[Editor's Note: This essay is a mixed bag of accurate perceptions
and very inaccurate perceptions. The misuse of American troops
as aggressors and invaders of non-threatening nations is in opposition to
everything that America, the US Constitution, and the American people stand
for. This writer's notion that we can eliminate the US military because
there is no "foreign regime" that is capable of attacking the
United States is about as uninformed as you can get.
I have posted many articles at this web site, from varied
sources, that explore the topic of foreign
troops-Russian, Chinese, German, and others- that are ALREADY billeted
on American soil and in VERY LARGE NUMBERS. The Illuminati plan is to DESTROY
America and their plan is to do that by precipitating a series of engineered
"crisis" events like 911, hurricanes, earthquakes, bio-plagues,
fires, etc. , which sets the pretext for FEMA/military control of the civilian
sector and the imposition of martial law. While under martial law and in
the midst of recovering from or dealing with the chaos imposed by "natural
disasters" (major earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc), an economic
collapse, and food/gas "shortages", we will be "unexpected"
'attacked' by Chinese and Russian forces pouring in from the northwest of
the U.S.- we will be told.
As pointed out in the most
recent dowse of Philip Ledoux (Oct. 23, 2005) and in many postings from
Don Croft and of those from Pam Shuffert, the foreign invaders are ALREADY
here. Russian troops are being deployed into the southeast
of the US (Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, etc) to aid in "emergency'
relief connected with the HAARP-driven hurricanes being directed into that
part of the country. They are NOT wearing insignias on their uniforms, nor
are they driving in military vehicles that have the Russian flag painted
on their sides, but they are nonetheless Russian soldiers. One tip off to
their foreign origins is the fact that these military convoys WILL NOT BEAR
U.S. military markings. These foreign troop convoys bear NO markings.
If you hope to remain living in a free country, you must RECOGNIZE
the betrayal that is taking place and takes steps to RESIST that takeover
agenda. You only have the possibility of persuading local politicians-city
and state legislators- to rebel against the federal traitors and put the
federal; government on notice that you will not accept their treason. One
hopeful movement in this direction was recently announced by a group of
Vermonters-who still possess the capacity to recognize treason when they
see it-to launch
a Vermont Independence Convention on Friday, October 28, 2005 in the House
chambers in Montpelier. We need to have these sort of conventions taking
place in EVERY state and putting the federal traitors on notice that we
are NOT capitulating to their treason and betrayal. ..Ken]
by Jacob G. Hornberger
October 21, 2005
How often do we hear the claim that American troops “defend
our freedoms”? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed
far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper columnists,
public-school teachers, and many others. It’s even a common assertion
that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits. Unfortunately, it just
isn’t so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite — the
troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being
Let’s examine the three potential threats to our freedoms
and the role that the troops play in them:
1. Foreign regimes
Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat
of a foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation
has the military capability of invading and conquering the United States.
Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not anyone.
To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer and “pacify”
the entire nation would take millions of foreign troops and tens of thousands
of ships and planes to transport them across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean.
No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation
will have them for the foreseeable future.
After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most powerful
military force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such
a small country as Iraq because of the level of domestic resistance to a
foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that would be needed
to conquer and “pacify” a country as large and well-armed as
the United States.
I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to
invade the United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and
take away our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect
our freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility
that terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government,
and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of
people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to subjugate
the entire nation or any part of it.
Equally important, while the troops claim that they are protecting
us from “the terrorists,” it is the troops themselves —
or, more precisely, the presidential orders they have loyally carried out
— that have engendered the very terrorist threats against which the
troops say they are now needed to protect us.
Think back to 1989 and the years following — when the
Berlin Wall fell, East and West Germany were united, Soviet troops withdrew
from Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was dismantled. The Pentagon didn’t
know what to do. Unexpectedly, its 50-year-old “official enemy”
was gone. (The Soviet Union had previously been America’s “ally”
that had “liberated” Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany.) With
the fall of the Soviet empire (and, actually, before the fall), the obvious
question arose: Why should the United States continue to have an enormous
standing army and spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to keep it
The Pentagon was in desperate search for a new mission. “We
can be a big help in the war on drugs,” the Pentagon said. To prove
it, U.S. military forces even shot to death 18-year-old American citizen
Esequiel Hernandez in 1997, as he tended his goats along the U.S.-Mexican
border. “We’ll help American businesses compete in the world.”
“We’ll readjust NATO’s mission to protect Europe from
non-Soviet threats.” “We’ll protect us from an unsafe
Then along came the Pentagon’s old ally, Saddam Hussein,
to whom the United States had even entrusted weapons of mass destruction
to use against the Iranian people, and gave America’s standing army
a new raison d’être. Invading Kuwait over an oil-drilling dispute,
Saddam provided the Pentagon with a new official enemy, one that would last
for more than 10 continuous years.
