When to Shoot the Colonels by Tom Baugh "At ease, Marines, and be seated", orders the gruff Gunnery Sergeant. "Now turn to Chapter 8 in your Military Constitutional Law text," he continues. "Today we discuss the appropriate conditions for shooting a colonel who is issuing an order which would violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Our first scenario involves gun seizures..." Absurd, isn't it, to think that this sort of education is conducted among our armed forces? Yet, millions of citizens indulge this unspoken fantasy each time they imagine that the military exists to preserve our freedoms. When I was at the Naval Academy in the mid-80s, and a Marine officer in the late 1980s and early 1990s, discussion of such issues was considered taboo. One fellow junior officer even scoffed that "Congress can change that Constitution any time they like." This isn't to say that there wasn't an undercurrent among most of the warfighters that issues such as gun control and preservation freedom of speech might one day pose a crisis of command. Yet this undercurrent was kept carefully concealed, and tended to become a more and more uncomfortable subject as the ranks of one's company became more elevated. Fortunately, with the Soviets and the threat of global thermonuclear war, these issues seemed far removed and safe from serious discussion. Not so today. In the aftermath of Katrina, armed and uniformed soldiers patrolled the streets and disarmed Americans. Some uniformed soldiers were captured on film lamenting that "I can't believe that we're doing this to Americans." Yet, they did it anyway, lamentations not withstanding. But why? To answer that, we need to understand the principles of military command and education. For veterans, this discussion is unnecessary. For the vast number of non-veterans, especially those who harbor that most dangerous and ill-advised fantasy of a Constitutionally-aware military, this discussion is essential to survival. American military education is one of the most finely tuned and adapted mechanisms in the world for instilling knowledge into its students. No other school or university can come close to the efficiency at which military knowledge is imparted to novices. There are even courses, such as Principles of Military Instruction, for how to teach military courses. These courses even teach how to develop such courses from scratch. The famous John Saxon math courses, popular among homeschoolers, exhibit these techniques, courtesy of that former Air Force officer and academy instructor. Military courses developed along these lines tend to be highly effective at teaching motivated students. Students motivated to learn how to do things such as extinguish fires or shoot missiles. Or shoot you. As a result, if it is worth teaching to soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines, it is worth embodying in a course. Captured as a course or in official manuals, such instruction is available to all for review and comment to make sure that the correct instruction is given, and given correctly. Conversely, if it doesn't exist as a course, it isn't being taught. And if it isn't being taught, it isn't even on the radar of the military mind. At least not on the minds of those in command. Good luck finding a course such as "When to Shoot the Colonels" in a military instruction catalogue. Even basics such as reading and writing and math are available as courses. But not shooting colonels. What colonel would even authorize such a thing? Only a colonel who realizes that one day he might have to shoot a general, of course. But that would require a separate course for command grades, entitled "When to Shoot the Generals." And who would authorize that? We can keep climbing this chain all the way up, if we like, but at some point the absurdity makes its point. No one in a position of command or power is going to surrender that power for something as irrelevant as your rights. And what if a particular soldier scored highly on such a course? What colonel would hand out high efficiency reports on his potential executioner? Another aspect of this problem that needs to be clearly understood is that all modern American military officers are political appointees. Surprised? You shouldn't be. As a practical exercise ask one to read his commission document to you. Pay particular attention to the "follow lawful orders" part, along with the "serve at the pleasure of the President" phrase. Oath of office notwithstanding, nothing in that document says anything about what to do about unlawful orders. Or even lawful orders, such as "seize all guns because Congress authorized it," which haven't yet stood the test of the judicial branch to adjudge Constitutionality. And like that 1stLt said, enough Congressmen can get together and change that Constitution. The Constitution itself says so. Besides, if some uppity colonel out there decided to start authorizing instruction about when to shoot the colonels, you can bet that pretty quick the President would no longer be pleased. Because he or she would know where that path must ultimately lead. Which is why uppity colonels don't stay colonels for very long. Political appointees, my friends. That vision you have in your head of the noble military protecting your rights is just a dangerous fantasy. A fantasy you have to get rid of right now, before it gets you killed. "But wait," you say, "I know Sgt. Soandso, and he would never go along with a gun seizure." Maybe not, but then again, you might be surprised. To "not go along" would mean that he has to violate orders. This violation would at the very least be a career-killer, or possibly get him shot in an extreme situation. Shot by who? By all the other sergeants who don't want to get shot, of course. After all, the colonel only needs a handful of sergeants who are in it for a career, and a raft of lieutenants, captains and majors who one day want to be colonels. For you to have your rights protected would require that a sufficient number of each of these decide, simultaneously, to put on the brakes. It is easier just to shoot you for resisting and go about their day. Say it again, "political appointees." Besides, if all of these people decide in unison to protect you, and in so doing put their own careers, freedoms and life on the line, who is going to protect them? You? And if so, how? You needed them to protect you in the first place. And if Sgt. Soandso gets shot protecting your rights, what about his family? Retribution aside, who takes care of them with him out of the picture? Worse, after Sgt. Soandso gets shot, some corporal will be there ready to pin on those chevrons. And you can bet that to that guy, you are a minor inconvenience in his day. You wouldn't get lucky enough to get a chain of noble soldiers to protect you. When the day arrives, all of those political appointees will have scrubbed the ranks of those pesky oathkeepers anyway. Those oathkeepers who remain hidden in ranks will be in an impossible situation. And we haven't even discussed the false-flagging of dressing foreign troops in American uniforms to capitalize on the unwillingness of Americans to kill "our boys." I'll save that one for later. So if the military doesn't exist to protect our rights and freedoms, why does it exist? The answer is simple. It exists to back our national will with force. Most of the time, that is a good thing, particularly when our national will is to not be attacked by jackasses who threaten us. But when the national will turns to taking your guns away, you will be the jackass who threatens "us." Then the military will execute that national will with cold, unthinking and bureaucratic efficiency. And wrap itself in the flag while doing so. Want to have some fun? Walk up to any active duty serviceman you wish, shake his hand and thank him for his service. Then, before you release his hand, pull him toward you slightly, look into his eyes and tell him, "now when the time comes, don't forget what your oath really means." Do this ten times, and the reactions of that little informal poll will tell you everything you need to know. Having divested yourself of that little fantasy, maybe you will have a chance to survive that gun seizure for the real battle later. At the very least you will have looked into the eyes of some of the enemy, constituted of complacency and obedience, you may one day face.
