The fictitious scenario used in the Army report as a teaching tool is
a future insurrection of "tea party activists" in South Carolina. As
the scenario goes, the tea party group stages a takeover of the town of
Darlington, S.C. The mayor is placed under house arrest and prevented
from exercising his duties. The police chief, the county sheriff, and
other law enforcement officials are removed from office and told not to
interfere. The city council is dissolved. The governor of the state, who
had previously expressed solidarity with tea party goals, does little
to address the situation.
A news conference is called by the new town leaders, all tea party
activists, who tell the media that due to the failure of central
government to address the concerns of the citizens, the Declaration of
Independence has been re-imposed and the local government has been
declared null and void. From the report:
When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to
announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and
argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving
its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually
“destructive to these ends.” Therefore, they say, the people can alter
or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in
the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their
safety and happiness.” While mainstream politicians and citizens react
with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a
groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist
organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such
as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups.
Several items of interest are to be noted in the scenario the Army
uses to describe the tea party activists -- "right wing," "extremists,"
"insurrectionists," all of whom are lumped together with militias and
organizations that are considered "racist" and "anti-immigration."
By contrast, those who oppose the tea party are referred to as "mainstream."
The obvious question that arises is why would this sort of scenario,
with its obviously biased and skewed portrayals, be presented as a
teaching tool to military personnel? Why would the U.S. military
consider the tea party to be "extremist" or "insurrectionist?" And why
would the tea party be classified together with groups that are "racist,
"anti-immigration," and "extremist right wing?"
In the numerous tea party rallies that have occurred across the
nation no racism was noted by any observer. Speakers included persons of
all races and ethnic backgrounds. No sentiment was expressed against
legal immigration but outrage was directed toward those break the law
and enter the country by illegal means. And the charge that the tea
party is extremist right wing is difficult to justify given that the
main thrust of the movement is the protest against runaway government
spending that has placed the nation on the brink of economic ruin due to
its enormous and unsustainable debt.
Yet repeatedly since the election of Barack Obama in 2009, the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has referred to the tea party as "potential homegrown terrorists.
Why? Not a shred of evidence remotely suggests that the tea party has
any connection whatsoever with terrorists. Yet some of President
Obama's closet longtime friends have not only been associated with
terrorism but actively participated in it, such as Bill Ayers
and Bernadine Dohrn, who as members of the Weathermen from the 1960s
and 70s bombed federal buildings that resulted in the deaths of police
But if one listens to the rhetoric emanating from the White House,
DHS, and now the U.S. military, one gets the impression that none of the
president's friends ever posed a threat to the country but hundreds of
thousands of tea party activists are ticking time bombs lying in wait to
unleash a nuke on an American city at the drop of a hat.
The brainwashing against conservatives by this administration has had
a definite impact on the military. One analyst who works for retired
U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely told this reporter that now over half of Pentagon
personnel are solidly in Obama's corner and share his values and world view.
And with the publication of the Benson and Weber article, it is now
clear that the U.S. Army considers it a valid proposition to assume that
a future civil war will be sparked not by extremist Islamists with
dirty bombs or left wing insurrectionists inspired by Alinsky or Ayers
but by the tea party and the conservatives who participate in it.