Chuck Norris: Texas Ranger warns of potential US government plot to take over Lone Star State


Chuck Norris is racing to the rescue once again.

The 75-year-old actor, martial arts expert and upholder of conservative causes, has suggested that a US military exercise planned for later this summer may in fact be nothing less than a rascally plot to take over his home state of Texas.

Writing in his column on the right-wing website WorldNetDaily, Norris, suggested there was potential for Jade Helm 15, a US military training exercise planned for July and August, to turn into an occupation.

“If you haven’t heard about Operation Jade Helm 15, you need to. The US government says, ‘It’s just a training exercise’,” wrote Norris, who for many years starred in the TV series Walker, Texas Ranger.

“But I’m not sure the term "just" has any reference to reality when the government uses it. It’s neither over-reactionary nor conspiratorial to call into question or ask for transparency about Jade Helm 15 or any other government activity.”

Jade Helm 15, which is held across public and private land in six states, has long attracted the concerns of those who have little truck with the federal government’s potential for overreach.

Indeed, both the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, and US senator Ted Cruz, a Republican candidates for president, have publicly voiced their purported concerns about the event. Mr Abbott said he would have the Texas state guard monitor the event.

"I’m glad Ted Cruz is asking the tough questions of the Pentagon. Particularly because its ‘exercises’ come too near to my ranch’s backdoor as well, at least according to the map," he wrote.

“It’s pretty sad and bad when major military ops are ordered in a large, fiery state like Texas and not even the governor or its senators know the specifics.”

Norris, who earlier this year urged the citizens of Israel to vote for Benjamin Netanyahu, has long been a favourite of conservatives.

He added: “To those who merely think we should check our brains at the door of the White House and trust what the government does, I would reiterate to you the words of one of our government’s primary founders, Benjamin Franklin, who said, “Distrust and caution are the parents of security”.”

 juraigamer wrote:
Texans do know that Texas is under US control right? Since 1845? And that these wargames happened back in 2001 or something? The only change is who the president is atm.

 CptJake wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Texans do know that Texas is under US control right? Since 1845? And that these wargames happened back in 2001 or something? The only change is who the president is atm.

If you really want to get into it, the Feds don't 'control' ANY state or commonwealth, all are sovereign entities with their own constitutions and governments.

That's not the same as having some rogue Texans, decked out in guillie suits with rifles scoped on our military guys, to watch out for any nefarius activites.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Texans do know that Texas is under US control right? Since 1845? And that these wargames happened back in 2001 or something? The only change is who the president is atm.

If you really want to get into it, the Feds don't 'control' ANY state or commonwealth, all are sovereign entities with their own constitutions and governments.

If the Feds don't 'control' any state or commonwealth, then why was there a civil war? If they are sovereign entities, then surely, they're free to leave the union at any time?

 whembly wrote:
Meh...

The media (NPR, Independent, etc) is over reacting to this imo...

Abbott ordered the State Guard (not the National Guard) to observe the military manuevers and facilitate direct communication between the military and the Governor's office.

That's not a bad idea folks.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Meh...

The media (NPR, Independent, etc) is over reacting to this imo...

Abbott ordered the State Guard (not the National Guard) to observe the military manuevers and facilitate direct communication between the military and the Governor's office.

That's not a bad idea folks.

Actually, yeah. That is an AWFUL idea. It's more things that can go wrong.

You want to "facilitate direct communication between the military and the Governor's office"? You have the military pick up the phone and deal with the Governor's office. But since the Governor isn't really necessary for any of these exercises, the Governor has no business getting involved.

As CptJake said, North Carolina has survived decades of Robin Sage exercises without nuttiness like this.

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually, unless the military is only acting on military bases then the governor has to be involved, else its..illegal.

 CptJake wrote:
Of course that was a problem. But since Robin Sage started in the 70s, it is one that is pretty damned small/rare, and one they have since addressed.

The soldiers in that incident AND the LEO made some big mistakes.

And yet, at no time did the exercise threaten the NC government, even when some poor fethers got killed because folks didn't pay attention to what was going on. The intent of the exercise (much like the intent of this one coming up across the south to include TX) is to train troops, NOT usurp state governments.

 KiloFiX wrote:
I think the concern is not so much about a takeover (though some media and some individuals are making it out to be) but about disregard for private property, safety and disruption.

There's also a big difference between training being done in a specific location in close proximity with private property, or a couple of cold starving folks trying to E&E through your land vs a huge mobilization of undercover operatives through non-specific public and private areas, armed with firearms (even if blanks or simunitions).

