PDA

View Full Version : CSIS - US Army War College 'strategic shock' massive unrest MARTIAL LAW (serious)



Defcon5
12-18-2008, 01:42 AM
Doomsday: U.S. report warns of 'strategic shock' leading to massive unrest
WASHINGTON - The United States could be sleep-walking into its next crisis, a military report said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ss_military0790_12_15.asp


The report by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute, said that a defense community paralyzed by conventional thinking could be unprepared to help the United States cope with a series of unexpected crises that would rival the Al Qaida strikes in 2001, termed a "strategic shock."

The report cited the prospect of the collapse of a nuclear state leading to massive unrest in the United States.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, said.

"Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock."

Titled "Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development," the report warned that the U.S. military and intelligence community remain mired in the past as well as the need to accommodate government policy. Freier, a former Pentagon official, said that despite the Al Qaida surprise in 2001 U.S. defense strategy and planning remain trapped by "excessive convention."

"The current administration confronted a game-changing 'strategic shock' inside its first eight months in office," the report said. "The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense]."

The report cited the collapse of what Freier termed "a large capable state that results in a nuclear civil war." Such a prospect could lead to uncontrolled weapons of mass destruction proliferation as well as a nuclear war.

The report cited the prospect of a breakdown of order in the United States. Freier said the Pentagon could be suddenly forced to recall troops from abroad to fight domestic unrest.

"An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home," the report said.

The report said the United States could also come under pressure from a hostile state with control over insurgency groups. The hostile state could force American decision-makers into a desperate response.

"The United States might also consider the prospect that hostile state and/or nonstate actors might individually or in concert combine hybrid methods effectively to resist U.S. influence in a nonmilitary manner," the report said. "This is clearly an emerging trend."

"The aforementioned are admittedly extreme," the report said. "They are not, however, implausible or fantastical."

Strategic Studies Institute - US Army War College (martial law thinktanking)
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/Display.Cfm?pubID=890
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB890.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Col. Nathan Freir

Nathan Freier is a trustee of CSIS

This group has members like Kissinger, Scrowcroft and Brezenski. He and his group are the REAL DOMESTIC ENEMIES.

"a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Mr. Freier joined CSIS in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel."

http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_press&task=view&id=4323

Chairman
Sam Nunn* ** -- Cochairman & CEO, Nuclear Threat Initiative


Vice Chairman & Co-Founder
David M. Abshire -- President, Center for the Study of the Presidency


Chairman of the Executive Committee
William A. Schreyer* -- Chairman Emeritus, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.


President & CEO
John J. Hamre* -- President & CEO, CSIS


Trustees
George L. Argyros -- Chairman & CEO, Arnel & Affiliates
Richard Armitage -- President, Armitage International
Betty Beene -- Former President & CEO, United Way of America
Reginald K. Brack -- Former Chairman & CEO, Time, Incorporated
William E. Brock** -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Harold Brown** -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Zbigniew Brzezinski** -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
William S. Cohen -- Chairman & CEO, The Cohen Group
Ralph Cossa -- President, Pacific Forum/CSIS
Richard Fairbanks -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
William H. Frist -- Trustee, CSIS
Michael P. Galvin* -- President, Harrison Street Capital, LLC
Helene D. Gayle -- President & CEO, CARE USA
Linda W. Hart -- Vice Chairman & CEO, The Hart Group, Inc.

Ben W. Heineman, Jr. -- CSIS Trustee and Senior Adviser
Thomas O. Hicks -- Chairman, Hicks Holdings LLC
Carla A. Hills** -- Chairman & CEO, Hills & Company
Ray L. Hunt -- Chairman of the Board, President and CEO, Hunt Consolidated, Inc.
E. Neville Isdell -- Chairman, The Coca-Cola Company
James L. Jones -- Trustee, CSIS OBAMA's NEW NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
Muhtar Kent -- President and CEO, The Coco-Cola Company
Henry A. Kissinger** -- Chairman & CEO, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Kenneth G. Langone -- President & CEO, Invemed Associates, LLC
Donald B. Marron -- Chairman & CEO, Lightyear Capital
Joseph Nye -- Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government
Thomas Pritzker -- Chairman & CEO, The Pritzker Organization, LLC
Joseph E. Robert -- Chairman and CEO, The J.E. Robert Companies (JER)
Felix G. Rohatyn -- Vice Chairman, FGR Associated, LLC
David M. Rubenstein -- Cofounder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group
Charles A. Sanders -- Former Chairman & CEO, Glaxo Inc.
James R. Schlesinger** -- Former Secretary of Defense and Energy
Brent Scowcroft** -- President, Forum for International Policy
Rex Tillerson -- Chairman & CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Frederick B. Whittemore -- Advisory Director, Morgan Stanley


TRUSTEES EMERITI

Amos A. Jordan -- President Emeritus, CSIS
Murray Weidenbaum -- Hon. Chair, Weidenbaum Center, Washington University
Dolores D. Wharton -- Retired Chairman and CEO, Fund For Corporate Initiatives, Inc.


COUNSELORS

William E. Brock -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS

Harold Brown -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Frank C. Carlucci -- Counselor, CSIS
Zbigniew Brzezinski -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Richard Fairbanks -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Carla A. Hills -- Chairman & CEO, Hills & Company
Henry A. Kissinger -- Chairman & CEO, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Theodore McCarrick -- Counselor, CSIS
Sam Nunn -- Cochairman & CEO, Nuclear Threat Initiative
James R. Schlesinger -- Former Secretary of Defense and Energy
Brent Scowcroft -- President, Forum for International Policy

EXCERPT FROM THE PDF: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB890.pdf


Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States.

As a community, the defense establishment swears
to protect and defend the constitution against all
enemies foreign and domestic. DoD?s role in combating
?domestic enemies? has never been thoughtfully
examined. Thus, there is perhaps no greater source

Page 31

of strategic shock for DoD than operationalizing that
component of the oath of service in a widespread
domestic emergency that entails rapid dissolution of

public order in all or significant parts of the United
States.

While likely not an immediate prospect, this is
clearly a ?Black Swan? that merits some visibility inside
DoD and the Department of Homeland Security. To
the extent events like this involve organized violence
against local, state, and national authorities and exceed
the capacity of the former two to restore public order
and protect vulnerable populations, DoD would
be required to fill the gap. This is largely uncharted
strategic territory.

Widespread civil violence inside the United States
would force the defense establishment to reorient
priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order
and human security. Deliberate employment of weap-
ons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabili-
ties, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of function-
ing political and legal order, purposeful domestic resis-
tance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergen-
cies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are
all paths to disruptive domestic shock.

An American government and defense establish-
ment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domes-
tic order would be forced to rapidly divest some
or most external security commitments in order to
address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home.
Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian
authorities in instances of domestic security and divest
all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil
support and consequence management, DoD might
be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources
at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and

Page 32

reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under
the most extreme circumstances, this might include
use of military force against hostile groups inside the
United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an
essential enabling hub for the continuity of political
authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict
or disturbance.

A whole host of long-standing defense conventions
would be severely tested. Under these conditions and
at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities,
on advice of the defense establishment, would need
to rapidly determine the parameters defining the
legitimate use of military force inside the United States.
Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination
and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security
institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is
already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine
the challenges associated with doing so on a massive
scale at home.

gotDOMS
12-18-2008, 01:46 AM
in b4 ****storm
if u dont believe it dont post

Skettch
12-18-2008, 01:50 AM
Give it a rest, national martial law will never happen.

The longterm goal is slow, forced integration and then destruction of every racial/religious group.

It won't be the result of a single action, more like a slow tightening of the rope wrapped around your throat, with continuous loss of personal freedom and control.

This won't be the result of any military action, no, this change is being facilitated through manipulation of the media.

Defcon5
12-18-2008, 02:20 AM
Give it a rest, national martial law will never happen.

The longterm goal is slow, forced integration and then destruction of every racial/religious group.

It won't be the result of a single action, more like a slow tightening of the rope wrapped around your throat, with continuous loss of personal freedom and control.

This won't be the result of any military action, no, this change is being facilitated through manipulation of the media.

YkYIuK5r_dc

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/images/patrol.jpg
A recent report by the U.S. Army War College discusses the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used in the event of civil unrest due to the economic crisis.

Mike Sunnucks, writing for the Phoenix Business Journal, reports that Arizona state and local police ?say they have broad plans to deal with social unrest, including trouble resulting from economic distress. The security and police agencies declined to give specifics, but said they would employ existing and generalized emergency responses to civil unrest that arises for any reason.?

The Phoenix Police Department told the newspaper it has a Tactical Response Unit that trains ?continually and has deployed on many occasions for any potential civil unrest issue,? according to Phoenix Police spokesman Andy Hill. Scottsdale Police spokesman Mark Clark said his department has similar plans ?in place for such civil unrest.?

The Phoenix Business Journal notes Clark, Hill and other local police officials said the region did plenty of planning and emergency management training for the Super Bowl in February in Glendale. The training at the Super Bowl included personnel and resources from the Department of Homeland Security and the Northern Command, which coordinated with Arizona officials.

As Infowars and Prison Planet have documented, Northern Command is specifically tasked with implementing martial law under Continuity of Government. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 voided restrictions placed on the military to support civilian administration by the Posse Comitatus Act, the latter restricting the military from working with local law enforcement. In addition to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a 1994 U.S. Defense Department Directive (DODD 3025) allows military commanders to take emergency actions in domestic situations.

A recent report by the U.S. Army War College discusses the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used in the event of civil unrest due to the economic crisis, ?such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks,? according to the Phoenix Business Journal.

On December 16, Steve Watson and Paul Watson detailed the U.S. Army War College report, entitled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development.

?Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,? writes [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir for the U.S. Army War College. ?Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.? (Emphasis added.)

In other words, any organized political response to the engineered bankster economic crisis will be considered ?resistance or insurgency? and will be dealt with by the military and militarized local law enforcement, the former trained to kill people and break things.

On December 16, the International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned of economic riots and widespread civil unrest if the financial crisis is not addressed.

Last month Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, renowned for his accuracy in predicting future world and economic events, predicted a depression of a magnitude worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s, tax rebellions, and possibly a popular revolution against the government. On December 15, Paul Joseph Watson reported Celente updating his prediction by stating ?that America will see riots similar to those currently ongoing in Greece and that the cause will be a hyper-inflationary depression, leading to the inevitable use of troops and mercenaries to deal with the crisis as Americans are incarcerated in internment camps.?

The fact that a corporate media newspaper such as the Phoenix Business Journal is now telling us police are trained with the assistance of Northcom and the Department of Homeland Security to respond to civil unrest spawned by economic unrest should be a wake-up call to all Americans that the government is planning to institute martial law.

No doubt, in the weeks to come, the corporate media will increase the drumbeat of the possibility of civil unrest and violence related to the bankster engineered economic crisis designed to usher in a global currency and an all-encompassing global government.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=6618
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trends Forecaster Celente: Greece-Style Riots Coming To U.S.

Frighteningly accurate trends forecaster Gerald Celente says that America will see riots similar to those currently ongoing in Greece and that the cause will be a hyper-inflationary depression, leading to the inevitable use of troops and mercenaries to deal with the crisis as Americans are incarcerated in internment camps.

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/images/troops-coming.jpg
Celente said that the troops now being brought back to America for ?domestic security? would be used to suppress the riots.

As we have highlighted before,
Celente?s accuracy is stunning - he predicted the 1987 crash, the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the ?panic of 2008,? and is routinely cited even by mainstream news networks as highly credible.

The cause of the riots would be a hyper-inflationary depression, Celente told interviewer Lew Rockwell, causing Americans to revolt in similar circumstances that we have witnessed recently in Iceland and Greece. The trouble would be sparked off by Obama declaring a ?bank holiday? whereby people won?t be able to withdraw their money.

?What?s going on in Greece with these riots has nothing to do with a 15-year-old boy being killed, that was only the spark that ignited the pent up, really hatred and disdain, people have for the scandals and corrupt government and the same thing is going on in this country as well,? said Celente.

Celente reiterated his prediction of a revolution and riots in America, and said that the first signs of it could even emerge before the end of the year.

Celente said that the troops now being brought back to America for ?domestic security? would be used to suppress the riots."
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2541
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nutsy54
12-18-2008, 06:45 AM
in b4 ****storm
if u dont believe it dont postGreat position. . . If you don't agree with our fear-mongering, delusional paranoia, You're Not Allowed To Speak. :rolleyes:

Of course, we all know what happens when someone does dare to speak dissent in the face of an Anti_Illuminati post: We're "reported" to his hate-site, so we can be laughed at and further monitored. Naming names, creating lists of those who must be suppressed. Gee, exactly what you guys keep accusing the Government of.


This message is hidden because Defcon5 is on your ignore list.

This message is hidden because Anti_Illuminati is on your ignore list.

jmonty
12-18-2008, 07:19 AM
in b4 ****storm
if u dont believe it dont post

oops..

lol

i demand an ip check on the op!

jmonty
12-18-2008, 07:21 AM
This message is hidden because Defcon5 is on your ignore list.