» DHS-funded course asks cops if they will confiscate guns from Christians Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
I was nodding along with him until he hit the part about the false flagging of dressing foreign troops in American uniforms, and then he lost most of his credibility, at least with me. Most politicians have little to no moral character, but most of them aren't actually stupid, and have at least read a couple of books on American history. The one British action which had the most unifying effect on the American colonials was the use of foreign troops (Hessian and other German troops) to fight people who considered themselves at the time to be British subjects. Foreign troops used against Americans on American soil would cause all hell to break open. The fence sitters would pick a side fairly quickly. And, if the premise being put forward by this fellow is correct, why would they need foreign troops? If our own military will abuse the American people, why bring in foreign troops and run the risk that would come with them? I do actually agree with this fellow that, in general, troops will follow orders. If they are ordered to go door to door and collect weapons, that is exactly what they will do. The true test will come as it did in Russia, in 1917; in Iran, in 1979; and is currently happening in Syria - when citizens refuse to hand the guns over, and the shooting starts. That is when their conscience will start to kick in. It happened in Russia in 1917; the Czar ordered the military to put an end to the riots and demonstrations in Petrograd (St. Petersburg), the people resisted, the shooting started, and dead civilians littered the ground. Back in barracks, the troops decided amongst themselves that they would not shoot their own citizens again, and shot their officers instead. They joined the revolution. It happened in Iran in 1979, troops of the Shah's army were ordered out onto the streets to put down relatively peaceful demonstrations, a few dozen demonstrators were shot and killed, and the rank and file of the army decided enough was enough. Even many of the junior officers joined the troops in refusing to shoot any more Iranian citizens. They refused to leave their bases. The Shah, realizing that he was powerless, fled the country. We've watched it recently in Syria. Every time that Syrian troops were ordered to fire on Syrian citizens, a few more soldiers slipped over to the side of the rebels; and Syria's army had been politically shaped by the Assad family for fifty years - rejecting those whose loyalty could be in question, and filling the officer ranks, and many enlisted ranks, with Alawites. The Syrian army should have withstood the test of killing their own citizens, if any army in the world could. Americans will have to die, possibly in large numbers, before American soldiers and Marines ask themselves some hard questions and make some hard decisions. I believe that ultimately though, that they will make the right decision.
We have gone down this road before. The reality is that the soldiers will follow their orders to a point, and once they realize what is going on and start to understand the ramifications of it all, will turn away from leadership. Where and when that happens is a question, but it will happen. The battle between right and wrong, sin and purity of soul rages in all of us to some degree. But beyond the initial commands for seizure of weapons, once the gun shots ring out, there will be a change that takes place understanding what they/We are all about and what our nation stands for. And if they can not shoot the Colonels, I will be waiting and watching thru my scope.... YMMV.
In case there is any doubt. This is only a basic primer. » DoD Confirms Russian Troops To Train On U.S. Soil Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! » Foreign Troops to Confiscate American Guns Under UN Treaty Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! » Foreign Troops Training To Confiscate Guns of Americans Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! » NLE 09: FEMA Takes Preparations for Martial Law to the Next Level Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! » Marine Corps Law Enforcement Battalions To “Control Civil Disturbances” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! » NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! » Bombshell: Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban Guns Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! With Mexican Troops Regularly Crossing the Border and Bounties on Border Patrol Officers' Heads, It's Clear Who the Extremists Really Are Obama Plotting US Gun Confiscation... Using Foreign Troops! | KnowTheLies.com - The Truth is Hidden in Plain View... “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful,” -- Henry Kissinger purportedly said in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991.
Bring on the foreign troops- that will be the most single unifying event in American history regarding the second civil war....
Sorry I tend to question most of what Alex Jones says.... He seems to be as selective in his reporting as Piers Morgan... just from the the other side.... There is a Kernal of truth in what he says but it's hidden under a bunch of BS... Just my opinion I tend to discount most of the media be they right or left.... we have gone from a free press to a free market pres.... too many agendas in play. YMV
