Polizei aren't the Army...but they sure had some hotties walking airport security. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I know I can be a smart <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/butwiggle.gif" alt="" />. But if anyone here never reads another of my posts again at least listen to this one- at least the first 1.5 hrs. A great breakdown of many of the topics dominating the board right now including this troop deployment. Every talking point is verifiable. Breaks down the Indian attack very well, gets into PDD51...

Look into this stuff for your own survival's sake and do something:

Alex Jones Show 12-2-08 - MP3 file - 57MB - right click 'save link as'.

The only thing drudge did was post a link to the WashingtonPost article. The original article that announced this plan was from the ArmyTimes. There is a lot of conjecture and I see the point from both sides. Those that have trust and faith in the government to always do what's best for them and those who have no trust in the government. I'm closer to the latter these days, however. Living through the last decade with open eyes tends to do that to a person.



Beck is a shill, IMO Not quite an alarmist. There are far worst. But being an alarmist doesn't mean they are wrong. The few people that predicted the housing crash and subsiquent stock market crash and that the banks would kill off all credit and steal trillions of dollars were also called alarmists along with a few other choice names, but turns out they were dead right.



Just the beginning is the point.



I'd rather have civilians and the states in control of their own sovereign destinies. The military was always intended to defend our borders and later our interests overseas, not to police us. The role of the military is nowhere near the same as the role of the Police. There is a very specific reason why the founders did not intend the military to be a police force and why our police force is civilian and not military. It has to do with several things, including local control over the authorities, which gives the people more control over their governments and those that have direct power over their freedoms as well as the missions of the military and police being entirely different. Police are trained to respect people's rights. It doesn't always work, but the police are subject to civilian and criminal court systems and can be sued for their actions. The military cannot and they are only subject to the authority of the executive branch and ultimately one man. Not to mention the military's purpose is to kill and destroy and take over land or defend land. Not police populations. They shouldn't be a police force in Iraq and they sure as hell shouldn't be policing anyone here at home.

As far as Joe Blow national guard or a full time troop, I wouldn't trust either one in a police role against civilians. They're training and their mission is completely different and it puts civilians at risk.



Including giving up rights? Our constitution?
Our freedom from government? If safety was our primary concern, we'd still be a British colony today. We broke away and risked our lives and many of our forefathers died specificly because they wanted freedom and democracy. There will always be risks to our lives and safety, be it from terrorists, foreign nations or even our own government, when our ideals stand up against the basic human nature of tyranny by those with money and power. If we want to maintain what our forefathers fought for, we have to accept that risk. If we just want safety, then we might as well continue to rip up the Constitution, start spying and listening on everyone and now start stationing troops all over America.



Ya, because Europe has never been truly free and the citizens have never had a real constitution. They have always been under some kind of Federalized system where the central government, be it a king, or dictator or prime minister has the ultimate and sometimes only power over the population.

The United States is not Europe. We broke away from the British/European style of government. We respect our individiual freedoms and rights and states rights and it's the people that rule the government not the government that rule the people. In every other country, including the European system that makes up most of the western world, the government has power over the people and determines what rights they will grant them at any given time. In our country, the constitution determines what rights we have and it's not negotitable. The government has no rights or power beyond what our constitution says.

Now, all this said, if the military was stationed at home and they were ready to defend our land from foreign troops and foreign threats, there's no problem there. But many of these articles either hint or come right out and say that a major mission of these troops is to quell disturbances and social unrest. And that means they are meant to be used against Americans. And that's the problem here.

I wonder if the troop deployment might be related to Obama's Citizenship? Time for me to strap my tinfoil hat on. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

Set in motion too long before the the election to be the cause, and not enough force to be able to control anything. If it is ruled that he can't take office you will need more than 20k troops to stop the rioting that will be taking place, it will make the Rodney King riots look like a peace march.

Fortunately the USSCt has never been concerned w/how the public will respond when making a decision, so the fear of mass riots shouldn't sway them here either.

I'm suprised this is apparently reaching the supreme court, but I'm even more surprised that the media is not covering this incredible story. Up to this point, I can see this being a fringe issue, but if the supreme court is actually taking is seriously, this beyond a major story.

As far as how they will rule, I will be surprised if the supreme court rules against Obama. In fact, I'd guess they will bury it and not even actually take the case.

But we shall certainly see.

I have been seeing stories about us pulling some troops out of the middle east, and should be pulling the majority out in a few years...I don't think having 20,000 troops patroling our streets would be a problem...it would be like having a larger police force....hey if the govt. is going to pay them for their service, and there is not a need for them over seas...

Now I am not saying that they should have all the powers of police, like handing out tickets and what not, but to have them aid police in large events such as large sporting events (cities that have teams in a Super Bowl or World Series), concerts, etc. would not be a bad idea.

It could be worse...just imagine a country the size of Iraq with as many soldiers as are there now. Heck, Texas is almost 100,000 sq miles larger than Iraq.

Just my 2ó

Yeah, but it's that whole slippery slope thing...

With the majority of the Court still Rep appointed it isn't likely they will sweep it under the rug. Also the Justices are fully aware of the legacy of the Court and how each members service on the Bench stays w/their reputation long after they have passed on. The last thing any of them even the Clinton appointees want to see is them being remembered for allowing a non-natural born citizen to take the office of President on their watch. It would be something they would always be remembered for.

The Court isn't a political institution, the members aren't elected, they have no one to answer to. In the past this has allowed them to make controversial decisions such as Brown v. board of Education, and Roe v. Wade w/o having to consider what the publics reactions would be. There would be no reason for them to allow Obama to take the office if there is any evidence that he isn't a natural born citizen.

The problem with this is that combat trained individuals aren't a policing force, they do not react the same to the same level of violence, because they aren't trained to. When having military personnel perform police duties, you almost always end up with problems.