This message is hidden because Anti_Illuminati is on your ignore list.

i sea what you did there.

all pro
12-18-2008, 07:45 AM
So Anti_Illuminati Defcon5, what do YOU intend to do about any of this. So far all you do is hop around like a 1 legged chicken with it's head on fire. Sort of like the captain of the Titanic hollering "iceberg dead ahead" but not giving any instructions to attempt to avoid the iceberg. Are you just going to cower in the corner wetting your pants like a little girl or do you plan on DOING something about it? Warning others ISN'T doing something about it. It seems to me that you're hoping that those of us with a nut sack will protect your worthless hide.
One last time, when push comes to shove, what are YOU going to do about it?

nutsy54
12-18-2008, 07:49 AM
Sort of like the captain of the Titanic hollering "iceberg dead ahead" . . .Actually, he's just the busboy on a normal ship, running through the restaurant, yelling at people that the ice in their drinks will sink the ship and kill them all :p

Irezumi
12-18-2008, 07:50 AM
in b4 ****storm
if u dont believe it dont post

You have got to be one of the most annoying fu*king trolls here. Next to all the religous nut jobs.

WilyCoder
12-18-2008, 07:52 AM
You have got to be one of the most annoying fu*king trolls here. Next to all the religous nut jobs.

Agreed.

all pro
12-18-2008, 08:08 AM
Actually, he's just the busboy on a normal ship, running through the restaurant, yelling at people that the ice in their drinks will sink the ship and kill them all :p

I stand corrected.

I have yet to see this guy offer a plan of action have you? I'm not going to bother disputing what he's posted. But I think at this point it's time to ask him what HE intends to do about it. I have yet to see him post a plan of action. I wont live in fear but I will plan for the worst and hope for the best. I haven't seen this guy make a single suggestion on combating any of this. I've taken the steps that I felt I needed to take. Do you know how many militia groups there are in this country and how many combat seasoned veterans there are in those groups? I'm having a hard time believing that anyone in the government is arrogant enough to believe that they could pull off an armed coup. But then I remember the old saying,
never say government...
intelligence in the same breath.

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 08:21 AM
I stand corrected.

I have yet to see this guy offer a plan of action have you? I'm not going to bother disputing what he's posted. But I think at this point it's time to ask him what HE intends to do about it. I have yet to see him post a plan of action. I wont live in fear but I will plan for the worst and hope for the best. I haven't seen this guy make a single suggestion on combating any of this. I've taken the steps that I felt I needed to take. Do you know how many militia groups there are in this country and how many combat seasoned veterans there are in those groups? I'm having a hard time believing that anyone in the government is arrogant enough to believe that they could pull off an armed coup. But then I remember the old saying,
never say government...
intelligence in the same breath.

When Argentina fell, the people that looted the country were gone before rioting started. The police state they left behind was only there to ensure they could not be brought to justice.

all pro
12-18-2008, 08:34 AM
When Argentina fell, the people that looted the country were gone before rioting started. The police state they left behind was only there to ensure they could not be brought to justice.

A police state would only be possible if we lost the ensuing civil war. I don't see that happening. But the taste of victory would be the taste of ashes. We would be broke, starving and the infastructor would be destroyed.

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 08:47 AM
A police state would only be possible if we lost the ensuing civil war. I don't see that happening. But the taste of victory would be the taste of ashes. We would be broke, starving and the infastructor would be destroyed.

I wonder if they would be bold enough to try it before we are disarmed. I think this is why fighting Obama's gun grabbing is crucial. A lot of the left seems to be waking up to the need for gun rights. If we can draw the line in front of the second ammendment we might be able to accomplish something.

all pro
12-18-2008, 08:52 AM
I wonder if they would be bold enough to try it before we are disarmed. I think this is why fighting Obama's gun grabbing is crucial. A lot of the left seems to be waking up to the need for gun rights. If we can draw the line in front of the second ammendment we might be able to accomplish something.

The first and second amendments are critical. If we loose them we might just as well gather together, invade Cuba and start all over again. I wonder how many armed men it would take to do that.

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 09:04 AM
The first and second amendments are critical. If we loose them we might just as well gather together, invade Cuba and start all over again. I wonder how many armed men it would take to do that.

Or just move to texas and secede :)

Defcon5
12-18-2008, 09:04 AM
I wonder if they would be bold enough to try it before we are disarmed. I think this is why fighting Obama's gun grabbing is crucial. A lot of the left seems to be waking up to the need for gun rights. If we can draw the line in front of the second ammendment we might be able to accomplish something.

Keep shutting these idiots down, they don't have the mental capacity to understand what is happening. Look at that list of names with Kissinger, Brzezinsk, etc. This is for real.


Great position. . . If you don't agree with our fear-mongering, delusional paranoia, You're Not Allowed To Speak.

You mean like the fear-mongering where I immediately warned everyone that D.C. Heller was in fact an Anti-Gun ruling instead of being pro-gun like the MSM and even the NRA said it was? Strong double-speak there, where you can claim that I'm fear-mongering and have delusional paranoia when I posted Constitutional law sources defending the 2nd amendment. I even agreed with one of your posts, because you happened to not be engaging in psy-ops in it.


Of course, we all know what happens when someone does dare to speak intentional psy-op disinformation in the face of a pro-American post: We're "reported" to his pro-constitutional site, so we can be laughed at and have new *******s torn for us for our . Naming names, because people who tell lies that are a direct attack against the bill of rights and constitution deserve to be exposed to the maximum extent possible. Whenever I say that he's doing the same thing that he accuses the government of; I say that because the government isn't being given a chance to defend itself. Therefore, everything said against the government is just allegations with zero proof because I, nutsy54 said so, and you better bow down before my almighty words because I'm a big, cancer virus vaccine-filled Senior Chief in the Navy which is run by The New World Order.

Corrected to be accurate.

By the way, nutsy54's definition of a hat-filled site is one that hates things such as:

Dick Cheney had an apparent addiction to the "thrill of the sport." He appeared obsessed with playing A Most Dangerous Game as a means of traumatizing mind control victims, as well as to satisfy his own perverse sexual kinks. My introduction to the game occurred upon arrival at the hunting lodge near Greybull, Wyoming, and it physically and psychologically devastated me. I was sufficiently traumatized for Cheney's programming, as I stood naked in his hunting lodge office after being hunted down and caught.

Cheney was talking as he paced around me, "I could stuff you and mount you like a jackalope and call you a two legged dear. Or I could stuff you with this (he unzipped his pants to reveal his oversized penis) right down your throat, and then mount you. Which do you prefer?" Blood and sweat became mixed with the dirt on my body and slid like mud down my legs and shoulder. I throbbed with exhaustion and pain as I stood unable to think to answer such a question. "Make up your mind," Cheney coaxed. Unable to speak, I remained silent. "You don't get a choice, anyway.

I make up your mind for you. That's why you're here. For me to make you a mind, and make you mine/mind. You lost your mind a long time ago. Now I'm going to give you one. Just like the Wizard (of Oz) gave Scarecrow a brain, the Yellow Brick Road led you here to me. You've 'come such a long, long way' for your brain, and I will give you one." The blood reached my shoes and caught my attention. Had I been further along in my programming, I perhaps would never have noticed such a thing or had the capability to think to wipe it away. But so far, I had only been to MacDill and Disney World for government/military programming.

At last, when I could speak, I begged, "If you don't mind, can I please use your bathroom?" Cheney's face turned red with rage. He was on me in an instant, slamming my back into the wall with one arm across my chest and his hand on my throat, choking me while applying pressure to the carotid artery in my neck with his thumb. His eyes bulged and he spit as he growled, "If you don't mind me, I will kill you. I could kill you -- Kill you -- with my bare hands. You're not the first and you won't be the last. I'll kill you any time I goddamn well please." He flung me on the cot-type bed that as behind me. There he finished taking his rage out on me sexually.[/color][/b]

On the long trip back to Michigan, I lay in a heap behind the seats of the Suburban, nauseated and hurting from Cheney's brutality and high voltage tortures,..."

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 09:51 AM
Ron Paul - "When the federal reserve finally accomplishes destroying the dollar, and we go into hyper inflation, one of two things will happen. Either they will use this disaster to set up their one world government, or our education of the public will have been successful and we will defeat them when they expose themselves."

Everyone will have to choose a side, soon.

all pro
12-18-2008, 10:00 AM
Ron Paul - "When the federal reserve finally accomplishes destroying the dollar, and we go into hyper inflation, one of two things will happen. Either they will use this disaster to set up their one world government, or our education of the public will have been successful and we will defeat them when they expose themselves."

Everyone will have to choose a side, soon.

What's to choose?

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p173/allpro18/comeandtakeit.jpg
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p173/allpro18/crosshairs.jpg

Klippymitch
12-18-2008, 10:10 AM
Ron Paul - "When the federal reserve finally accomplishes destroying the dollar, and we go into hyper inflation, one of two things will happen. Either they will use this disaster to set up their one world government, or our education of the public will have been successful and we will defeat them when they expose themselves."

Everyone will have to choose a side, soon.

Ron Paul isn't a type of person to make stuff up and he said this. We must be in trouble.

Dragger
12-18-2008, 10:38 AM
Defcon5 aka Anti-Illuminati is just like acerimrat and nastysal, he's lost all credibility to the point where nobody even reads his bullsh*t threads.

He's a complete joke, he's lost all credit; in fact he's up to his ass in credit debt. Just another delusional paranoid gullible idiot. He could say the sky is blue and I'd have doubt just because it came from him.

gotDOMS is quickly following his footsteps.

Buff__Mike
12-18-2008, 10:53 AM
Ron Paul - "When the federal reserve finally accomplishes destroying the dollar, and we go into hyper inflation, one of two things will happen. Either they will use this disaster to set up their one world government, or our education of the public will have been successful and we will defeat them when they expose themselves."

Everyone will have to choose a side, soon.

Very interesting...

Source?

Dragger
12-18-2008, 10:58 AM
in b4 ****storm
if u dont believe it dont post

Does this mean that from now on when YOU don't believe in a thread YOU won't post in it?

gotHYPOCRITE?

jmonty
12-18-2008, 11:03 AM
What's to choose?

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p173/allpro18/comeandtakeit.jpg
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p173/allpro18/crosshairs.jpg
oh hai
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g281/dustintherrien/OIF%2005-06%202/8b3e.jpg

TheStender
12-18-2008, 11:04 AM
I see your helicopter, and raise you:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f-22-1.jpg

all pro
12-18-2008, 11:04 AM
oh hai
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g281/dustintherrien/OIF%2005-06%202/8b3e.jpg

1 556 round in the tail rotor.
bye bye
so sorry

jmonty
12-18-2008, 11:06 AM
1 556 round in the tail rotor.
bye bye
so sorry

even if you could hit a target going 160knots...

nm.

that is a fun game though. :)

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 11:09 AM
Very interesting...

Source?

He's made that statement a few times in speeches. I'm paraphrasing though, going off of memory.

all pro
12-18-2008, 11:15 AM
even if you could hit a target going 160knots...

nm.

that is a fun game though. :)

I have 30 rounds, therefor I have 30 chances. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. It's doubtful they would be running at 160 chasing ground targets unless the target is in the open or a vehicle.

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 11:16 AM
I have 30 rounds, therefor I have 30 chances. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. It's doubtful they would be running at 160 chasing ground targets unless the target is in the open or a vehicle.

What if they get frustrated and start droping agent orange/napalm?

all pro
12-18-2008, 11:19 AM
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p173/allpro18/HRL.jpg

all pro
12-18-2008, 11:21 AM
What if they get frustrated and start droping agent orange/napalm?

Agent orange wont help them. Napalm is a problem.

Al Swearengen
12-18-2008, 11:23 AM
oh hai
http://i59photobucket.com/albums/g281/dustintherrien/OIF%2005-06%202/8b3e.jpg

i would imagine any soldier having to kill his own people and or family will have a real time of it trying to not kill themselves after they have killed their first civilian here in the US anyway.

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 11:25 AM
i would imagine any soldier having to kill his own people and or family will have a real time of it trying to not kill themselves after they have killed their first civilian here in the US anyway.

You mean like all the cops that have killed innocent people with tazers?

Al Swearengen
12-18-2008, 11:32 AM
You mean like all the cops that have killed innocent people with tazers?

that's not even close to a wartime scenario and cops aren't soldiers. i'm talking about soldiers having to follow orders to take out any and all inhabitants of their cousins home or their grandsons home how do you think that will go?

all pro
12-18-2008, 11:36 AM
that's not even close to a wartime scenario and cops aren't soldiers. i'm talking about soldiers having to follow orders to take out any and all inhabitants of their cousins home or their grandsons home how do you think that will go?

I don't think the ground troops will follow those orders. But NATO troops and mercenaries will.

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 11:38 AM
that's not even close to a wartime scenario and cops aren't soldiers. i'm talking about soldiers having to follow orders to take out any and all inhabitants of their cousins home or their grandsons home how do you think that will go?

They'll never get those orders. Once rioters are taken care of, it will look like this:

INgbiB_2Ne8

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 11:39 AM
I don't think the ground troops will follow those orders. But NATO troops and mercenaries will.

Bush already put in legislation allowing foreign troops to help quell dissent.

Will anyone be surprised when Obama doesn't repeal it?

