and legal warfare.
“‘The Three Warfares’ is a dynamic, three-dimensional, war-fighting process that constitutes war by other means,” the report says.
A Pentagon spokesman had no immediate comment.
NO DENNIS RODMAN DEFENSE
Navy Adm. James A. “Sandy” Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that the Pentagon is deploying more and higher-quality missile defenses to counter potential nuclear attacks from North Korea and Iran.
“This is about ensuring we can deny the objectives of any insecure authoritarian state that believes acquisition of deliverable weapons of mass destruction is key to the preservation of its regime,” Adm. Winnefeld said in a speech to the Atlantic Council. “The number of states trying to achieve that capability is growing, not shrinking, with our principal current concern being North Korea, because they are closest in terms of capability, followed by Iran.”
He added that missile defenses are needed “because we’re not betting on Dennis Rodman as our deterrent against a future North Korean ICBM threat.”
He was referring to the heavily tattooed and pierced former NBA star, who has traveled to North Korea as a guest of leader Kim Jong-un. Mr. Rodman calls the dictator his “friend.”
“A robust and capable missile defense is our best bet to defend the United States from such an attack and is, in my view, our No. 1 missile defense priority,” Adm. Winnefeld said.
North Korea is continuing to develop long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. It recently threatened to conduct a fourth nuclear test, and analysts say signs from the closed communist state suggest the North Koreans may test a missile warhead.


• Contact Bill Gertz at @BillGertz.




Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

Meet Directive 3025.18 Granting Obama Authority To Use Military Force Against Civilians

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/29/2014 12:50 -0400

While the "use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized," The Washington Times uncovering of a 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans. As one defense official proclaimed, "this appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens." Meet Directive 3025.18 and all its "quelling civil disturbances" totalitarianism...
As The Washington Times reports,

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

“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,” the directive states.

“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.”

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.

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

There is one silver lining (for now)...

“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.

And the full Directive is below...

Dod



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...inst-civilians

Despite President Obama going to great lengths to assuage the American people’s concerns with the increased militarization of federal agencies, a recently disclosed military directive suggests those fears could be legitimate.



DoD Directive Grants Military Authority to ‘Quell Large-scale, Unexpected Civil Disturbances’
Militarization of federal agencies across the board puts everyday Americans...
http://www.infowars.com/dod-directiv...-disturbances/


DoD Directive Grants Military Authority to ‘Quell Large-scale, Unexpected Civil Disturbances’

Militarization of federal agencies across the board puts everyday Americans square in the crosshairs





by Adan Salazar | Infowars | May 29, 2014

Despite President Obama going to great lengths to assuage the American people’s concerns with the increased militarization of federal agencies, a recently disclosed military directive suggests those fears could be legitimate.

Yesterday, The Washington Times disclosed a disturbing Department of Defense directive detailing which instances may be appropriate for the government to use lethal military force on dissenting civilians.
In a December 2010 directive entitled, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” (DSCA), the DoD discusses plans “regarding military support for civilian law enforcement,” which would go into effect if authorized by the President, Secretary of Defense, civil authorities or other qualifying entities.
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” Directive #3025.18 states.
Under the directive, additional authority is also granted to military commanders. From the directive:

“Federal military commanders are provided EMERGENCY AUTHORITY under this Directive. Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the President in accordance with applicable law.. 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…”

Not surprisingly, the DoD order does little to quell the fears of Americans worried over various governmental agencies arming to the teeth, as well as those concerned with increasingly hostile rhetoric geared to demonize Tea Party supporters, liberty lovers, returning military veterans and law abiding gun owners.

“The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens,” contends Bill Gertz. Indeed, Second Amendment supporters are known for holding gatherings and protests, activities some may deem “large-scale” and “unexpected,” and which opponents may label “civil disturbances.”
Past military literature also outlines several groups the DoD expects to confront in said “unexpected civil disturbances.”
A DoD training manual disseminated last year, for instance, listed people who embrace “individual liberties,” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” likely to be members of “hate groups.”
“Nowadays,” the manual explained, “instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
The manual’s contents dovetails with previous government studies targeting similar groups, such as a study funded by the Department of Homeland Security which characterized Americans “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
Another government document disclosed by Infowars in 2009 listed supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as potential “militia” influenced terrorists, and warned Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters “displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.”
Then there are the more tangible threats, such as local police departments acquiring armored vehicles designed for warfare, and outrageous bullet solicitations by federal agencies tasked with providing public services, like the US Postal Service, the Dept. of Education, the Social Security Administration and others.

