Coming to your town soon

Can you say "another 911" event? Thats what I see in this for setting the stage for a major event under the guise of this meeting. I believe that many should be viewing this as testing the waters to use military forces under the socialist stance in order to help sweep in, the new world order in which Obama was elected to do.

From the article:

The Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security recently hosted a teleconference for law enforcement agencies and associations such as the National Association of Chiefs of Police to discuss the Obama Administration's interest in using the military during "emergencies."

Officials announced during the teleconference that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator W. Craig Fugate met with the Commander, US Northern Command, General Gene Renuart, to discuss "pre-disaster planning, response and recovery in support of the federal response to the 2009 hurricane season as well as wild fires, floods and other potential disasters."


Obama admin discussing use of military during an incident

If this ever happens on a large scale i fear it will be a trigger for a massive uprising among the people, if we come to military policing the majority of the states. I don't think anything good will come out of it. Good find S&F

As I'm sure you and all ATS'ers know, those "emergencies" will be all encompassing and sweeping from a hostage situation to a domestic disturbance between a husband & wife, so this will be the first step to total control.

reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE


Who would revolt? You mean the people that just lost everything due to a natural disaster and are begging for any amount of aide / supplies that they can get?

Heck -- after Katrina hit and everybody was left in shambles with no solid support system, they would probably have accepted aid directly from Hitler himself.

This idea to me creates a very slippery slope. On one hand, I feel that people should not needlessly suffer if we have the means to help them -- no matter what department / organization they come from.

However, on the other hand, there is the distinct possibility that states will not keep their own emergency management personnel adequately trained and supplied if they know the military will be there to assist.

Further, it leaves open the possibilty of extending their roles within the states. Policies such as these generally end up having no bottom to them -- and even bigger price tags.

I will only say this. When this happened earlier in the year, the majority, let me reword that, Each and Every, seasoned and rookie officer in local and county enforcement , here, in my little part of the world, saw it for what it was, and that was a litmus test for participation or resistance to said "yet to happen" event.
This would be an epic fail, woe unto those whom raise a front sight at a peaceful citizen.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by OpTiMuS_PrImE

 

Who would revolt? You mean the people that just lost everything due to a natural disaster and are begging for any amount of aide / supplies that they can get?

Heck -- after Katrina hit and everybody was left in shambles with no solid support system, they would probably have accepted aid directly from Hitler himself.

This idea to me creates a very slippery slope. On one hand, I feel that people should not needlessly suffer if we have the means to help them -- no matter what department / organization they come from.

However, on the other hand, there is the distinct possibility that states will not keep their own emergency management personnel adequately trained and supplied if they know the military will be there to assist.

Further, it leaves open the possibilty of extending their roles within the states. Policies such as these generally end up having no bottom to them -- and even bigger price tags.

I agree that when help is genuiely needed then provide it BUT, this is in direct contradiction to the states that already have in place emergency management teams, contingencys and protocols and that is exactly why the states have these in place...So that the military does not have to be used.

In simple language, the National Guard is used during hurricanes and other disasters for security (augmentation of police/security) and to assist in getting supplys in place in affected areas and regions. They are NEVER to be used for reaction purposes. This attempt by the Obama socialist administration is a clear attempt to gauge the acceptance of their clear willingness to send in the military at will.

As I stated earlier under the guise of this plan it will end up for sure, having a broader range of uses than the original cited one. I'm sure (and would bet money on it) that if some bill or law went to congress it would contain many loopholes and other add ons that would allow the use of the military for whatever purposes the President deems fit.

Most importantly though the myth of Posse Comitatus is:

Through a gradual erosion of the act’s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in homeland defense.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by mikelee]

reply to post by lpowell0627
I agree with you !!! Kitrina is a prime example of how we deal with disaster.If this happened on a larger scale you would need the military to stop the animals.

I really don't think the people have the balls to revolt.You can't get people to vote and your talking uprising???This country is too complacent, they worry more about their rights to smoke pot.

Originally posted by fishing
reply to post by lpowell0627
I agree with you !!! Kitrina is a prime example of how we deal with disaster.If this happened on a larger scale you would need the military to stop the animals.

I really don't think the people have the balls to revolt.You can't get people to vote and your talking uprising???This country is too complacent, they worry more about their rights to smoke pot.

You do not need the military to do anything except fight a war. Your thinking is off here and based on failure mindset. This why states need to have their emergency management resources strengthened by funding by the government instead of the government trying to throw it's military strength into the equation. it won't work and if you care to understand anything in this thread, understand this:

If a bill or law were to be presented under the guise of this proposal it will have so many "other uses" you'll soon see your local law enforcement having their back up for every incident consisting of military elements. That might be fine in Russia or North Korea, but NOT IN MY homeland!

Originally posted by mikelee
As I'm sure you and all ATS'ers know, those "emergencies" will be all encompassing and sweeping from a hostage situation to a domestic disturbance between a husband & wife, so this will be the first step to total control.

OH HECK NO>>>> the day the military shows up telling me to turn down my radio or that my dog is barking to much is the day TSHTF. it will not be a pleasant situation. especially for the ones doing the knocking.!