Al Swearengen
12-18-2008, 11:49 AM
They'll never get those orders. Once rioters are taken care of, it will look like this:

INgbiB_2Ne8

it may begin as riots but when people are left with nothing but their lives to fight for there will be no quelling to be found.


I don't think the ground troops will follow those orders. But NATO troops and mercenaries will.

that's my hope so that we the people have our own military with us and never against us as it is written in the Constitution for whatever that seems to be worth today.


Bush already put in legislation allowing foreign troops to help quell dissent.

Will anyone be surprised when Obama doesn't repeal it?

that's kind of thing that should be making a lot of intelligent people very scared.

Morbid_Mind
12-18-2008, 12:14 PM
http://www.watchingcsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/csi.jpg

Defcon5
12-18-2008, 12:37 PM
Time To Wake Up And Smell the Economy

By Jon Ronnquist

"Here at last then is the defining moment of our time, our legacy to whatever lies beyond this cataclysmic failure of the human race. For the want of understanding, the kingdom was lost. And all this in what could have been the golden age of mankind.

Call it scare mongering, call it incitement of panic, hell call it terrorism for all that catchphrase means. Just don't say I didn't warn you. The proverbial has hit the fan and the mess is going to be almighty.

By all valid accounts, which is to say all those you won't hear about, the linchpin of the global economy, the all mighty US Dollar, is on a death march. We are not talking about deflation either, this is going to be a flat tyre in the middle of nowhere. And with it will go everything and everyone whose plans, wealth and future was pinned on it, namely the western world as we know it.

How did this happen? Who is responsible? Why did we let it go so far? I suspect these questions will reach the lips of untold numbers before we see another winter. They are valid questions. Perhaps the only ones left that are worth asking. So let us not abandon them to posterity along with the ruins.

What looms on the horizon now is not a season for humility but the inevitable itself. This is the human race collapsing in on itself at the end of a long and slow process of rot which was eating away at the third world long before it reached the golden shores of the west. For a time we were all kings, walking tall beneath the banner of imagined destiny. In the east the grateful poor toiled at our behest and sang songs of praise to their generous masters beyond the sea. Or so we dreamt even as we watched them dead and dying at the hands of our henchmen. Now that our halls are crumbling beneath the weight of our own greed and false complacency, let us not dishonour the dead with our hollow pleas of innocence and ignorance. It is only we who do not yet know real suffering, to the world at large it has long since become a matter of course.

Were we manipulated into complacency? Of course we were. Does that absolve us of responsibility? Of course it doesn't. Our very laws are founded on the principle that it can't. It is all too easy to lay the blame at the feet of a handful of evil men. But you cannot stone the slave auctioneer when you are a profiteer of his trade. See reason and banish him by all means, but do not court hypocrisy by false disassociation.

I do not say that there is nothing left for which to fight. On the contrary this economic end of days may yet see us able to buy back our very souls. It is after all the first thing we lost and the most promising foundation for a newer and better world. But if that opportunity for amnesty does present itself, it must be extended to all or we will surely forfeit that most valuable of possession for good.

Stupidity, not economics, is the stepping stone to mass manipulation. Wise men do not buy fool's gold. Complaisance, selfish interest and false neutrality are the aftermath, not the catalyst of the human tendency to look away. But stupidity is the key. And to support the status quo after all it has taught us would be the final act of human ignorance for sure. Not to mention a pointless one.

To see this collapse of global finance as a problem would be short-sighted indeed. Of course in the west that seems to be the crime of which we are universally guilty, one and all. We must stop seeing the world in the false terms in which we have been schooled to look at it. Only then can we begin to appreciate that what is dying before us is only doing so because we didn't save it when it could still be saved. In it's current form, the system is beyond redemption. Any effort to piece this global economy back together will amount to nothing more than the penultimate concentration of wealth in history. A concentration so great that talk of police states and new world orders would cease to be talk all together. If you believe that another loan will see you through this rough patch and into open seas on the other side, you have not understood what is happening.

I do not say these things lightly. I myself am scarred to death of the uncertainties which lie ahead. But when the hammer falls at least I will not become paralysed with dumb shock. And whatever I do make of my future, I know it will not look anything like my past and that is a blessing.

Wake up or sleep tight. The time for easy options is running out.

Over and out."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21489.htm

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 01:24 PM
it may begin as riots but when people are left with nothing but their lives to fight for there will be no quelling to be found.

Just wait until there have been mass riots for a couple months. People will be begging for some kind of intervention, and they will happily accept anything.

In theory, anyway.

The American public is the 'sleeping giant'. There may be no stopping us once we start rampaging.

Skettch
12-18-2008, 01:26 PM
Just wait until there have been mass riots for a couple months. People will be begging for some kind of intervention, and they will happily accept anything.

In theory, anyway.

The American public is the 'sleeping giant'. There may be no stopping us once we start rampaging.

No, the American public is a bunch of fractured groups who put self interest first(nothing wrong with that).

If the government ever does fall apart, America won't be coming back together.

nutsy54
12-18-2008, 01:55 PM
You mean like all the cops that have killed innocent people with tazers?Do you guys actually have a pile of index cards, each labeled with wildly off-topic and unrelated reasons to hate the government, that you just dip into every now and then to make a post?

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 02:02 PM
Do you guys actually have a pile of index cards, each labeled with wildly off-topic and unrelated reasons to hate the government, that you just dip into every now and then to make a post?

Are you saying no one has died from inappropriate tazer use?

He said if soldiers had to resort to killing civilians, they would start killing themselves.

Cops have been killing civilians for years now, and I havn't heard of any suicides resulting.

How about Kent in the 70's? Did any of those soldiers kill themselves?

all pro
12-18-2008, 02:05 PM
Do you guys actually have a pile of index cards, each labeled with wildly off-topic and unrelated reasons to hate the government, that you just dip into every now and then to make a post?

The title of the thread is;
CSIS - US Army War College 'strategic shock' massive unrest MARTIAL LAW (serious)
The only one off topic in this thread is you. How much am I paying you?

nutsy54
12-18-2008, 02:10 PM
Are you saying no one has died from inappropriate tazer use?

He said if soldiers had to resort to killing civilians, they would start killing themselves.Being ordered to murder your wife and neighbors is completely different from the accidental, unintended death of a crime suspect who you were trying to be lenient with by tazering, instead of killing him with a gunshot or breaking his bones with a baton.

Your tazer post was a wildly off-topic and unrelated comment that had nothing to do with the situation actually being discussed.

PS: Obviously, I have no problem with someone sending an Anti_Illuminati thread off into left field ;)

corpsedub
12-18-2008, 02:37 PM
The title of the thread is;
CSIS - US Army War College 'strategic shock' massive unrest MARTIAL LAW (serious)
The only one off topic in this thread is you. How much am I paying you?

not enough, cause he's not making much of an impact. i guess they hired him for humor value.

Gordon Bombay
12-18-2008, 02:50 PM
i would imagine any soldier having to kill his own people and or family will have a real time of it trying to not kill themselves after they have killed their first civilian here in the US anyway.

Didn't seem like Germans had a tough time giving away their Jewish neighbors.

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 02:53 PM
Didn't seem like Germans had a tough time giving away their Jewish neighbors.

Actually it was found that the German soldiers that had to take part in firing squads against other Germans suffered severe mental distress after a while, so they had to use foreign troops to do it.

all pro
12-18-2008, 02:56 PM
Didn't seem like Germans had a tough time giving away their Jewish neighbors.
That's what makes Obama's plan for a 1 million person homeland defence force that is equally funded, trained and armed as the military so concerning. To add to it, you can bet that if somebody has a problem with someone for any reason they'll be more than happy to give them up for any reason.

ripper6
12-18-2008, 03:00 PM
Give it a rest, national martial law will never happen.

New Orleans wasn't declared immediately after Katrina. The idiot Dem governor wouldn't sign the papers to allow the national guard to be activated. So we all saw how bad it got for the people left behind in the city.

Then finally, when the feds sent in troops, and they shot about eight people, things got under control.

If there is another 9/11 or something larger, the actuall constitution will be changed to allow for the military to succeed a disabled presidency/government.

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 03:01 PM
That's what makes Obama's plan for a 1 million person homeland defence force that is equally funded, trained and armed as the military so concerning. To add to it, you can bet that if somebody has a problem with someone for any reason they'll be more than happy to give them up for any reason.

The germans were disarmed before the domestic military was put into action :)

all pro
12-18-2008, 03:04 PM
The germans were disarmed before the domestic military was put into action :)

Like I said before
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p173/allpro18/comeandtakeit.jpg
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p173/allpro18/crosshairs.jpg

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 03:19 PM
So anyway, I read this and it seems to me this is just more of making plans to use the military to protect 'continuity of government'. Is this not just an expansion of Rex 84?

With all the preperations that have been made over the last few decades, if we lose gun ownership then we're all screwed.

Obviously someone has forseen a need for this, and that need seems to be escalating.

Personally I side with the founders, who said if the government fails then it needs to be destroyed and replaced. Not protected by men with guns, tanks and jets.

all pro
12-18-2008, 03:41 PM
So anyway, I read this and it seems to me this is just more of making plans to use the military to protect 'continuity of government'. Is this not just an expansion of Rex 84?

With all the preperations that have been made over the last few decades, if we lose gun ownership then we're all screwed.

Obviously someone has forseen a need for this, and that need seems to be escalating.

Personally I side with the founders, who said if the government fails then it needs to be destroyed and replaced. Not protected by men with guns, tanks and jets.

Learn to think strategically. In modern warfare terms you need shock and awe. You have to be able to poke out your opponents eyes and stop up his ears. You need the help of computer geeks and hackers to disrupt and shut down CnC. If you can do that then you will be able to level the playing field somewhat. Actually if you can do that you give those well versed in guerrilla warfare and jungle tactics a big advantage. With the press of a button you can put every satellite in orbit into a spin. You just need the code. The problem with a lot of the CTers is that they are a lot like Anti-Ill. They piss and moan and hop around like a one legged chicken with it's head on fire. People like that are useless in a fire fight. Don't be one of them.

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 03:51 PM
Learn to think strategically. In modern warfare terms you need shock and awe. You have to be able to poke out your opponents eyes and stop up his ears. You need the help of computer geeks and hackers to disrupt and shut down CnC. If you can do that then you will be able to level the playing field somewhat. Actually if you can do that you give those well versed in guerrilla warfare and jungle tactics a big advantage. With the press of a button you can put every satellite in orbit into a spin. You just need the code. The problem with a lot of the CTers is that they are a lot like Anti-Ill. They piss and moan and hop around like a one legged chicken with it's head on fire. People like that are useless in a fire fight. Don't be one of them.

I've always been one to respond to sudden disaster with action driven by instinct rather than conscious thought.

But if we make it clear that we will not accept disarmament then we may be able to avert this before it gets to that point.

I think what this country needs most is something to rally behind. We've been so splintered and split up by diversity and collectivism, and things like multi culturalism, that there may be nothing that can be taken away that will receive a unified opposition from all of us.

Its also frustrating to wake people up to this. Some catch on very quickly but some are so terrified of accepting reality that you have to take baby steps very slowly, and I don't feel like we have time for that. But what else can we do?

I went to a church function with my wife a few weeks ago. The guy who hosted the event at his house had a few pictures of himself shaking hands with Ronald Reagan. I don't know who he is exactly but he's rather influential, at least in this area.

Anyway he lead the bible lesson and he spent the whole time talking about 'romans 13' and how the bible teaches that we need to submit to authority. Of course I saw a few years ago the coverage of a federal program that pays religious leaders to tell people exactly that.

Chilling. You can see this kind of crap happen every day. I mentioned at the end of his lesson that Hitler used Romans 13 to quell Christians in Germany and I think it broke the spell a little bit with the people there. But I don't think we're welcome back.

I don't know how people can let this crap go on and not at least say something...

nutsy54
12-18-2008, 04:00 PM
Chilling. You can see this kind of crap happen every day.I can read that whole post, and end up with one thought: If you keep looking hard enough, you will always manage to find what you're looking for. Whether it's really there or not. . .

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 04:03 PM
I can read that whole post, and end up with one thought: If you keep looking hard enough, you will always manage to find what you're looking for. Whether it's really there or not. . .

Is this really there?

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=6937987

nutsy54
12-18-2008, 04:11 PM
Is this really there?
http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=6937987I assume you took a program to counsel and console victims in the middle of a massive tragedy/disaster, and are equating with an evil plan for. . . What?

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 04:14 PM
I assume you took a program to counsel and console victims in the middle of a massive tragedy/disaster, and are equating with an evil plan for. . . What?

Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared

In the video of the news story this article is summarizing, they interview a religious leader who is part of this program and he talks about how the bible teaches us to submit to authority. He does not discuss consoling victims.

"because the government's established by the Lord, you know. And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith. That's what's stated in the scripture."

Now, to say my experience relates to this because the guy I met with is part of this program is a jump in logic, becauase I don't know that to be a fact. But its a moot point as this is a gross misrepresentation of the bible and has a long political history of being an action taken to support a political agenda.

It doesn't matter to me if he was 'in on' something, or a part of something, at all. Not everyone knowingly and willfully supports tyranny.

Defcon5
12-18-2008, 04:17 PM
I assume you took a program to counsel and console victims in the middle of a massive tragedy/disaster, and are equating with an evil plan for. . . What?