The threat was such that last year one Ret. Army Captain Terry M. Hestilow bravely called out the Obama administration, concluding the DHS’ solicitations and acquisitions represented a “bold threat of war” against the American people.
Labeling the DHS purchases a “glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens,” Capt. Hestilow declared the DHS’s acquisitions “can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America.”
The fact the military has constructed a $96 million training facility in Virginia designed to resemble an American city could also constitute a tangible menace.
While the DoD directive provides some solace for citizens, in the form of prohibiting “armed” drones from being used for domestic DSCA purposes, the concession is overshadowed by the fact that mere years ago the government completely denied the existence of a drone program.
Of course, now it’s just common knowledge that surveillance drones are being used to monitor the border and are in use by the EPA to monitor farmers and ranchers, in addition to the fact that they were considered for use in the Bundy Ranch standoff last month.
At best, the language contained within the latest DoD directive provides an end run around posse comitatus; at worst, it can be construed as an admission by the feds that they anticipate a future quarrel with at least some portion of the American people, wherein military commanders may be required to make the call to aid local authorities in “controlling the situation.”

http://www.infowars.com/dod-directiv...-disturbances/

Obama Considered Using Military Against Bundy and Supporters - http://www.infowars.com/obama-considered-using-military-against-bundy-and-supporters/

Pentagon directive authorizes use of federal troops and drones in violation of Posse Comitatus.



Obama Considered Using Military Against Bundy and Supporters

Pentagon directive authorizes use of federal troops and drones in violation of Posse Comitatus

by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | May 29, 2014


2010 Pentagon directive authorizes use of military drones against U.S. citizens “in extraordinary emergency circumstances.” Photo: U.S. Army

Bill Gertz, writing for The Washington Times, reports the Obama administration had considered using the military during a standoff between Cliven Bundy and the BLM in Nevada in April.
A 2010 Pentagon authorization, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” issued on December 29, 2010, states U.S. military commanders “are provided emergency authority” to use military arms and forces, including drones, in domestic unrest situations.
The directive is in direct conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act. The federal law, enacted following Reconstruction in 1878, prohibits the federal government from using federal military troops to enforce the state laws.
Posse Comitatus was modified under the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 5122). Section 1076 of the act allows the federal government to use “the Armed Forces in major public emergencies… as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.”
The 2010 Pentagon directive states “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.”
The Pentagon directive, however, appears to allow the military to act without consulting the president as stipulated under the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act.
“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, namely “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order” and when it is determined that federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
The Bundy standoff concluded after a number of supporters responded to heavily armed BLM agents. The FBI and U.S. Capitol Police launched investigations into allegations armed Bundy supporters threatened federal agents.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-consid...nd-supporters/

Gun Rights Across America

Is our "Dictator-in-Chief" planning on using the military against us?



Obama Has Plans to Use the Military Against Private Citizens - BuzzPo
Obama authorizes military action against private citizens
buzzpo.com



Obama Has Plans to Use the Military Against Private Citizens

By Steven Ahle on May 29, 2014 in Civil Rights, Military, Politics

“Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord Obama in vain.”

Barack Obama has made some pretty bad directives in his first nearly 5 1/2 years as Vacationer and Chief. But one that was issued to the Pentagon may be the worst yet and would confirm many Americans’ worst fears. This would allow Obama to authorize the military to attack private citizens in a time of civil unrest.

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

“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,” the directive states.
“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 only real limit on attacking private citizens, is that Obama cannot used armed aircraft or drones.

Think this is a joke? A US official, who wishes to be anonymous and alive said that the Obama administration considered using the military on the Bundy Ranch, but then rejected the idea. But it does tell us how relatively small provocation is needed to kick in the clause of the Pentagon directive.

In what now appears to possibly be a related story, is the naming of David Barron to join the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Boston. That places him one step from the Supreme Court. Never heard of Barron? He wrote the legal opinion that allows Obama to murder (Ostensibly terrorists, but who knows who else) Americans without trials using drones. Should anyone choose to question Obama’s legal authority to kill citizens, you can bet that case will appear on the docket of Barron’s court.

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED!!!

(Unless ESPN is willing to kick in more guaranteed money and 25% of the pay per view rights)

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz337fMg1Vi

http://buzzpo.com/obama-plans-use-mi...vate-citizens/

The Federalist Papers

What do you think about the Obama administrations contingency plans to use military force against American citizens to "quell unrest?"



