A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.

The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.

Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.

The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest.

In 2010 we saw the uprising in the middle east and we saw how the Greece came apart when their currency became worthless due to hyper inflation and the government simply devaluing it by printing too much of it.

 In Syria we see today the government “quelling civil unrest.”  Admittedly they are the cause of the civil unrest that they are quelling by murdering their citizens with anything from typical gunfire to rockets to bombs to chemical attacks.  I am guessing if they had unmanned drones they would use them as well.

 Understand that the second amendment was designed for the people to keep the government in check through the use of militias if necessary, can you imagine a government run a muck like we see in the middle east today; here in the US where your sons and daughters are ordered by “not just this president but any elected official” to take up arms against you; their parents!

This bill “in my humble opinion” is so far off the mark of what our government is about, it boggles the mind. 

For someone who used to teach “constitutional law” this guy and his people are so far left they make Putin look conservative.

Just my 2 cents worth…