LOL, strong ignorance. Their "help" is all a complete lie (PR, Public Relations - for desensitization to be more easily able to take away everyone's guns and kidnap the most dangerous people to the NWO), a COVER, DUH. The same tactics have been used to take over 3rd world countries. You will be defending criminal troops when they are on the streets beating the hell out of people or shooting them with rubber bullets (in the build up which will precede their use of live ammo)--demonizing the general population because you will say "how dare they riot and attack the govt."

You've clearly established that you fully support troops in the streets during domestic unrest that was caused by the very people who are the bosses of the military troops that will be deployed. I hope you get deployed so someone has an excuse to defend themselves against you for committing treason.

The fact that you think you can link a ridiculous picture of some new Northcom member being aided cutting a birthday cake is incredibly laughably pathetically desperate. The entire organization is illegal and can rightfully be shot and killed on sight as enemy alien combatants in the U.S.

Marines at Toys r Us, Austin Tx. 12-16-2008
nmsYXsXB9FQ
8wMovy1lVAs

all pro
12-18-2008, 04:22 PM
I assume you took a program to counsel and console victims in the middle of a massive tragedy/disaster, and are equating with an evil plan for. . . What?

It's propaganda. The pastors made unarmed, defenseless sheep out of the people that trusted them. If marshal law is ever declared on a wide scale the government will be flat out amazed at the number of well trained, organized militias. I don't care who declares what, if you can't show me the nail prints in your hands I'm not giving up me weapon.

Defcon5
12-18-2008, 04:42 PM
cEtVUtOEigQ
Ev4nt3RRivk

APEtVTKmnWE
B2m_t4xbSV0
M-asmipFraQ

TZhfPZnCPCE
UdzyT5Mijy8
JJWENHpEYVM

0wOduP9pYls

Defcon5
12-18-2008, 06:30 PM
The Alex Jones Show

Thursday December 18, 2008.

Alex welcomes back to the show Gerald Celente, the world's number one trends forecaster, who has predicted a severe depression and riots in the streets. Alex also talks with author and radio talk show host Texe Marrs.

Hour-1: News then Gerald Celente
Hour-2: Gerald Celente
Hour-3: Gerald Celente then Texe Marrs
Hour-4: Texe Marrs

http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4586722/Alex.Jones.Show.2008.12.18-chakra71.4586722.TPB.torrent

Stizzel
12-18-2008, 07:04 PM
LOL, strong ignorance. Their "help" is all a complete lie (PR, Public Relations - for desensitization to be more easily able to take away everyone's guns and kidnap the most dangerous people to the NWO), a COVER, DUH. The same tactics have been used to take over 3rd world countries. You will be defending criminal troops when they are on the streets beating the hell out of people or shooting them with rubber bullets (in the build up which will precede their use of live ammo)--demonizing the general population because you will say "how dare they riot and attack the govt."

You've clearly established that you fully support troops in the streets during domestic unrest that was caused by the very people who are the bosses of the military troops that will be deployed. I hope you get deployed so someone has an excuse to defend themselves against you for committing treason.

The fact that you think you can link a ridiculous picture of some new Northcom member being aided cutting a birthday cake is incredibly laughably pathetically desperate. The entire organization is illegal and can rightfully be shot and killed on sight as enemy alien combatants in the U.S.

Marines at Toys r Us, Austin Tx. 12-16-2008
nmsYXsXB9FQ
8wMovy1lVAs

Wow...

Those vids are...just wow

And the next day the marines were running checkpoints in two states.

nutsy54
12-18-2008, 07:17 PM
And the next day the marines were running checkpoints in two states.No, they weren't "running" checkpoints. But keep up the lies and disinformation, since that's the only way you guys can twist reality to match your fear-mongering agenda.

wannabeair
12-18-2008, 08:31 PM
a revolution is near folks

if you cant see it, you have issues

Defcon5
12-18-2008, 09:28 PM
a revolution is near folks

if you cant see it, you have issues

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e87/thadividedsky/30dayavg.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e87/thadividedsky/6monthavg.jpg

"The US Federal Reserve has slashed its key interest rate from 1% to a range of between zero and 0.25% as it battles the country's recession. In its statement, the Federal Reserve warned that "the outlook for economic activity has weakened further". It predicted that rates would stay at the current exceptionally low levels "for some time".

It added that it was considering ways it could spend money on supporting the economy and credit markets. Analysts said that the key rate is now virtually zero. "Whether it's zero or 0.25% actually does not make a huge difference," said Holger Schmieding at Bank of America.

The end is nigh."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7786282.stm

Resonator
12-18-2008, 09:44 PM
If anything, all Anti_Illuminati is doing is driving people away. His annoying copy-paste threads and replies are annoying as hell, no originality whatsoever. You aren't helping anyone.

bp16
12-18-2008, 10:04 PM
You have got to be one of the most annoying fu*king trolls here. Next to all the religous nut jobs.

This, gotdoms is so fukkin annoying

bp16
12-18-2008, 10:07 PM
If I don't think about it, it won't happen.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 06:33 AM
No, they weren't "running" checkpoints. But keep up the lies and disinformation, since that's the only way you guys can twist reality to match your fear-mongering agenda.

OHMuA-kCUQU

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 06:51 AM
OHMuA-kCUQUAnd? I made it through the first 2 1/2 minutes, then he seemed to veer off into yet another "Military is gonna kill us all" rant about gunships.

Everything provided in other sources to describe these checkpoints is that the military was present, primarily to assist with fellow military personnel who were identified driving drunk. The military was NOT "running"/operating checkpoints against citizens and civilians - the local police were doing that.

Nothing in your YouTube proved otherwise. But, as I said above, twist the facts, throw in some deception, and it's much easier to make this fit your agenda.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 07:36 AM
And? I made it through the first 2 1/2 minutes, then he seemed to veer off into yet another "Military is gonna kill us all" rant about gunships.

Everything provided in other sources to describe these checkpoints is that the military was present, primarily to assist with fellow military personnel who were identified driving drunk. The military was NOT "running"/operating checkpoints against citizens and civilians - the local police were doing that.

Nothing in your YouTube proved otherwise. But, as I said above, twist the facts, throw in some deception, and it's much easier to make this fit your agenda.

The illegality of police and military working together aside, and the morality of military at checkpoints aside, who do you think has higher authority, police or military?

jmonty
12-19-2008, 07:41 AM
The illegality of police and military working together aside, and the morality of military at checkpoints aside, who do you think has higher authority, police or military?

in federal issues, the president has the authority and can use federal police or the military during an emergency.

gotDOMS
12-19-2008, 08:22 AM
This, gotdoms is so fukkin annoying

u mad that my threads are scientifically true, and that they arent supposed to be offensive, yet you find them offensive?

Al Swearengen
12-19-2008, 08:34 AM
in federal issues, the president has the authority and can use federal police or the military during an emergency.

yes but never against the American people. i think that's the original point of the thread will Washington attempt to use our own military in an unlawful manner should things get worse.

Dragger
12-19-2008, 08:37 AM
i would imagine any soldier having to kill his own people and or family will have a real time of it trying to not kill themselves after they have killed their first civilian here in the US anyway.

As a former soldier myself I say thank you for blowing a whole right into the middle of these tired conpiracy theories involving our own troops murdering our own people just so a Jewish fellow can rule the world(doesn't even make sense) in the name of this New World Order.

And you are right, I wouldn't have, nor have I ever known any fellow soldier who would murder our own unarmed civilians for fun/greed/****s-n-giggles/etc... It would be an unlawful order and against the Geneva Convention.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 08:38 AM
yes but never against the American people. i think that's the original point of the thread will Washington attempt to use our own military in an unlawful manner should things get worse.

NorthComm was openly created for just that purpose. Protecting continuity of government means protecting Washington from mob justice at the expense of the American people.

Al Swearengen
12-19-2008, 09:07 AM
As a former soldier myself I say thank you for blowing a whole right into the middle of these tired conpiracy theories involving our own troops murdering our own people just so a Jewish fellow can rule the world(doesn't even make sense) in the name of this New World Order.

And you are right, I wouldn't have, nor have I ever known any fellow soldier who would murder our own unarmed civilians for fun/greed/****s-n-giggles/etc... It would be an unlawful order and against the Geneva Convention.

i'm not even quite sure what you said with thumbs down? i take it you are thanking me but the thumbs down was a mistake? i'm unsure why anyone would think our own soldiers would ever be able to attack our own people which is my point of being in this thread i don't believe they would and that gives me some sense of hope no matter how bad or how unconstitutional Washington becomes.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 10:06 AM
i'm not even quite sure what you said with thumbs down? i take it you are thanking me but the thumbs down was a mistake? i'm unsure why anyone would think our own soldiers would ever be able to attack our own people which is my point of being in this thread i don't believe they would and that gives me some sense of hope no matter how bad or how unconstitutional Washington becomes.

From the OP:

"this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States."

Whether or not soldiers are willing to kill Americans is irrelevant. When police and national guard try fighting rioters with rubber bullets and get themselves killed, soldiers are likely to feel that their lives are on the line, and rightly so, because they will be given orders to protect continuity of government and will not understand the constitutional requirement that failed government be overthrown and replaced.

I have a feeling that most of them still won't do it, and in response to the chaos, international forces will step in, through the initiatives currently in place. This has been prepared for, for a long time. Everything necessary to put this into action is place, except for a national disaster, which we will have by 2010 at the latest.

If you think the entirety of the issue brought up in the OP is having soldiers shoot civilians, you're missing the point.

Take this seriously, or don't. Like I said earlier, you'll have to pick a side soon enough.

jmonty
12-19-2008, 10:17 AM
the constitutional requirement that failed government be overthrown and replaced.


there are constitutional provisions for changing government in a peaceful manner and the government has very broad rights designed to protect itself. also many historical presidents exist for the use of federal troops on US soil during emergencies.

if you all don't understand that there is really nothing to discuss.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 10:24 AM
there are constitutional provisions for changing government in a peaceful manner and the government has very broad rights designed to protect itself. also many historical presidents exist for the use of federal troops on US soil during emergencies.

if you all don't understand that there is really nothing to discuss.

Thats laughable.

Congress has no power. The executive does what it wants when it wants.

If there is a collapse, and people riot, do you think its okay to use the military to quell dissent?

all pro
12-19-2008, 10:27 AM
there are constitutional provisions for changing government in a peaceful manner and the government has very broad rights designed to protect itself. also many historical presidents exist for the use of federal troops on US soil during emergencies.

if you all don't understand that there is really nothing to discuss.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy

jmonty
12-19-2008, 10:39 AM
Congress has no power.

oh really? so all that lawmaking is just a formality?


If there is a collapse, and people riot, do you think its okay to use the military to quell dissent?

there is quite a gap between dissenting and rioting.

jmonty
12-19-2008, 10:41 AM
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy

is that something he said before the pitiful failure of the bay of pigs fiasco?

TheJuicedchase
12-19-2008, 10:43 AM
And? I made it through the first 2 1/2 minutes, then he seemed to veer off into yet another "Military is gonna kill us all" rant about gunships.

Everything provided in other sources to describe these checkpoints is that the military was present, primarily to assist with fellow military personnel who were identified driving drunk. The military was NOT "running"/operating checkpoints against citizens and civilians - the local police were doing that.

Nothing in your YouTube proved otherwise. But, as I said above, twist the facts, throw in some deception, and it's much easier to make this fit your agenda.


This u brah?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jDwuMBOPrrQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jDwuMBOPrrQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

or this?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bsC1m4Fb9Hs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bsC1m4Fb9Hs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

all pro
12-19-2008, 10:43 AM
oh really? so all that lawmaking is just a formality?


It is when the chief executive tells the legislature that if they don't pass a bill he will under marshal law. That's what Bush did with the bailout pork barrel bill. Read the homeland security act and the patriot act. That should be an eye opener.

Al Swearengen
12-19-2008, 10:44 AM
oh really? so all that lawmaking is just a formality?



there is quite a gap between dissenting and rioting.

i think the point is will you shoot and kill American citizens if they attempt to over throw the present government under their constitutional right or not, it's a yes or no question?

jmonty
12-19-2008, 10:45 AM
It is when the chief executive tells the legislature that if they don't pass a bill he will under marshal law. That's what Bush did with the bailout pork barrel bill.

if there was any proof of that all hell would break loose and bush would be out on his ass even though he has a few weeks left in office.


Read the homeland security act and the patriot act. That should be an eye opener.

meh.

part of the patriot act was repealed by the supreme court. there goes the theory of an all powerful executive branch.

jmonty
12-19-2008, 10:46 AM
i think the point is will you shoot and kill American citizens if they attempt to over throw the present government under their constitutional right or not, it's a yes or no question?

it isn't a yes or no question, and it isn't a constitutional right to violently overthrow the government.

all pro
12-19-2008, 10:50 AM
if there was any proof of that all hell would break loose and bush would be out on his ass even though he has a few weeks left in office.


There is proof on youtube, It's a Cspan from when the bill was pending. Bush used it as a threat.

l7B4laX1E70

jmonty
12-19-2008, 10:52 AM
i think the point is will you shoot and kill American citizens if they attempt to over throw the present government under their constitutional right or not, it's a yes or no question?
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 10:52 AM
oh really? so all that lawmaking is just a formality?