Obeying presidential orders to attack Iraq in 1991, without
the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the troops
ended up killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Obeying Pentagon orders to
attack Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, the troops accomplished
exactly what Pentagon planners had anticipated — spreading deadly
infections and disease among the Iraqi people. Continuing to obey presidential
orders in the years that followed, the troops enforced what was possibly
the most brutal embargo in history, which ended up contributing to the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, deaths that U.S. officials said
were “worth it.” Obeying presidential orders, the troops enforced
the illegal “no-fly zones” over Iraq, which killed even more
Iraqis, including children. Obeying presidential orders, the troops established
themselves on Islamic holy lands with full knowledge of the anger and resentment
that that would produce among devout Muslims. Obeying presidential orders,
the troops invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required
congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands
of innocent Iraqis — that is, people whose worst “crime”
was to resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign power.
All that death and destruction — both pre-9/11 and post-9/11
— have given rise to terrible anger and hatred against the United
States, which inspired the pre-9/11 attacks, such as the 1993 attack on
the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks on overseas
U.S. embassies, the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorist threats our nation faces
Through it all, the Pentagon simply echoed the claims of the
president — that all the death and destruction and humiliation that
the U.S. government had wreaked on people in the Middle East, as well as
its unconditional military and financial foreign aid to the Israeli government,
had not engendered any adverse feelings in the Middle East against the United
States. Instead, the president and the Pentagon claimed, the problem was
that the terrorists simply hated America for its “freedom and values.”
If the American people had dismantled the nation’s standing
army when the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would
have lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East
with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones, bases,
invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have been the terrorists
attacks against the United States and a “war on terrorism” for
the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT Act, secret search warrants
and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine, and other federal infringements
on our rights and freedoms.
Finally, but certainly important, despite being the most powerful
standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to protect
Americans from terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two terrorist attacks
on the same target — the World Trade Center, first in 1993 and then
again in 2001.
3. The federal government
As our Founding Fathers understood so well, the primary threat
to our freedom lies with our own government. That’s in fact why we
have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — to protect us and our
freedoms from federal officials. If the federal government did not constitute
such an enormous threat to our freedoms, there would be no reason to have
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Yet, what is the primary means by which a government takes
away the freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer:
its military forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers opposed
a standing, professional military force in America — they knew not
only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in costly, senseless,
and destructive wars abroad but also that government officials would inevitably
use the troops to ensure a compliant and obedient citizenry at home.
Consider the words of James Madison:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will
not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign
danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans
it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended.
Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending,
have enslaved the people.
Here’s how Patrick Henry put it:
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable
commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them
to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a
match for a disciplined regiment?
Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to deploy against
the American people and take away our freedoms?
There is no doubt about it. Of course they would, especially
if the president told them that our “freedom and national security”
depended on it, which he would.
As I suggested in my article, “The Troops Don’t
Support the Constitution,”in the United States the loyalty of the
troops is to the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the
Constitution. Recent evidence of this point, as I observed in my article,
was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders to deploy
to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to secure the constitutionally
required congressional declaration of war.
What if the president ordered the troops to deploy across
the United States and to round up “terrorists” and incarcerate
them in military camps, both here and in Cuba? Again, there can be no doubt
that most of the troops would willingly obey the president’s orders,
especially in the middle of a “crisis” or “emergency”
because they view themselves as professional soldiers whose job is to serve
the president and not to question why but simply to do or die.
Another good example of the allegiance that the troops have
toward the president involves the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Labeling
Padilla a “terrorist,” the president ordered the troops to take
him into military custody, deny him access to an attorney, and punish him
without a trial and due process of law. The troops obeyed without question.
Do you know any troops who have publicly protested the Padilla incarceration
or who have resigned from the army in protest? How many have publicly announced,
“I refuse to participate in the Padilla incarceration because I took
an oath to support and defend the Constitution”?
Indeed, how many of the troops resigned in protest at the
president’s orders to set up a prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
knowing that the reason he and the Pentagon chose Cuba, rather than the
United States, was precisely to avoid
the constraints of the Constitution?
If the troops didn’t protest with respect to Iraq or
Padilla or Gitmo, what is the likelihood they would protest when their commander
in chief ordered them to arrest 100 other Americans “terrorists,”
I repeat: The troops, from the Pentagon on down, would not
disobey orders of the president to disarm and arrest American “terrorists,”
especially in the midst of a “crisis” or “emergency.”
And even if some were to protest, they would be quickly shunted
aside (probably punished as well) and replaced with those troops whose allegiance
and loyalty to the president would be unquestioned.
Now it’s true that soldiers are supposed to disobey
unlawful orders, but as a practical matter most of the troops are not going
to overrule the judgment of their commander in chief as to what is legal
or not. After all, how many troops involved in the torture and sex-abuse
scandal refused to participate in the wrongdoing, especially since they
thought that it was approved by the higher-ups? Again, how many refused
orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that there was no constitutionally
required congressional declaration of war?
Imagine that the president issues the following grave announcement
on national television during prime time: “Our nation has come under
another terrorist attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at
stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately
take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been identified
by the FBI as having conspired to commit this dastardly attack or who have
given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also ordered the JCS to take
all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate weapons in the areas where
these terrorists are believed to be hiding. These weapons will be returned
to the owners once the terrorist threat has subsided. I am calling on all
Americans to support the troops in these endeavors, just as you are supporting
them in their fight against terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will
prevail. God bless America.”
Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would disobey the
orders of the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked
and terrified Americans and the mainstream press were endorsing his martial-law
The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would not consider
it their job to determine the constitutionality of the president’s
orders. They would leave that for the courts to decide. Their professional
allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would trump all
other considerations, including their oath to “support and defend
Therefore, if the federal government is the primary threat
to our freedom, then so are the troops: their unswerving loyalty to their
commander in chief makes them the primary instrument by which the federal
government is able to destroy or infringe the rights and freedoms of the
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the
president wields, albeit unconstitutionally, the omnipotent power to send
the entire nation into war against another nation — and that he has
the means — a loyal and obedient army — to exercise that power.
President Bush made his position clear prior to his invasion of Iraq, when
he emphasized that while he welcomed the support of Congress in the event
he decided to wage war on Iraq, he didn’t need its approval. His position
was reconfirmed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who informed Congress
on October 19, 2005, that the commander in chief’s position was that
he did not need the consent of Congress to send the nation into another
war, this time against Syria.
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the
president claims the omnipotent power to jail and punish any American citizen
whom the president labels a “terrorist,” denying him due process
of law, trial by jury, and other constitutional guarantees — and that
he has the means — a loyal and obedient army — to exercise that
Thus, as a practical matter the troops serve not as a defender
of our freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army
of the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands.
It is an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to
deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and attack,
kill, and maim any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S.
invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready to obey
the president’s orders to take into custody any American whom the
commander in chief deems a “terrorist” and to punish him accordingly.
There is one — and only one — solution to this
threat to our freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the
warning of our Founding Fathers against standing armies before it is too
late, and to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago: dismantle
the U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the troops
home, discharging them into the private sector, where they would effectively
become “citizen-soldiers” — well-trained citizens prepared
to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of a foreign
invasion of our country. And for the American people to heed the warning
of President Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex, by shutting
down the Pentagon’s enormous domestic military empire, closing domestic
bases, and discharging those troops into the private sector.
“Oh, my gosh, if we did all that, how would our freedoms
Protected from what? Again, there is no threat of a foreign
invasion. And again, terrorism is not a threat to our freedom. Moreover,
dismantling the standing army would remove the primary means by which presidents
have succeeded in engendering so much anger and hatred against our nation
— anger and hatred that in turn have given rise to the threat of terrorism
against our nation. And finally, the worst threat to our freedom is our
own government, and by dismantling the standing army we would reduce that
What would happen if a foreign nation ever began constructing
thousands of ships and planes and mobilizing millions of people to invade
the United States? The answer to that threat was also provided by our Founding
Fathers: the foreign nation in question would be met by a nation of free
well-armed citizens who would be prepared and willing to rally quickly to
oppose any invasion and conquest of our nation. Invading a United States
filled with well-trained, free men and women would be much like invading
Switzerland — like swallowing a porcupine. Don’t forget that
the men and women who currently serve in the U.S. armed services wouldn’t
disappear; instead they would join the rest of us as citizen-soldiers, people
whose fighting skills could be depended on in the unlikely event our nation
were ever threatened by invasion by a foreign power.
We should also keep in mind the tremendous economic prosperity
that would result from the dismantling of America’s enormous standing
army. Not only would all the taxpayer money that is being used to fund the
standing army be left in the hands of the citizenry for savings and capital,
but all those new people in the private sector would be producing as well,
instead of living off the IRS-provided fruits of other people’s earnings.
Thus, the economic effect would be doubly positive, and, while weakening
the federal government, it would make our nation stronger.
What about foreign monsters, tyrants, oppressors, and conquerors?
The answer to that was also provided by our Founding Fathers: Our government
would no longer go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but foreigners
suffering oppression and tyranny would know that there would always be at
least one nation that would accept them — the United States of America.
Rather than police the world, Americans would focus on producing the freest
and most prosperous society in history as a model for the world and to which
those who escaped tyranny and oppression could freely come.
Of course, those Americans who would nonetheless wish to leave
their families and jobs to help oppressed people overseas would still be
free to do so.
We should also bear in mind the perverse
results of the federal government’s military empire and overseas
interventions. World War I brought World War II, which brought the Soviet
communist occupation of Eastern Europe, which brought the Cold War, the
Korean War, and the Vietnam War, along with an enormous standing army in
our country. The Middle East interventions and meddling have brought us
terrorism, the war on terrorism, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Padilla doctrine,
military torture and sex abuse, and CIA kidnappings and “renditions”
to foreign countries for the purpose of proxy torture.
By their fruits, you shall know them.
One vision — the vision of militarism
— will bring America more violence, death, destruction, impoverishment,
and loss of freedom. The other vision — the vision of a limited-government,
constitutional republic with citizen-soldiers — would put our nation
back on the right road of peace, prosperity, harmony, and freedom.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of
Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.