The Founding Fathers Fought the Revolutionary War to Stop the Type of Militarized Police We Now Have In the U.S.

Founders Versus Ferguson …

Former Congressman – and Cleveland mayor – Dennis Kucinich wrote a must-read post yesterday:

The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770, was a catalyst toward the American Revolution. Five civilians were killed by the British soldiers. The Declaration of Independence, in condemning the offenses against liberty by George III, stated:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction  foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  • For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
  • For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states

Indeed, the top expert on the militarization of America’s police forces – Washington Post writer Radley Balko, who has testified to Congress and written books on the subject – confirms that the Founders would have seen the militarized police as an unconstitutional standing army:

Balko starts with the provocative proposition that police as we know them in modern America are unconstitutional. “The Founders and their contemporaries would probably have seen even the early-nineteenth-century police forces as a standing army, and a particularly odious one at that,” Balko writes. “Just before the American Revolution, it wasn’t the stationing of British troops in the colonies that irked patriots in Boston and Virginia; it was the England’s decision to use the troops for everyday law enforcement.”

Balko links that decision to the oft forgotten Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of troops in Americans’ homes against their will during peacetime. The Third Amendment is rarely litigated, and the Supreme Court has never heard a case primarily concerning the amendment, but Balko argues that it was included in the Bill of Rights out of a larger concern that a standing army could be used for the purposes of enforcing the law.The actual quartering of British troops in the private homes of colonists was rare…It was the predictable fallout from positioning soldiers trained for warfare on city streets, among the civilian populace, and using them to enforce law and maintain order that enraged colonists.”

In a post headlined, “Militarized Police: The Standing Army the Founders Warned About“, New American notes:

In an essay published in the Wall Street Journal last August, Radley Balko presented chilling and convincing evidence of the blurring of the line between cop and soldier:

Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.

Balko rightly connects the menace of the martial police with the decline in liberty and a disintegration of legal boundaries between sheriffs and generals:

Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe’s emperors and monarchs.

A Google search for the following phrase turns up over 250,000 hits, including articles from across the spectrum, such as Newsweek, Daily Kos, the American Conservative and Truth-Out:

“standing army” Ferguson

The same search yields thousands of images.  A comparison of photos of soldiers in war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan and police in Ferguson shows they are virtually indistinguishable.


Someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment[ed] that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone” …


Remember, the Founding Fathers repeatedly warned against standing armies.

Of course, it would be bad enough if the militarized police forces were only used in genuine emergencies. But Balko notes that the authorities have become “very antagonistic toward the very idea of free speech and the First Amendment“.  And militarized swat teams are being used against people who commit copyright infringement … or credit card fraud.  They’re being used “for routine warrant service in … nonviolent crimes“.

And Balko notes:

SWAT teams today are overwhelmingly used to investigate people who are still only suspected of committing nonviolent consensual crimes.

And Ellen Brown argues that the police are being militarized to protect of the financial elites:

When depositors cannot access their bank accounts to get money for food for the kids, they could well start breaking store windows and helping themselves. Worse, they might plot to overthrow the financier-controlled government. Witness Greece, where increasing disillusionment with the ability of the government to rescue the citizens from the worst depression since 1929 has precipitated riots and threats of violent overthrow.

Fear of that result could explain the massive, government-authorized spying on American citizens, the domestic use of drones, and the elimination of due process and of “posse comitatus” (the federal law prohibiting the military from enforcing “law and order” on non-federal property). Constitutional protections are being thrown out the window in favor of protecting the elite class in power.

Postscript: The Founding Fathers also fought the Revolutionary War for other reasons, such as stopping:

Interestingly, 3 times as many American colonists supported King George of England during the Revolutionary War as support our own Congress today.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Franklin Beenz

    Perhaps the so-called Founding Fathers goodness and humaneness has been romanticized and fantasized with the passage of the centuries as George Washington was no angel and in fact triggered what actually was the first World War but is better known as the Seven Years War of 1756-1763.