When the executive can dictate how the lawmaking is done, YES.


there is quite a gap between dissenting and rioting.

Look, I'm not saying this is the way government should be changed.

But when the government fails so utterly that people are homeless and starving, they're going to riot. If you don't believe me, look at Greece and Iceland.

Studies have shown that in three days of no food, the average person will resort to stealing. In 6 days, they will kill for food.

Do you think the shills in Washington do not understand this? Do you think that Paulson just doesn't understand the long term effects of this bailout? Or that any of the corporate shills like Bush that have worked so hard to get it approved are just misguided? How about Bernake and the Fed who have done everything possible to destroy our economy? Will you accept 'oops'?

Do you find it unlikely that this kind of forsight is why North Comm is being activated domestically? Or why there is so much police state legislation that has been approved?

Seriously, how much more can a government fail? When our leaders need to use the military to protect themselves from public ire, then you know those people are not worth defending.

Will you do what it takes to defend Washington? Will you allow NorthComm to do it for you?

Do you think its okay to use the military against the public?

Its going to be hard for the military. You will be placed between us and them and you'll have to figure out which way you'll go from there.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 10:54 AM
"I will support and defend the Federal Government of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

Fixed

jmonty
12-19-2008, 10:58 AM
Fixed

don't misquote me.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 11:02 AM
don't misquote me.

If the military lived up to its oath to protect and defend the constitution, north comm would be abolished, posse comitatus would be followed, Paulson and Pals would be arrested for treason, so on and so forth.

Your real job is to protect the federal government from its enemies, foreign and domestic.

Have you not read the patriot act?

Edit: Not saying that you guys don't take your oath seriously, just pointing out the way the concept of protecting the constitution has been twisted to effectively mean protect the federal government.

Defcon5
12-19-2008, 11:09 AM
oh really? so all that lawmaking is just a formality?

LOL? Ever hear of RAND Corporation? Might want to spend a few weeks reading about them. They draft many of the unconstitutional laws for Congress. Might want to look into the Royal Institute of International Affairs, CFR, Bilderberg who set world policy. Congress is 100% ceremonial. NSPD-51 supersedes the Congress, and just because Bush is leaving, means nothing because the enforcement of martial law would never have anything to do with any president declaring it, such as Obama.

All the talk about Bush declaring martial law was bull**** per se--not that he couldn't have announced it officially, (i.e. he has/had the authority to via NSPD-51) but rather that the president's announcement of it is ceremonial because the presidency is entirely ceremonial and holds absolutely no power whatsoever. Martial law is carried out by Northern Command, the new global command who's puppet commander in chief Robert Gates is consolidating ALL mercenary company forces under its umbrella, including the National Guard.

http://www.ww4report.com/node/3940


Every president since FDR has drawn up such plans. The most notorious were Nixon's "Operation Garden Plot" and Reagan's "REX 84 Alpha"?a legacy we recalled when the Homeland Security Act passed in 2002. This latest incarnation has gone unnoticed by the New York Times and other major media. Leave it to the editorial page of Tennessee's Chattanoogan, May 24:

Bush Makes Power Grab
President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.

That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

When the President determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the President can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

Translated into layman's terms, when the President determines a national emergency has occurred, the President can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the President with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.

The directive specifies that the assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism will be designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. Further established is a Continuity Policy Coordination Committee, chaired by a senior director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, to be "the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination."

Currently, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism is Frances Fragos Townsend. Townsend spent 13 years at the Justice Department before moving to the U.S. Coast Guard where she served as assistant commandant for intelligence. She is a White House staff member in the executive office of the president who also chairs the Homeland Security Council, which as a counterpart to the National Security Council reports directly to the president.

The directive issued May 9 makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created there for the National Continuity Coordinator with the National Emergency Act. As specified by U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter II, Section 1621, the National Emergency Act allows that the president may declare a national emergency but requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."

A Congressional Research Service study notes that under the National Emergency Act, the President "may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

The CRS study notes that the National Emergency Act sets up congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority," if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position.

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the President submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.

Homeland Security spokesperson Russ Knocke affirmed that the Homeland Security Department will be implementing the requirements of NSPD-51/HSPD-20 under Townsend's direction.

The White House had no comment.

While we're skeptical Bush will have the cojones to pull this off, NSPD-51 is particularly ominous in light of the draconian provisions of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act.



there is quite a gap between dissenting and rioting.

Oh yeah? With dissent being the lesser of the 2 yes? Since you're creating a distinction here, why would Northern Command say that they will quell dissent in their own words? If they said they will "quell dissent"--I guess "dissent" is serious enough--making it a moot point for you to try to deflect the issue by creating a distinction for everyone between dissent and rioting. I wonder what they would do about rioting? Shoot and kill Americans? news flash: the bankers who are behind the so-called bailout bills have already stolen around 10+ trillion dollars out of the U.S. economy--they are taking your 401K, (if you have one) they will seize your pension fund making it impossible for you to ever retire. They are nationalizing all private business and even solvent banks will be under their control.

They fund Northern Command with the money that they stole from everyone in the U.S., and they are there to protect them from being assassinated and/or captured/arrested and brought to justice while the globalists also setup huge numbers of new taxes like in New York, and carbon taxes which you will pay directly to the central banks-raping the living hell out of you financially to make sure you are poor. And you're taking a stance like "how dare you fear-mongers talk about rioting, you don't have a right to do that and I agree with Northcom that you should be taken to a camp or shot and killed if you dare try to what they did in Iceland or Greece because it's unjustified--you're supposed to let the bankers rape the hell out of you and shut your God-damned mouth."

Al Swearengen
12-19-2008, 11:11 AM
it isn't a yes or no question, and it isn't a constitutional right to violently overthrow the government.

it sure is a right and you seem afraid of answering the question will you tell your commanding officer i can't figure it out Sir?


i go by this myself.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 11:14 AM
it sure is a right and you seem afraid of answering the question will you tell your commanding officer i can't figure it out Sir?


i go by this myself.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If the people attempt to peacefully overthrow their government, and the government responds with military force, what is the correct course of action?

If the government takes actions to provoke violence, who is the instigator?

I believe it was Jefferson that said something about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

jmonty
12-19-2008, 11:17 AM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

that isn't the constitution. ;)

if a rioting crowd wanted to lynch some poor federal clerk, i'd defend the innocent. if they wanted to torch an empty govt building i don't think shooting them would be the correct coarse of action, but they had better bring their gas masks. but don't worry, if i'm manning a guard post in the US in a position of authority we will be having larger problems.

only thing that confuses me is the fixation with violence against the government.

AI: don't bother responding to me. This message is hidden because Defcon5 is on your ignore list.

Stiz--i am offended by your misquote. and we've been over that jefferson quote. :)

everyone (except AI)--enjoy your holidays. i'm out.

Al Swearengen
12-19-2008, 11:23 AM
that isn't the constitution. ;)

if a rioting crowd wanted to lynch some poor federal clerk, i'd defend the innocent. if they wanted to torch an empty govt building i don't think shooting them would be the correct coarse of action, but they had better bring their gas masks. but don't worry, if i'm manning a guard post in the US in a position of authority we will be having larger problems.

agreed, but it is at the core of our nation and will come into play should things go that route.




only thing that confuses me is the fixation with violence against the government.

why would it confuse you, they are driving our country into complete dismay or is that the peoples fault since we regulate everything.




everyone (except AI)--enjoy your holidays. i'm out.

you do the same.

Defcon5
12-19-2008, 11:28 AM
it isn't a yes or no question, and it isn't a constitutional right to violently overthrow the government.

It is an unalienable sovereign right, declared in the Declaration of Independence. Nonetheless the government overthrow was done before you were born, and it's final stages are now becoming visible and active.


it sure is a right and you seem afraid of answering the question will you tell your commanding officer i can't figure it out Sir?

Yep, and nutsy54 is in the same boat. But the right is an unalienable right, and it is the Declaration of independence that warns the govt. that the People have this inalienable right. Also, "overthrowing the govt." would not be what would occur--it would be a taking back of the govt. The globalist banking cartel overthrew the govt. starting back in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act, and also predominately in 1947 with the treasonous National Security Act which was the official birth of Continuity of Government, aka the "C.O.G"--which is talked about in NSPD-51. Continuity of Government is seen through domestic police state infrastructure such as the illegal, criminal Department of Homeland Security (an enemy of the American people), and also the Principles Committee bureaucrats who carry out the policies of the NWO elite like Brzezinski, Kissinger, Richard N. Haass, David Rockefeller.


that isn't the constitution. ;)

Yeah, it's from the Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents of the United States of America you ignorant son of a bitch.


but don't worry, if i'm manning a guard post in the US in a position of authority we will be having larger problems.


If you willingly engage the American people then you are open game to be exterminated by freedom loving Americans. If you follow illegal orders you are a traitor. If I see you deployed with a weapon in America I would shoot and kill you myself even if it cost me my life or life in prison. TREASON IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH BITCH. NORTHERN COMMAND IS THE REAL AL-QAEDA, THEY WERE INVOLVED CARRYING OUT 9/11, WHAT THE F.UCK PART DON'T YOU GET?

TheStender
12-19-2008, 11:43 AM
Ever hear of RAND Corporation?

It's crazy how many groups these people belong too, you see the same names for RAND, CFR, Project for a NAU, etc, etc. Makes me think I'm not doing too much with my free time. :(

Also, that NSPD-51 thing worries me just a tad. I just wiki'd it.

all pro
12-19-2008, 11:47 AM
It's crazy how many groups these people belong too, you see the same names for RAND, CFR, Project for a NAU, etc, etc. Makes me think I'm not doing too much with my free time. :(

Also, that NSPD-51 thing worries me just a tad. I just wiki'd it.

Now you know why gun shops can't keep ARs and NATO ammo in stock.

ryan250
12-19-2008, 11:50 AM
Now you know why gun shops can't keep ARs and NATO ammo in stock.

Not to mention prices are ridiculous.

Stock up now folks, please.

Defcon5
12-19-2008, 12:13 PM
It's crazy how many groups these people belong too, you see the same names for RAND, CFR, Project for a NAU, etc, etc. Makes me think I'm not doing too much with my free time. :(

Also, that NSPD-51 thing worries me just a tad. I just wiki'd it.

Excerpts:

Obama picks new head of SEC, considers shakeup

CHICAGO (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama was set on Thursday to name seasoned regulator Mary Schapiro to head the Securities and Exchange Commission as he considers a major overhaul of the heavily criticized agency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BF0QZ20081218


Ms. Schapiro serves on the RAND Corporation's LRN-RAND Center of Corporate Ethics, Law and Governance Advisory Board.
http://www.finra.org/AboutFINRA/Leadership/p009733

RAND Corporation drafted H.R.1955/S.1959
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=5144

How convenient that they removed the YT video. I "wonder" why.

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 01:20 PM
The illegality of police and military working together aside, and the morality of military at checkpoints aside, who do you think has higher authority, police or military?Once again with the lies and exaggerations. It is not "Illegal for police and military to work side by side". It's illegal for military to perform law enforcement operations. There's nothing Illegal or Immoral about them standing on the sidelines, and assisting with military personnel as needed.

There is no question on who has the "higher authority", because the military have no authority towards civilians in that situation.

all pro
12-19-2008, 01:22 PM
Once again with the lies and exaggerations. It is not "Illegal for police and military to work side by side". It's illegal for military to perform law enforcement operations. There's nothing Illegal or Immoral about them standing on the sidelines, and assisting with military personnel as needed.

There is no question on who has the "higher authority", because the military have no authority towards civilians in that situation.

So if I come up on check point charlie and it's staffed by military only I should just keep going and refuse to stop.....right?

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 01:25 PM
will Washington attempt to use our own military in an unlawful manner should things get worse.NorthComm was openly created for just that purpose. Protecting continuity of government means protecting Washington from mob justice at the expense of the American people.Holy Hell, can you get any more hysterical and completely false in your statements? You clearly have no clue what NorthCom's mission and actual operations are, and you obviously don't care. They're just the latest convenient scapegoat for your never-ending paranoid accusations of government control, world domination, and mass murder/imprisonment/martial law in the name of God-knows-what.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 01:25 PM
Once again with the lies and exaggerations. It is not "Illegal for police and military to work side by side". It's illegal for military to perform law enforcement operations. There's nothing Illegal or Immoral about them standing on the sidelines, and assisting with military personnel as needed.

There is no question on who has the "higher authority", because the military have no authority towards civilians in that situation.

I've heard constitutional law attorneys argue that just having a uniformed soldier present is a breach of posse comitatus and constitutes martial law, even if he's not doing anything.

Nevermind soldiers in full battle gear with humvees equiped with 50 cal's.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 01:31 PM
Holy Hell, can you get any more hysterical and completely false in your statements? You clearly have no clue what NorthCom's mission and actual operations are, and you obviously don't care. They're just the latest convenient scapegoat for your never-ending paranoid accusations of government control, world domination, and mass murder/imprisonment/martial law in the name of God-knows-what.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

"Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks."

Oh thats nice, a domestic fast response force. Unfortunatly they leave out one of their purposes described by the DOD in the OP, quelling civil dissent.