SHOCK: Memo Outlines Obama’s Plan To Use Military Against Americans - [SEE HERE]
A 2010 Pentagon directive to civilian authorities details a troubling policy that...
thefederalistpapers.org

Memo Outlines Obama’s Plan To Use Military Against Americans

By Steve Straub On May 29, 2014 · 400 Comments · In US



Can you imagine the 24/7 outrage that would have ensued among Democrats and the media if the Bush administration had drawn up plans like this? Now all we get is silence from those two groups…
Via The Washington Times:

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
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.
The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“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,” the directive states.
“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.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
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 Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.

What do you think about the Obama administrations willingness to use military force against American citizens in America?


http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...inst-americans

1. Video and take photos of everything for Tribunal evidence

2. Just doing your job didnt work during the Nuremberg Trials; it wont fly this time either

3. You didn't Impeach Bush; that was your first Mistake; this is the outcome

http://www.alipac.us/f19/obama-consi...0/#post1414653

[Watch] Obama Government Grants Itself Authority to Attack American Citizens

Posted on 2 June, 2014 by Rick Wells


Sometimes the controllers disguised as our government are better at hiding things than at other times. That’s the case with this hidden nugget of oppression, which took a little longer to come to the full attention of “We, the Targets.”
Directive 3025.18, titled, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” permits the Obama regime to target American citizens “lawfully” should the need arise when the people respond en masse, daring to act out in a defiant and unruly manner, for some future unknown reason, such as a dictatorial suspension of the Constitution and our freedoms guaranteed under it.
Why would the Obama regime think that such authority is needed or warranted? Whatever they have in mind, they aren’t saying. But even if they were, anything they tell us is generally a bold-faced lie, so “at this point, what difference does it make?”
It’s enough to know that they feel the authority is warranted, which supports the premise that they are up to no-good.
The document was exposed by Bill Gertz and the Washington Times, as Gary Franchi reports in this video, with the threatening language sandwiched unobtrusively between other, more benign provisions such as support to the civilian fire departments, EMS and the Army Corps of Engineers.
It’s from December of 2010 so they likely thought the danger to them of exposure had past, and we had missed it. The controlling authorities in the Obama regime were mistaken.
The directive provides presidential authority for the use of military force and personnel against the American people in the event of civil unrest.



The document states, “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.”
We’ve seen how willing the administration is to declare a non-emergency to be an emergency with today’s EPA climate change regulations. The threshold is extremely low to the point of being virtually non-existent.
The document provides autonomous power to the military, and plausible deniability to Hussein Obama, saying, “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.
One of those conditions is when the military deems intervention is needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.”
A second situation would be 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.”
They also report that the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent Bundy Ranch standoff. They probably didn’t want to tip their authoritarian hand for such a low-level situation.

Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/06/0...ican-citizens/

[Watch] Obama Government Grants Itself Authority to Attack American Citizens

Posted by Rick Wells On June 08, 2014 0 Comment



Sometimes the controllers disguised as our government are better at hiding things than at other times. That’s the case with this hidden nugget of oppression, which took a little longer to come to the full attention of “We, the Targets.”
Directive 3025.18, titled, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” permits the Obama regime to target American citizens “lawfully” should the need arise when the people respond en masse, daring to act out in a defiant and unruly manner, for some future unknown reason, such as a dictatorial suspension of the Constitution and our freedoms guaranteed under it.
Why would the Obama regime think that such authority is needed or warranted? Whatever they have in mind, they aren’t saying. But even if they were, anything they tell us is generally a bold-faced lie, so “at this point, what difference does it make?”
It’s enough to know that they feel the authority is warranted, which supports the premise that they are up to no-good.



The document was exposed by Bill Gertz and the Washington Times, as Gary Franchi reports in this video, with the threatening language sandwiched unobtrusively between other, more benign provisions such as support to the civilian fire departments, EMS and the Army Corps of Engineers.
It’s from December of 2010 so they likely thought the danger to them of exposure had past, and we had missed it. The controlling authorities in the Obama regime were mistaken.
The directive provides presidential authority for the use of military force and personnel against the American people in the event of civil unrest.
The document states, “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.”
We’ve seen how willing the administration is to declare a non-emergency to be an emergency with today’s EPA climate change regulations. The threshold is extremely low to the point of being virtually non-existent.
The document provides autonomous power to the military, and plausible deniability to Hussein Obama, saying, “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.
One of those conditions is when the military deems intervention is needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.”
A second situation would be 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.”
They also report that the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent Bundy Ranch standoff. They probably didn’t want to tip their authoritarian hand for such a low-level situation.

Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

Author: Rick Wells

I’m a concerned conservative author who writes for leading online publications, trying to make a difference and restore our nation to its Constitutional roots.

http://universalfreepress.com/watch-...ican-citizens/