    Washington, as a military leader during the War of Independence, was, as a liberal thinker in the
    drafting of the Constitution, also a shrewd political leader. At the age of 22 he was still a British officer in the American colonies. He was then involved in an incident to which the real First World War, which
    shook the Earth, basically leads back. With 160 soldiers, in 1754, he patrolled the Ohio Valley between British and French territories. In May of that year, the French sent out a diplomat in order to move Washington from their territory. But he opened fire on the diplomatic corps, whereby the French negotiator and about 13 of his accompanying soldiers were deliberately murdered, in Washington’s hope of being able to drive a wedge between the French and the British, because only such a conflict between the two colonial powers could lead to success in regard to the American War of Independence. This felony led to the triggering of the so-called French and Indian Wars, from which, two years later, emerged the bloody conflicts between the great European powers and thus the Seven Years War, which was fought in America, Europe and Asia and therefore was worldwide, which is why this was the real First World War which, however, was kept secret from the world’s
    “The Seven Years’ War took place between 1754 and 1763 with the main conflict being in the seven-year period 1756–1763. It involved most of the great powers of the time and affected Europe, North America, Central America, the West African coast, India, and the Philippines.”

  • Are Cops Constitutional?
    Police is mentioned exactly ZERO times in the Constitution


    Aug 19, 2014 Massive Joint Military Training Exercise in Niagara Region Ontario

    Dan Dicks and the PFT team cover Exercise Stalwart Guardian 14 which began on Saturday August 16, 2014 in the Niagara region of Ontario. The military exercise involves several armored regiments and over 2,000 Canadian, American, Scottish and British troops operating in public areas.

  • Occams

    At least there is no ‘grey area’ as to who the enemies of the United States are…..ANYONE – who so willingly is a traitor to this nation; MSM whores, politicians, police, military, DHS…..

  • Edwin Vieira

    This is all self-evident. The article does not, however, identify the institutions which the Constitution specifies as the only institutions with the authority and responsibility “to execute the Laws”. Look it up. Then ask yourself why, for all practical purposes, these institutions are entirely moribund throughout the United States. Hint: The Constitution declares that these institutions are “necessary to the security of a free State”–and someone wants this country to become a thoroughgoing police state. This should tell you what needs to be done.

    • Charles Savoie

      On my list of things to do is the matter of writing a documentary as to British influence in the USA legal system, as exemplified by members of The Pilgrims Society, because no one else will or can do this.

  • Occams
  • Charlie

    It is time to realize the reality of demon spirits and their activities. In observations of police and the attitude they radiate towards the public, I see hate so boundless as to beggar language to describe it.

  • dluch

    When they’re pounding down doors, dragging people out of bed, beating/shooting them in Iraq, they’re heroes…when they do it to us, they’re plgs?!

  • Frank Churchill

    Wondering what the founding fathers would do if they saw the world today

  • Sovereigntea


    Shoot to kill = training key 582

    Under the aegis of LEEP – its Law Enforcement Exchange Program – JINSA
    sponsors counter terrorism exchanges between the Israel National Police
    and the American law enforcement community including a yearly trip to
    Israel for American law enforcement leaders as well as a conference
    series held annually across the United States.

    On July 8, 2005, a day after the London bombings, the International Association of
    Chiefs of Police (IACP), an organization of global membership that facilitates the training and cooperation of police officers in the U.S. and worldwide, released its guidelines on the detection and prevention of suicide bombings. These guidelines are articulated in IACP’s Training Keys 581 and 582 (entitled Suicide (Homicide) Bombers I & II, respectively) (hereinafter “Training Keys”). To detect potential suicide bombers, Training Key 581 instructs police officers to look for certain behavioral and physical characteristics, similar to those identified in behavior pattern recognition guidelines. To prevent potential suicide bombers, Training Key 582 promotes the use of lethal force, encouraging officers to aim for the suspect’s head and shoot-to-kill.

    World’s Largest Police Organization Honors the Israel National Police at JINSA Event

    International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) honored the Israel
    National Police during the IACP’s 115th annual conference held November
    8-12 in San Diego, Calif. The presentation took place during a luncheon
    sponsored by JINSA.

    The IACP is the largest law enforcement
    organization in the world with a membership of more than 20,000 members
    from over 89 countries. The relationship between the IACP and the
    Israel National Police was strengthened with the establishment of
    JINSA’s Law Enforcement Exchange Program (LEEP). Since 2002, the
    majority of the IACP’s leadership has traveled to Israel with LEEP to
    study methods and techniques used in preventing and reacting to acts of

    more here