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 01:33 PM
It is when the chief executive tells the legislature that if they don't pass a bill he will under marshal law. That's what Bush did with the bailout pork barrel bill. Holy Hell, are you still grasping at that completely baseless and overblown "example"?

The first two "threats" were clearly wild-ass, totally impossible exaggerations (unless you know of a way the sky could actually fall to the ground tomorrow). Yet you want to pretend that the "Martial Law" exaggeration was the one statement in that list that was meant as an actual, actionable threat and grounded in solid fact? You really should understand the context, before dropping in cute little sound bites that are completely irrelevant to anyone who actually paid attention that week.

PS: You also seem to forget that the bailout bill was not initially passed. . . Yet there was no Martial Law. The sky did not fall. And the Dow did not plummet thousands of points in a day (another impossible event, since automatic controls would stop trading well before that point).

all pro
12-19-2008, 01:37 PM
Mark Levin sums up my opinion about NorthCom

bBD-hl4dEss

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 01:37 PM
Holy Hell, are you still grasping at that completely baseless and overblown "example"?

The first two "threats" were clearly wild-ass, totally impossible exaggerations (unless you know of a way the sky could actually fall to the ground tomorrow). Yet you want to pretend that the "Martial Law" exaggeration was the one statement in that list that was meant as an actual, actionable threat and grounded in solid fact? You really should understand the context, before dropping in cute little sound bites that are completely irrelevant to anyone who actually paid attention that week.

PS: You also seem to forget that the bailout bill was not initially passed. . . Yet there was no Martial Law. The sky did not fall. And the Dow did not plummet thousands of points in a day (another impossible event, since automatic controls would stop trading well before that point).

But the bill was approved after threats were made. And the dow did drop a thousand points as the plunge protection team suddenly went on strike.

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 01:40 PM
There is proof on youtube, It's a Cspan from when the bill was pending. Bush used it as a threat.

l7B4laX1E70Hot Damn. That video proves you are just pulling talking points and sound bites out of your ass, with no clue what they really mean.

The video you cited was NOT an example that "Martial Law" was used as a threat to pass the bill. It was a statement that the House of Representatives was using a common Administrative procedure to push the bill through quickly. The words "martial law" in that context had absolutely nothing to do with the military, guys with guns, or rampaging violence across the country. The speaker was rightfully concerned that the bill was being pushed through too fast, but his statements didn't have anything at all to do with Military Martial Law :rolleyes:

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 01:43 PM
When the executive can dictate how the lawmaking is done, YES.But your only example has been a bill where the vote did NOT go as the "executive dictated", because the bailout failed the first time up.

Were are your examples of the Executive Branch actually forcing a bill through Congress that they refused to pass?

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 01:45 PM
If the people attempt to peacefully overthrow their government, and the government responds with military force, what is the correct course of action?That's an awfully hypothetical question, since the recent election clearly provided that the majority of "the people" are happy with their current government. Just because YOU disagree, that doesn't provide grounds for revolt.

Defcon5
12-19-2008, 01:47 PM
Once again with the lies and exaggerations. It is not "Illegal for police and military to work side by side". It's illegal for military to perform law enforcement operations. There's nothing Illegal or Immoral about them standing on the sidelines, and assisting with military personnel as needed.

There is no question on who has the "higher authority", because the military have no authority towards civilians in that situation.

WRONG. ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT IS MILITARIZED, DUH. NORTHCOM RUNS THE MILITARY AND RUNS THE FBI, RUNS THE STATE POLICE, IS ABOUT TO RUN ALL THE MERCS, RUNS DHS, RUNS ICE, WHAT PART DON'T YOU GET? NORTHCOM THEMSELVES PERFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS. BOTH DIRECTLY AND BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS UNDER THEIR COMMAND.


Originally Posted by Stizzel
Quote:

will Washington attempt to use our own military in an unlawful manner should things get worse.
NorthComm was openly created for just that purpose. Protecting continuity of government means protecting Washington from mob justice at the expense of the American people.


Holy Hell, can you get any more hysterical and completely false in your statements? You clearly have no clue what NorthCom's mission and actual operations are, and you obviously don't care. They're just the latest convenient scapegoat for your never-ending paranoid accusations of government control, world domination, and mass murder/imprisonment/martial law in the name of God-knows-what.

STIZZEL, YOUR DOING A HALF ASS JOB OF KICKING NUTSY54'S LYING ASS. JESUS F.UCKING CHRIST MAN RESEARCH MORE, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU LETTING HIM WALK ALL OVER YOU WITH HIS BULLF.UCKING **** PROPAGANDA? WTF?


PS: You also seem to forget that the bailout bill was not initially passed. . . Yet there was no Martial Law. The sky did not fall. And the Dow did not plummet thousands of points in a day (another impossible event, since automatic controls would stop trading well before that point).

Wtf? What the hell does the fact that it wasn't initially passed have to do with anything? Congress was threatened (not a bull**** "procedural change lie like you claim scumbag.) No **** they sky "did not fall", THEY WERE TOLD IT WOULD IF THEY DID NOT ULTIMATELY PASS IT, (NOT EVERYONE WAS THREATENED, AND THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE THAT WOULD IGNORE SUCH THREATS LIKE RON PAUL) AS TO WHY IT WASN'T PASSED THE 1ST TIME, I CAN ONLY SPECULATE THAT THAT WAS STAGED TO CREATE THE ILLUSION THAT THEY WERE HAVING A REAL DEBATE ABOUT IT TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE DEMOCRATIC. "And the Dow did not plummet thousands of points in a day (another impossible event, since automatic controls would stop trading well before that point)." Doesn't matter "if it was impossible" or not, that's WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. WHAT THEY WERE TOLD AND WHETHER IT WAS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE IS IRRELEVANT, DUMBASS. IT WAS A THREAT.


. . . Yet there was no Martial Law.

YES THERE WAS--CONGRESS WAS PUT UNDER MARTIAL LAW BECAUSE THEIR FREEDOM TO VOTE *NO* ON THE BAILOUT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM UNDER THE THREAT OF DEATH. THEREFORE, THE FACT THAT THEIR SOVEREIGN CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO VOTE *NO* ON THE BAILOUT BILL WAS RESCINDED UNDER THREAT OF DEATH, THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS MARTIAL LAW. MARTIAL LAW MEANS YOU HAVE NO POWER TO MAKE DECISIONS, IT MEANS YOU HAVE NO SAY NOR THE LIBERTY TO ACT FREELY WHATSOEVER. THREE CONGRESSMEN TESTIFIED TO THIS AND IT WAS NOT A PROCEDURAL CHANGE, EVEN CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH TESTIFIED ON AIR THAT IT WAS FINANCIAL TERRORISM.

STOP YOUR INCESSANT GOD-DAMNED LYING.

all pro
12-19-2008, 01:47 PM
Hot Damn. That video proves you are just pulling talking points and sound bites out of your ass, with no clue what they really mean.

The video you cited was NOT an example that "Martial Law" was used as a threat to pass the bill. It was a statement that the House of Representatives was using a common Administrative procedure to push the bill through quickly. The words "martial law" in that context had absolutely nothing to do with the military, guys with guns, or rampaging violence across the country. The speaker was rightfully concerned that the bill was being pushed through too fast, but his statements didn't have anything at all to do with Military Martial Law :rolleyes:

HOLEY HELL WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!
Marshal law IS NOT a common house procedure. ONLY the president can declare it. Your attempt to defend the flagrant violations of the constitution is pathetic.
I can see that I'm going to need to buy another thousand rounds if your mentality is an example of our military today. There's no doubt in in my mind that back in the day you would have been a 'friendly fire' victim.
WOW.....just wow.

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 01:49 PM
why would it confuse you, they are driving our country into complete dismay or is that the peoples fault since we regulate everything. As I touched on in my previous post. . . The American public clearly showed last month that they are NOT wildly pissed off at Washington and our political leadership. WE re-elected the majority of Congress right back to their seats, and WE elected a candidate from one of the two major parties that have dominated national politics for years. If people are happy to continue pulling the same levers in the voting booth, what could possibly make you think they're planning an armed revolt against the leadership they just re-elected?

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 01:56 PM
So if I come up on check point charlie and it's staffed by military only I should just keep going and refuse to stop.....right?Prove there have been road checkpoints in the US manned solely by military, then your question will have relevance. Until then, you're just tossing out random questions about illegal activity.

PS: The obvious answer if the above situation did happen would be to stop, cooperate, and spend the whole time subtly writing down names, unit IDs, license plates, taking pictures if you have a camera, etc. . . Then walking it all into your local news station, while also mailing a copy to CNN.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 01:57 PM
STIZZEL, YOUR DOING A HALF ASS JOB OF KICKING NUTSY54'S LYING ASS. JESUS F.UCKING CHRIST MAN RESEARCH MORE, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU LETTING HIM WALK ALL OVER YOU WITH HIS BULLF.UCKING **** PROPAGANDA? WTF?

I enjoy nutsy's input, believe it or not. He brings up angles and information that would not otherwise be considered. I think he's rather biased when it comes to the military but thats okay, its just my opinion.

And unlike a lot of others, he doesn't just go 'lol thats conspiracy theory' without even engaging in discussion.

I disagree with him a lot, but thats okay. As long as he supports gun rights, he can't be all bad :)

Defcon5
12-19-2008, 01:59 PM
As I touched on in my previous post. . . The American public clearly showed last month that they are NOT wildly pissed off at Washington and our political leadership. WE re-elected the majority of Congress right back to their seats, and WE elected a candidate from one of the two major parties that have dominated national politics for years. If people are happy to continue pulling the same levers in the voting booth, what could possibly make you think they're planning an armed revolt against the leadership they just re-elected?

L M A O, BECAUSE THERE OBVIOUSLY ISN'T MASS VOTING MACHINE FRAUD NATIONWIDE, AND BECAUSE 99% OF THE CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS "RUNNING" WEREN'T PRE-APPROVED/SELECTED TO RUN BY THE BILDERBERG GROUP. AND AS IF OBAMA ISN'T A PUPPET JUST LIKE BUSH WAS WHERE ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI RUNS THE SHOW PREDOMINATELY.

WOW YOU ARE IGNORANT.

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 02:01 PM
HOLEY HELL WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!
Marshal law IS NOT a common house procedure. ONLY the president can declare it. Your attempt to defend the flagrant violations of the constitution is pathetic.Learn Before Typing. Stop letting yourself get brainwashed by YouTube videos.


July 2006
The House Republican Leadership has announced its intention to have the House vote, before adjourning on Friday or Saturday, on several major pieces of legislation that are not yet available to House members in final form because behind-closed-door negotiations on the proposals are still going on. The Leadership apparently intends to use a process known as "martial law" to allow these bills to be brought to the floor very shortly after negotiations are completed, with the result that Members of the House are likely to have virtually no time to examine and consider the details of the legislation before they will be required to vote on it.http://www.cbpp.org/7-28-06bud-stmt.htm


December 2005
Under this procedure, longstanding House rules that require at least one day between the unveiling of significant legislation and the House floor vote on that legislation are swept away. Instead, under "martial law," the Leadership can file legislation with hundreds of pages of fine print and move immediately to debate and votes on it, before Members of Congress, the media, or the public have an opportunity to understand fully what provisions have been altered or inserted in the legislation behind closed doors. This is the procedure the Leadership hopes to use today to muscle through these bills.http://www.cbpp.org/12-18-05bud.htm

. . . this statement by Representative Burgess appears to be referring to a procedure that forces members to vote on key bills without full knowledge of what they are voting on. http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=12172

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 02:07 PM
But your only example has been a bill where the vote did NOT go as the "executive dictated", because the bailout failed the first time up.

Were are your examples of the Executive Branch actually forcing a bill through Congress that they refused to pass?

The bailout failed the first time. The executive said "Martial law if its not approved". Then the bailout was approved despite an unprecedented public outcry against it.

Congress tells the executive to disclose whats been done with the bailout money, the executive says no.

Congress tells the executive to use the bailout as promised, the executive says no.

Congress tells the executive they will repeal the patriot act, the executive says no.

Congress tells the executive auto makers get no bailout, the executive does it anyway.

Congress is ceremonial only and no longer has any real authority.


That's an awfully hypothetical question, since the recent election clearly provided that the majority of "the people" are happy with their current government. Just because YOU disagree, that doesn't provide grounds for revolt.

If all the legal avenues to replace the government are removed, what other option is there?

My basic point is that the actions taken by this government are pushing us into an economic disaster. 'Conspiracy theorists' and guys like Ron Paul have been saying this for decades. Mainstream pundits have started agreeing the last few years. Its silly to think the men doing these things don't understand the long term rammafications. Wasn't it Eisenhower that said 'Nothing that happens in government is by accident'?

So who's fault will it be, really, when people are starving and respond the way humanity always responds to starvation? And do they really deserve the authoratative response that has been prepared for this situation over the last 30 years?

Sorry, if you destroy an entire civilization, you deserve the backlash. (or blowback to use the CIA term)


PS: The obvious answer if the above situation did happen would be to stop, cooperate, and spend the whole time subtly writing down names, unit IDs, license plates, taking pictures if you have a camera, etc. . . Then walking it all into your local news station, while also mailing a copy to CNN.