Just imagine if you are a Texan landowner situated by the border and one night you see a whole bunch of gun toating guys traversing your land close to your home. How are you supposed to react?

That said, some monitoring by the State wouldn't be unreasonable.

 CptJake wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
I think the concern is not so much about a takeover (though some media and some individuals are making it out to be) but about disregard for private property, safety and disruption.

There's also a big difference between training being done in a specific location in close proximity with private property, or a couple of cold starving folks trying to E&E through your land vs a huge mobilization of undercover operatives through non-specific public and private areas, armed with firearms (even if blanks or simunitions).

Just imagine if you are a Texan landowner situated by the border and one night you see a whole bunch of gun toating guys traversing your land close to your home. How are you supposed to react?

That said, some monitoring by the State wouldn't be unreasonable.

Except, unless the troopers get really lost, that cannot happen, as the land owners have been coordinated with.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Meh...

The media (NPR, Independent, etc) is over reacting to this imo...

Abbott ordered the State Guard (not the National Guard) to observe the military manuevers and facilitate direct communication between the military and the Governor's office.

That's not a bad idea folks.

Actually, yeah. That is an AWFUL idea. It's more things that can go wrong.

You want to "facilitate direct communication between the military and the Governor's office"? You have the military pick up the phone and deal with the Governor's office. But since the Governor isn't really necessary for any of these exercises, the Governor has no business getting involved.

As CptJake said, North Carolina has survived decades of Robin Sage exercises without nuttiness like this.

So... you saying this wasn't a problem?
http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/DF_Articles/Files/NorthCarolina/deputy_shoots_2_soldiers.htm

 KiloFiX wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
I think the concern is not so much about a takeover (though some media and some individuals are making it out to be) but about disregard for private property, safety and disruption.

There's also a big difference between training being done in a specific location in close proximity with private property, or a couple of cold starving folks trying to E&E through your land vs a huge mobilization of undercover operatives through non-specific public and private areas, armed with firearms (even if blanks or simunitions).

Just imagine if you are a Texan landowner situated by the border and one night you see a whole bunch of gun toating guys traversing your land close to your home. How are you supposed to react?

That said, some monitoring by the State wouldn't be unreasonable.

Except, unless the troopers get really lost, that cannot happen, as the land owners have been coordinated with.

Is that true? I didn't hear such - That all the land owners have been coordinated with. But if so, then I would indeed be less concerned.

Use training environments off federal property when required once they have been properly coordinated with local (e.g,. civil, tribal, and private) authorities and when the requirements of this instruction have been met.

 KiloFiX wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
I think the concern is not so much about a takeover (though some media and some individuals are making it out to be) but about disregard for private property, safety and disruption.

There's also a big difference between training being done in a specific location in close proximity with private property, or a couple of cold starving folks trying to E&E through your land vs a huge mobilization of undercover operatives through non-specific public and private areas, armed with firearms (even if blanks or simunitions).

Just imagine if you are a Texan landowner situated by the border and one night you see a whole bunch of gun toating guys traversing your land close to your home. How are you supposed to react?

That said, some monitoring by the State wouldn't be unreasonable.

Except, unless the troopers get really lost, that cannot happen, as the land owners have been coordinated with.

Is that true? I didn't hear such - That all the land owners have been coordinated with. But if so, then I would indeed be less concerned.

Jade Helm 15 will take place on tracts of both public and private land in the seven states.

“In every case, extensive coordination has been completed with whoever’s responsible for that land,” Warren said. “In the case of private land, we’ve spoken and made detailed coordination with the patriotic Americans who have volunteered their land for the use of this important training.”

At the Pentagon, Warren said: “This is training that we’ve coordinated in great detail with both state and local officials in the various states that we’ll be conducting it.”

Not all Texans have reacted with hostility to Jade Helm 15. After the Army made presentations to the Big Spring City Council and the Howard County Commission, two local agencies in West Texas, the Big Spring City Council passed a resolution granting the Army permission to train within its city limits.

 whembly wrote:
Isn't that^ what Abbott doing?
"once they have been properly coordinated"?

In determining the appropriate civil authorities for coordination, local government officials (e.g., mayor, city manager, county commissioner, or tribal leaders), and local and federal law enforcement agencies will be consulted. At a minimum, a senior level official with responsibility for each affected civilian environment will be consulted. For category I and II training events, if coordination with civilian officials is determined to be unnecessary or violates operations security (OPSEC) requirements, the decision by the approval authority to not do so will be cited in the approval documentation.