It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Indeed, in a description of their philosophy which appeared in its first issue in the summer of 1994, The Resister said it favored: "strict constitutionalism, isolationism, laissez-faire capitalism, individual rights, limited government and republicanism," and opposed "statism, liberalism, tribalism, socialism, collectivism, internationalism, democracy, altruism, pull politics and the New World Order."
Soldiers publishing The Resister are highly critical of U.S. peacekeeping efforts. In a past issue of The Resister they editorialized: "The U.S. military has become a slave service for the wealth redistribution schemes of internationalists and gangs of weeping do-gooder mystics. One need simply note the circling of media carrion-eaters to predict in which Third World toilet these altruists will flush hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars and the lives of U.S. servicemen. Peacekeeping is a monumental fraud."
Originally posted by CaptainLJB
Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
reply to post by CaptainLJB
Not to mention all that idiots nation-wide who MUST buy bottled water because ordinary tap water isn't Good Enough for them...
yea whats up with that. the only way i would buy a bottle of water. is if the store didn't sell soda's.
or i couldn't find a place that had a water fountain, or when the new water wars erupt.
whats sad is most people don't even know that the water that they are drinking comes from the same tap as yours and mine.
It's this new yuppie generation. Then when they end up broke they wonder why. Bottled water's the biggest scam in history. The profits they're making on it must be incalcuable. What's next, bottled Air?
Originally posted by BIHOTZ
The thing is that the military is not just full of robots. They are people too. They are more often than not MORE American than the public. They have actually read the constitution they swear to defend and know the reasons why we must stay vigilant.
Thank you, It is reassuring that you are out there.
Originally posted by magma
And you are going to do what about it?
When push comes to shove...... You , like all the others will die fighting.
thats my point.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Xcathdra
So let me ask you this...
If you are given a direct order to commit UnConstitutional actions against other Americans who are COMPLETE STRANGERS TO YOU, and if you don't do them you are told that you will lose your job, you won't be able to feed, clothe or shelter your family, and you are going to tell us that you, and the mayority of law enforcement officers will side with the people, COMPLETE STRANGERS, and not with feeding and clothing their families
When push comes to shoves do you side with keeping your family warm, fed, and secure, or helping COMPLETE STRANGERS even if they are Americans?...
A funny read and even funnier attempt to fear monger. If the people listed as sources knew what they were talking about they would not have made so many mistakes, like referring to the NDAA as an executive order (its part of the 2012 funding authorization bill for DoD operations and is a law from Congress, not an EO).
Sure you have. They've just been calling it "preparedness against terror" and "civil unrest". All last year police forces nationwide engaged in ACTS OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM upon innocent civilians in peaceful assembly. This DOESN'T mean that ALL police officers did this...however the practice was certainly rampant.
As a member of Law Enforcement, as well as having family members in law enforcement, we have seen absolutely nothing directed towards law enforcement int terms of being prepared for a civil war.
Secondly to assume every single member of the military / Government / Law Enforcement at ALL levels of government would just receive their orders and act on them without question is naive. The actions being described in that fear monger piece leaves out several key elements, starting with the fact the President would need to label a state as being in a state of rebellion / insurrection to even have authority to issue orders to guard units.
Has anyone thought that maybe the article is meant to foster resentment towards the government / military / law enforcement?
If people take a step back and read the article, and then think about what elements would be required for the government to exploit a situation and be successful, a different picture emerges.
The police, apparently. I seem to recall a whole lot of beatings, tear gas, pepper spray, and "less lethal" rounds being used against their "neighbors" who wanted to get corruption out of the government last year. I tell you what...convince the cops you work with to stand down the next time they are ordered to subvert the Constitutional right to assemble peacefully and petition the government for a redress of grievances and I'll believe you.
Its going to be citizens vs Federal government. Who in their right mind is going to take up arms against their neighbors in order to protect a federal government who have been spending citizens money like drunken yuppies?