I agree, but if he rightly identifies this checkpoint as unlawful and decides to disregard it, what do you think will happen?

Defcon5
12-19-2008, 02:12 PM
Learn Before Typing. Stop letting yourself get brainwashed by YouTube videos.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-28-06bud-stmt.htm

http://www.cbpp.org/12-18-05bud.htm
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=12172

Oh look, something you quoted that you are avoiding attention being brought to in your own link provided:
While there is little question that the criminals in the U.S. government are attempting to build a militarized police state capable of enforcing martial law through Northern Command and the Department of Homeland Security

HAHAHAHAHA: And this coming from the same man who also said:

"On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that "from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw" in tax code incentives because they are "provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits."

Even people who don't pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. "There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all)," Greenstein said."

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/dems-target-private-retirement-accounts.html

How convenient for him to write that up July 28, 2006 to act as a cover. LOL, you FAIL.

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 02:17 PM
The bailout failed the first time. The executive said "Martial law if its not approved". Then the bailout was approved despite an unprecedented public outcry against it.The "Martial law" threat (along with the other imaginary threats) were made before the first vote. And the first vote still failed.

Congress tells the executive to disclose whats been done with the bailout money, the executive says no.

Congress tells the executive to use the bailout as promised, the executive says no.There are legal recourses than can (and should) be used to force a response.

Congress tells the executive they will repeal the patriot act, the executive says no.Huh? "The Executive" doesn't "repeal" legislation - Congress would.

Congress tells the executive auto makers get no bailout, the executive does it anyway.Using authority that the Executive already had been granted (PS: I don't agree with the bailouts at all, I just don't agree with your analysis, either;))

If all the legal avenues to replace the government are removed, what other option is there?No "legal avenues" have been tried! Certainly none have been "removed". You're acting like there's a national movement to eliminate Government, when just last month the majority of this country chose to leave the same Congress in power. There is no evidence of any major desire to change government, so why are you implying that legal avenues have been attempted/failed/removed?


I agree, but if he rightly identifies this checkpoint as unlawful and decides to disregard it, what do you think will happen?The obvious reality, depending on a thousand "What-If" aspects, is that he could very well end up with a few bullets into his vehicle and/or body (which is why stopping and pretending to be compliant is the obvious best answer). But we're talking about such a wildly hypothetical situation, that we could come up with insane "examples" all day long.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 02:18 PM
Before I forget, to expand on my comment about the creation of north comm -

Their stated purpose is to respond to domestic disasters/threats, especially from terrorism.

This is a domestic army, which is bad enough, but according to the patriot act anyone that disagrees with the government can be legally classified a terrorist.

You also now have multiple official sources admitting that north comm is in place to respond to public disorder.

I don't think my statement about the purpose of north comm was in any way a misrepresentation.

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 02:19 PM
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering (in case some of his recent posts have been addressed to me). . .


This message is hidden because Defcon5 is on your ignore list.

This message is hidden because Anti_Illuminati is on your ignore list.

Defcon5
12-19-2008, 02:31 PM
Paulson Was Behind Bailout Martial Law Threat
audio from radio
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e4qG2G6UkU

Speaking on Tulsa Oklahoma's 1170 KFAQ, when asked who was behind threats of martial law and civil unrest if the bailout bill failed, Senator James Inhofe named Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as the source. "Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn't do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest....who was feeding you guys this stuff?," asked host Pat Campbell. "That's Henry Paulson," responded Inhofe, "We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think - a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been the middle ... what was it - the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call - and I guess there's no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said - he painted this picture you just described. He said, 'This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced.'" Inhofe said that Paulson told members of Congress the crisis would be "far worse than the great depression" if Congress didn't authorize the bill to buy out toxic debt, a proposal "which he abandoned the day after he got the money," added Inhofe.


http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/11/22/inhofe-paulson-threatened-martial-law.html

Inhofe: Paulson Threatened Martial Law

"November 22, 2008 (LPAC) -- Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.) said yesterday that it was Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who personally told Congressmen that there would be martial law in America if they did not pass the bailout of the banks as demanded by the Bush Administration. On Oct. 2, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said on the House floor that "Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day, another couple of thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."

Now, Senator Inhofe, speaking on KFAQ radio station in Tulsa, has confirmed who it was that issued this threat. The interview host Pat Campbell asked Infhofe, "Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn't do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest. Who was feeding you guys this stuff?"

Inhofe replied, "That's Henry Paulson. We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think--a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been ... the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call and I guess there's no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said, he painted this picture you just described. He said, This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced."

Inhofe has demanded that the remaining funds not already given away be taken back by the government, and suggested that Paulson was giving the money to his friends.

But simply taking money back is not a solution. There is only one competent solution to this mess and that is a bankruptcy re-organization as Lyndon LaRouche has defined."

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 02:32 PM
The "Martial law" threat (along with the other imaginary threats) were made before the first vote. And the first vote still failed.

Anything with legislation in place to make it a possibility is a 'threat'. Thats why the possibility of martial law was a concern prior to the bailout.

Idiots like acerimjob may like to scream that its about to happen, but when it happens is irrelevant. This legislation needs to be repealed. I don't see whats so irrational about that?

I mean seriously, do we really need laws allowing the federal government to create labor camps? Why would there be an opposition to reversing this?


There are legal recourses than can (and should) be used to force a response.

Yes, there are multiple lawsuits in place. However due to the provisions of the bailout bill, the executive is not required to comply to Congress' demands. Please do not be surprised when these lawsuits are thrown out.


Huh? "The Executive" doesn't "repeal" legislation - Congress would.

Exactly. But when the executive can order congress not to repeal legislation, who has the real authority? That was in 2006 if I remember correctly.


Using authority that the Executive already had been granted (PS: I don't agree with the bailouts at all, I just don't agree with your analysis, either;))

Hence why I call that bill the take over bill, not the bailout bill. I do believe though that if congress decided to get pissed off and really exert their authority, they could put the executive in its place. But there are so many executive orders in place that would allow the executive to use north comm in that case, I don't think they have the balls to do it. Their only protection would be the understanding of individual soldiers of the current situation and how that legally relates to the constitution.

Again, we should get rid of these executive orders that allow for martial law.


No "legal avenues" have been tried! Certainly none have been "removed". You're acting like there's a national movement to eliminate Government, when just last month the majority of this country chose to leave the same Congress in power. There is no evidence of any major desire to change government, so why are you implying that legal avenues have been attempted/failed/removed?

What happened to Kucinich's articles of impeachment? Thats right, they got moved to a sub commitee hearing in which no one was allowed to say 'impeachment' or accuse the president of anything.


The obvious reality, depending on a thousand "What-If" aspects, is that he could very well end up with a few bullets into his vehicle and/or body (which is why stopping and pretending to be compliant is the obvious best answer). But we're talking about such a wildly hypothetical situation, that we could come up with insane "examples" all day long.

True enough. But most people would be afraid of some of the darker possible 'what ifs' to disregard an illegal checkpoint. I don't think I could do it.

I think the easiest answer is to make sure we don't get to that point in the first place.

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 02:41 PM
Yes, there are multiple lawsuits in place. However due to the provisions of the bailout bill, the executive is not required to comply to Congress' demands. Please do not be surprised when these lawsuits are thrown out.Then, we're right back to. . . Congress provided that authority when they were stupid enough to pass the bailout legislation. You can't give someone some power, and then complain because they heave it :rolleyes:

Exactly. But when the executive can order congress not to repeal legislation, who has the real authority? That was in 2006 if I remember correctly.Once again - There is no way the President can "order" Congress to pass or not pass certain legislation. If they had really wanted to repeal (any legislation), all it takes is a veto-proof majority. But, saying "we don't have the votes to get what we want" is nowhere near saying "the President is ordering this outcome, and we will blindly comply".

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 02:46 PM
Then, we're right back to. . . Congress provided that authority when they were stupid enough to pass the bailout legislation. You can't give someone some power, and then complain because they heave it :rolleyes:
Once again - There is no way the President can "order" Congress to pass or not pass certain legislation. If they had really wanted to repeal (any legislation), all it takes is a veto-proof majority. But, saying "we don't have the votes to get what we want" is nowhere near saying "the President is ordering this outcome, and we will blindly comply".

Thats like saying if someone points a gun at you and says 'give me your wallat', its your fault for giving your wallat.

There is a domestic army, and an easy mechanism for putting it to use at the behest of the executive.

Now, this may only be an empty threat. The gun may not actually be loaded, or it may refuse to cooperate, but thats only a possibility, not a guarantee.

Why do you think Bush would say that to Congress? Is he just an idiot?

nutsy54
12-19-2008, 02:54 PM
Thats like saying if someone points a gun at you and says 'give me your wallat', its your fault for giving your wallat.Only if you're the one who gave him a loaded gun in the first place. . .

Why do you think Bush would say that to Congress? Is he just an idiot?Do I seriously have to go through all this again? Actually, no. I already put it all in Post # 115 of this thread. It was a wild-ass exaggeration, just like all the others in the "list of threats". No reason that "Martial Law" was any more believable or able to happen than "the sky falling" to the ground tomorrow.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 03:47 PM
Only if you're the one you gave him a loaded gun in the first place. . .


Does congress have to approve executive orders? Not that it really matters. This would be like you saying to me "Give me a gun, and I will use it to protect you". And then instead pointing the gun at me and saying 'give me your wallat'.

A concept clearly and eloquently spelled out by our founders.


Do I seriously have to go through all this again? Actually, no. I already put it all in Post # 115 of this thread. It was a wild-ass exaggeration, just like all the others in the "list of threats". No reason that "Martial Law" was any more believable or able to happen than "the sky falling" to the ground tomorrow.

I was referring to Bush telling Congress that if they didn't approve the patriot act he would have it enforced anyway.

But in either case, whether the threat is a bluff or not is irrelevant. The executive is using a threat of force to give orders to Congress.

Al Swearengen
12-19-2008, 04:37 PM
As I touched on in my previous post. . . The American public clearly showed last month that they are NOT wildly pissed off at Washington and our political leadership. WE re-elected the majority of Congress right back to their seats, and WE elected a candidate from one of the two major parties that have dominated national politics for years. If people are happy to continue pulling the same levers in the voting booth, what could possibly make you think they're planning an armed revolt against the leadership they just re-elected?

as sad as it is to admit the method we have at our disposal to "change" our gov. is pathetically inept and corrupt. whats the difference if we vote for millionaire number one or two they both get in line and parrot the same BS as the last one.
i'm not thinking we are planning any revolt never said i did. my thoughts are on if things get bad what will happen then... and i think if people weren't mindless fools and or had decent people to re elect (non pork associated lobbying corruptible ass hats) then we may have a chance and also the white house would have been cleared last election.

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 04:44 PM
as sad as it is to admit the method we have at our disposal to "change" our gov. is pathetically inept and corrupt. whats the difference if we vote for millionaire number one or two they both get in line and parrot the same BS as the last one.
i'm not thinking we are planning any revolt never said i did. my thoughts are on if things get bad what will happen then... and i think if people weren't mindless fools and or had decent people to re elect (non pork associated lobbying corruptible ass hats) then we may have a chance and also the white house would have been cleared last election.

The way to put an end to this is to take over local governments. Check out local elections and see what you can get into. You wouldn't believe how easy it is to get some fairly influential positions, just because most people don't know about them and you may be the only person applying.

juggerburn
12-19-2008, 06:11 PM
The way to put an end to this is to take over local governments. Check out local elections and see what you can get into. You wouldn't believe how easy it is to get some fairly influential positions, just because most people don't know about them and you may be the only person applying.

wait a minute, what kind of influence are we talking here? also, what if you started doing things that the higher ups didn't like? wouldn't they come after you, legally or not?

Stizzel
12-19-2008, 06:44 PM
wait a minute, what kind of influence are we talking here? also, what if you started doing things that the higher ups didn't like? wouldn't they come after you, legally or not?

They can try, but the federal government has very little legal jurisdiction dealing with local governments. Most of what they get away with is due to complacency by local governments. They do things like convince sheriffs to sign documents giving them rights within their county. But if we get people in that know whats up then that kind of crap won't work.

They can try to do things like slander you but imagine trying to do that for everyone getting into local government across the entire country.

Defcon5
12-19-2008, 06:56 PM
Does congress have to approve executive orders? Not that it really matters.

Executive Orders by their very nature are Unconstitutional.

Approving something that is by default Unconstitutional is illegal and is treason.

The reason Executive Orders are Unconstitutional is because the United States Constitution gives no provision (gives no authority) to the Executive to create such orders, PERIOD. Even *IF* the legislation within an Executive Order in and of itself does not violate the Constitution, it is STILL Unconstitutional because the authority to create such an order was never there.

This is a huge reason why the Department of Homeland Security is TREASON and ILLEGAL, because the legislative framework upon which it operates is directly from the so-called authority of 1/4 of all Executive Orders written.

The Founding Fathers were smart, and they never expected the people in the Federal Government to ignore and completely usurp their incredibly sound documents.

