Last Thursday, the Ohio National Guard 52nd Civil Support Unit was deployed to Portsmouth to run a mock disaster drill. The exercise, overseen by the Ohio Emergency Management Agency was to practice their response to the potential release of a chemical, biological or radiological weapon. Terror drills like this one are somewhat commonplace since 9/11/2001, but there is one telling and scary difference.
Via The Examiner:
WSAZ reported: “The make-believe scenario is timely. Two school employees who are disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, plot to use chemical, biological and radiological agents against members of the local community.”
Portsmouth Fire Chief Bill Raison told the Portsmouth Daily Times:
“I think sometimes we tend to think of terrorism as just international terrorism. What’s the likelihood that’s coming to Portsmouth, Ohio? Most people think it’s not very likely. But we forget that there’s a lot of domestic terrorism. There’s organizations and things that go on within the United States that can be every bit as devastating as the international terrorism is.”
Where would someone get such an idea?
Perhaps, from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano who has described gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential terrorists.
In April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”
The report claimed that “rightwing extremism” is not limited to religious and racial hate groups but extends to “those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report.
That’s right…according to the Obama administration anyone who believes that babies should be protected are just as dangerous as al Queda.
They would also get the idea from the “Small Wars Journal”, a respected site, that last year issued a report entitled, “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future;
It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.
And a West Point think tank, which recently issued a paper warning America about “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement, which supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.”
The center — part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers — posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.
But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”
Combine this with an unsubstantiated but alarming report that Obama is using a new “litmus test” for his military leaders, and we’ve got trouble.
“The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.”