That is why in the Declaration of Independence, the Federal Government is warned that the PEOPLE have the right to overthrow an out of control corrupt government by FORCE if necessary. TO PRESERVE LIBERTY AND THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT, NOT FOR PERMANENT ANARCHY TO TAKE IT'S PLACE AS SO MANY LIKE TO ACCUSE.

bird72
12-19-2008, 08:32 PM
Doomsday: U.S. report warns of 'strategic shock' leading to massive unrest
WASHINGTON - The United States could be sleep-walking into its next crisis, a military report said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ss_military0790_12_15.asp


The report by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute, said that a defense community paralyzed by conventional thinking could be unprepared to help the United States cope with a series of unexpected crises that would rival the Al Qaida strikes in 2001, termed a "strategic shock."

The report cited the prospect of the collapse of a nuclear state leading to massive unrest in the United States.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, said.

"Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock."

Titled "Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development," the report warned that the U.S. military and intelligence community remain mired in the past as well as the need to accommodate government policy. Freier, a former Pentagon official, said that despite the Al Qaida surprise in 2001 U.S. defense strategy and planning remain trapped by "excessive convention."

"The current administration confronted a game-changing 'strategic shock' inside its first eight months in office," the report said. "The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense]."

The report cited the collapse of what Freier termed "a large capable state that results in a nuclear civil war." Such a prospect could lead to uncontrolled weapons of mass destruction proliferation as well as a nuclear war.

The report cited the prospect of a breakdown of order in the United States. Freier said the Pentagon could be suddenly forced to recall troops from abroad to fight domestic unrest.

"An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home," the report said.

The report said the United States could also come under pressure from a hostile state with control over insurgency groups. The hostile state could force American decision-makers into a desperate response.

"The United States might also consider the prospect that hostile state and/or nonstate actors might individually or in concert combine hybrid methods effectively to resist U.S. influence in a nonmilitary manner," the report said. "This is clearly an emerging trend."

"The aforementioned are admittedly extreme," the report said. "They are not, however, implausible or fantastical."

Strategic Studies Institute - US Army War College (martial law thinktanking)
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/Display.Cfm?pubID=890
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB890.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Col. Nathan Freir

Nathan Freier is a trustee of CSIS

This group has members like Kissinger, Scrowcroft and Brezenski. He and his group are the REAL DOMESTIC ENEMIES.

"a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Mr. Freier joined CSIS in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel."

http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_press&task=view&id=4323

Chairman
Sam Nunn* ** -- Cochairman & CEO, Nuclear Threat Initiative


Vice Chairman & Co-Founder
David M. Abshire -- President, Center for the Study of the Presidency


Chairman of the Executive Committee
William A. Schreyer* -- Chairman Emeritus, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.


President & CEO
John J. Hamre* -- President & CEO, CSIS


Trustees
George L. Argyros -- Chairman & CEO, Arnel & Affiliates
Richard Armitage -- President, Armitage International
Betty Beene -- Former President & CEO, United Way of America
Reginald K. Brack -- Former Chairman & CEO, Time, Incorporated
William E. Brock** -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Harold Brown** -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Zbigniew Brzezinski** -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
William S. Cohen -- Chairman & CEO, The Cohen Group
Ralph Cossa -- President, Pacific Forum/CSIS
Richard Fairbanks -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
William H. Frist -- Trustee, CSIS
Michael P. Galvin* -- President, Harrison Street Capital, LLC
Helene D. Gayle -- President & CEO, CARE USA
Linda W. Hart -- Vice Chairman & CEO, The Hart Group, Inc.

Ben W. Heineman, Jr. -- CSIS Trustee and Senior Adviser
Thomas O. Hicks -- Chairman, Hicks Holdings LLC
Carla A. Hills** -- Chairman & CEO, Hills & Company
Ray L. Hunt -- Chairman of the Board, President and CEO, Hunt Consolidated, Inc.
E. Neville Isdell -- Chairman, The Coca-Cola Company
James L. Jones -- Trustee, CSIS OBAMA's NEW NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
Muhtar Kent -- President and CEO, The Coco-Cola Company
Henry A. Kissinger** -- Chairman & CEO, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Kenneth G. Langone -- President & CEO, Invemed Associates, LLC
Donald B. Marron -- Chairman & CEO, Lightyear Capital
Joseph Nye -- Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government
Thomas Pritzker -- Chairman & CEO, The Pritzker Organization, LLC
Joseph E. Robert -- Chairman and CEO, The J.E. Robert Companies (JER)
Felix G. Rohatyn -- Vice Chairman, FGR Associated, LLC
David M. Rubenstein -- Cofounder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group
Charles A. Sanders -- Former Chairman & CEO, Glaxo Inc.
James R. Schlesinger** -- Former Secretary of Defense and Energy
Brent Scowcroft** -- President, Forum for International Policy
Rex Tillerson -- Chairman & CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Frederick B. Whittemore -- Advisory Director, Morgan Stanley


TRUSTEES EMERITI

Amos A. Jordan -- President Emeritus, CSIS
Murray Weidenbaum -- Hon. Chair, Weidenbaum Center, Washington University
Dolores D. Wharton -- Retired Chairman and CEO, Fund For Corporate Initiatives, Inc.


COUNSELORS

William E. Brock -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS

Harold Brown -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Frank C. Carlucci -- Counselor, CSIS
Zbigniew Brzezinski -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Richard Fairbanks -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Carla A. Hills -- Chairman & CEO, Hills & Company
Henry A. Kissinger -- Chairman & CEO, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Theodore McCarrick -- Counselor, CSIS
Sam Nunn -- Cochairman & CEO, Nuclear Threat Initiative
James R. Schlesinger -- Former Secretary of Defense and Energy
Brent Scowcroft -- President, Forum for International Policy

EXCERPT FROM THE PDF: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB890.pdf

tom, tom, it is you tom.....

tom clancy.......definitely be Tom Clancy

hi tommmmm!

Defcon5
12-23-2008, 11:51 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/military_domestic_use/2008/12/23/164765.html

U.S. Military Preparing for Domestic Disturbances

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:14 PM

By: Jim Meyers

"A new report from the U.S. Army War College discusses the use of American troops to quell civil unrest brought about by a worsening economic crisis.

The report from the War College's Strategic Studies Institute warns that the U.S. military must prepare for a "violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States? that could be provoked by "unforeseen economic collapse" or "loss of functioning political and legal order."

Entitled "Known Unknowns: Unconventional 'Strategic Shocks' in Defense Strategy Development," the report was produced by Nathan Freier, a recently retired Army lieutenant colonel who is a professor at the college -- the Army's main training institute for prospective senior officers.

He writes: "To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD [Department of Defense] would be required to fill the gap."

Freier continues: "Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order ... An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home."

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned last week of riots and unrest in global markets if the ongoing financial crisis is not addressed and lower-income households are beset with credit constraints and rising unemployment, the Phoenix Business Journal reported.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Rep. Brad Sherman of California disclosed that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson discussed a worst-case scenario as he pushed the Wall Street bailout in September, and said that scenario might even require a declaration of martial law.

The Army College report states: "DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.

"Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance."

He concludes this section of the report by observing: "DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home."

As Newsmax reported earlier, the Defense Department has made plans to deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 to help state and local officials respond to emergencies.

The 130-year-old Posse Comitatus Act restricts the military's role in domestic law enforcement. But a 1994 Defense Department Directive allows military commanders to take emergency actions in domestic situations to save lives, prevent suffering or mitigate great property damage, according to the Business Journal.

And Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military operations to liberate Iraq, said in a 2003 interview that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government."

Defcon5
12-24-2008, 05:53 PM
http://www.nypost.com/img/nypmasthead2.gif

Us Army Ready If The Downturn Gets Out Of Hand
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12232008/business/us_army_ready_if_the_downturn_gets_out_o_145522.ht m

Last updated: 3:51 am
December 23, 2008
Posted: 2:57 am
December 23, 2008

"ARE you afraid that the economic downturn could get out of hand? I mean, really out of hand?

Well, don't worry.

The US Army War College is on the case - ready to handle "unforeseen economic collapse" and the "rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the US."

And you thought we were just dealing with a recession!

In a report published Nov. 4 - just in time for the holiday season - the War College's Strategic Studies Institute posited a number of shocks that the country should be prepared for, including unrest caused by the economy's failure.

The report has a snappy title, "Known Unknowns: Unconventional 'Strategic Shocks' in Defense Strategy Development," and was written by Nathan Freier, a visiting professor at the college. The foreword was written by Col. John A. Kardos, director of the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute.

Freier lists a number of possible things we should worry about - because we probably don't have enough of our own - including run-of-the-mill terrorism and the fact that China and Russia could align against us politically and economically.

"Some of the most plausible defense-relevant strategic shocks remain low-probability events," Freier soft-pedals before going on to scare the hell out of us.

The War College says "widespread civil violence inside the US would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security."

Among things Freier wants us to worry about are "deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction. . . unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency and catastrophic natural and human disasters."

Oh, and by the way, have a Merry Christmas!"

"Unforeseen", yeah right--totally by design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Is The U.S. Military Preparing For Massive Civil Disorder?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008 by Shattered Paradigm

http://futurestorm.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-is-us-military-preparing-for.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b3GHoGMBNpY/SVKZ84goJcI/AAAAAAAADBY/GYKFFUl96Zo/s1600/police2.jpg

A new report from the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute says that the U.S. military must quickly prepare for massive civil unrest that could be precipitated by an "unforeseen economic collapse".

The following is a quote from this stunning report: "DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States."

This comes on the heels of a recent report that the Department of Defense plans to deploy 20,000 uniformed troops for operations inside the United States by 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217.html

The purpose of the 130 year old Posse Comitatus Act was to prevent the military from being used in domestic law enforcement.

But who cares about the law anymore, eh?

But apparently 20,000 uniformed soldiers will not be enough to control Americans. Barack Obama is calling for a "civilian national security force" that is as strong and is as well funded as the U.S. military. Just check out this short video clip:
Tt2yGzHfy7s

Now there is news that Homeland Security plans to start monitoring blogs and message boards all over the United States for any signs of suspicious activity.

Does that include criticizing the government?

But even with all of these measures there are some in the government who think that even more military resources will be required to prevent civil unrest.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has ordered defense officials to do a full review to determine whether the U.S. military could respond adequately to a domestic crisis.

We have never had civil disorder of the magnitude that these authorities are speculating about in the history of the United States.

Do these officials know something that we don't?

Are things going to get even worse in the years ahead for our economy and our nation?"

nutsy54
12-25-2008, 07:11 AM
WRONG. ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT IS MILITARIZED, DUH. NORTHCOM RUNS THE MILITARY AND RUNS THE FBI, RUNS THE STATE POLICE, IS ABOUT TO RUN ALL THE MERCS, RUNS DHS, RUNS ICE, WHAT PART DON'T YOU GET? NORTHCOM THEMSELVES PERFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS. BOTH DIRECTLY AND BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS UNDER THEIR COMMAND.Prove it, or stop the endless Lies. Your choice. Just because you keep making unproven accusations doesn't mean they're true :rolleyes:

[COLOR=RED][B]YES THERE WAS--CONGRESS WAS PUT UNDER MARTIAL LAW BECAUSE THEIR FREEDOM TO VOTE *NO* ON THE BAILOUT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM UNDER THE THREAT OF DEATH.I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, and start reading your posts again. And the first one I see is this line of bull****. You either have no idea what you're talking about, or you're intentionally spreading complete Lies so the ignorant sheep will blindly follow you.

Let's try this yet again: The "Martial Law" that applied to Congress was a common administrative procedure that's used to rapidly move legislation through. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with military control, death threats, a police state, or anything else like that. You're taking two words, then using them completely out of context with a fake definition that supports your insane agenda.

Please just stop the endless lies, you're only embarrassing yourself and every other NWO-believing whack-job on this site.

Defcon5
12-25-2008, 11:57 PM
Huh? "The Executive" doesn't "repeal" legislation - Congress would.

You don't get it. Congress's resistance to passing the Patriot Act was met with an inside job Anthrax attack against those that opposed it as a warning that they weren't allowed to collectively make it a nay vote. Congress was only allowed 15 minutes to look at it before they were forced to vote. Congress was also intimidated by Dick Cheney that if they voted no on the Patriot act that they would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, this is documented fact, start learning how to use a search engine.


Using authority that the Executive already had been granted
What authority are you talking about that you say was granted to the Executive?


(PS: I don't agree with the bailouts at all, I just don't agree with your analysis, either;))

No one cares "if you don't agree with the bailouts at all", that doesn't green light anyone else to be permitted to disagree with you and still be on the correct side of the fence regarding the issue. The bailouts were a financial terrorist attack, even Ron Paul went on record saying this as well as Max Kaiser. It was and is high treason.



You're acting like there's a national movement to eliminate Government,

Ever hear of the National Security Act of 1947, and NSPD-51? Go google those and read them then come back and tell us that the constitutional form of government that we are supposed to have has any say in anything.


Let's try this yet again: The "Martial Law" that applied to Congress was a common administrative procedure that's used to rapidly move legislation through. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with military control, death threats, a police state, or anything else like that. You're taking two words, then using them completely out of context with a fake definition that supports your insane agenda.

"He is halfway right. There is a martial law procedure in congress that has nothing to do with real martial law. It's a situation where they do not follow policy because of an Emergency. But on the other hand, threatening Congressmen WITH martial law, that is criminal. Both of these things occurred and the first was to provide cover for the second."