They really are trying to turn the USA into WWII Germany. its sickening to think that the government would consider using the military as a Police force for the general public.

It would not be very long after something like that was put into effect that you would see the 2nd Civil War starting. Americans against Americans.

What will be next Imposed Curfews? Um sorry ma'am your child has to starve because its 10pm and you can not go to the store. I dont think that will fly to far.

reply to post by mikelee
What is your plan ???The police and the national guard could not handle a large scale event.Who do you call???Lets throw more money into the black hole of local government.
The Germans used the term homeland too!!!

All of you are assuming that the military would sweep in and take direct control over everything with an iron grip.
Trust me, there are many high ranking military personel that directly control the troops that would think twice when orders violate law. I for one do not think that the military as back up for local law enforcement is a good idea UNLESS the law enforcement is unable to deal with the situation due to being outgunned or severely outnumbered (yes I'm keeping an eye on all of you shouting a call to arms)
I swore to defend the Constitution, not politicians. If a politicians issues illegal orders, then they better make room for me and my unit in jail because we would not violated the rights our fore fathers gave to the people.

Originally posted by fishing
reply to post by mikelee
What is your plan ???The police and the national guard could not handle a large scale event.Who do you call???Lets throw more money into the black hole of local government.
The Germans used the term homeland too!!!

Your reply and question is that of rhetoric and I can see already that any reply would be pointless.

"It would not be very long after something like that was put into effect that you would see the 2nd Civil War starting. Americans against Americans".


It dosnt take 20-20 vision to see and note that all that has gone before has resulted in statements like that. The Patriot act, the military check-points, the military at demonstrations and the attitude and actions during the G20 summit have all come and gone. So many of them identified as reasons why my American brothers and sisters would take up arms.

Look around you. Do you see people fighting for their freedoms? no you dont.

Sadly America has long lost its will to hang on to its freedom.

Respects



[edit on 3-12-2009 by captiva]

[edit on 3-12-2009 by captiva]

Originally posted by cavscout11cav
All of you are assuming that the military would sweep in and take direct control over everything with an iron grip.
Trust me, there are many high ranking military personel that directly control the troops that would think twice when orders violate law. I for one do not think that the military as back up for local law enforcement is a good idea UNLESS the law enforcement is unable to deal with the situation due to being outgunned or severely outnumbered (yes I'm keeping an eye on all of you shouting a call to arms)
I swore to defend the Constitution, not politicians. If a politicians issues illegal orders, then they better make room for me and my unit in jail because we would not violated the rights our fore fathers gave to the people.

And those high ranking military personnel are controlled by the president!

Politicians control the constitution if you have cared to take notice as of late. Being a retired member of the armed services I have seen many changes in the very core direction of the military and foresaking a lengthy post here, the constitution is no more than an afterthought to those who make military protocol today.

While you & I are similiar in our views that we would not take illegal action against our fellow citizens there are however many that would for a variety of reasons. This is what worrys me the most.

reply to post by captiva


Do you seriously think that if the country as a whole was being forced into a police state, forced into so called FEMA camps, locked down with martial law curfews, that the public would just sit back and let it happen?.

I agree that a large majority of the population would not think about using force to stop something like this, BUT at the same time i can say that you cannot tell what they will do until it happens. Even the most docile of dogs will fight for its life when cornered by something that is there to hurt it.

reply to post by triaxrob


Your country is being forced into a police state, worse, a military police state. Hindsite will show that yes, the citizen will fight, but as an individual when their homes, their families and their lives are threatened individually.

By then it will be too late. But hey you already know that, evidenced by the freedoms you have already lost.

Respects

[edit on 3-12-2009 by captiva]

I have read some of the posts here and I finally decide on a general reply:


I think there is a battle for command of a New World Order and I think it is based on the same ideologies as we had in the Cold War. I think this still IS the Cold War, made up of Commie sypathizers on one side (Obama and his gang), and Right Wing captitalist pigs like George W. Bush and his gang. I think these two factions have been rivals for a long time. I think that globalism is an inevitable state of singularity which is going to find the planet as a whole: The whole human race will be affected by the phenomenon of its own evolution converging on a need for global government. The thing is, of the powerful people of the world, WHO will inherit the title of the supreme leader? Which group of people will inherit the right to govern? Let's be friggin' honest here. Do you all REALLY think that most leaders are born salt-of-the-earth farmers with an honest desire to lead their fellow man to prosperity? Hah! Most people who make it to the big league have connections, most probably because they have blood connections or at least a financial allegiance to some ancient dynasty. Obama and the leftist creepoids do. Bush and the Right Wing scumbags do to. And they are both in locked in a quiet cold war of grabbing that Holy Grail as the need for global government it comes closer and closer to singularity. They both want to "serve you". Oh don't we feel blessed? The thing is, none of them want you to see the intensity and corruption which is part of this process. They are ALL trying to maintain a veil of: "This is democracy. You voted for us! We are serving you." But inward they are engaged in an ancient race to find the Holy Grail. They are both nearly equally powerful, I think. That's because of the time that this whole thing has actually been brewing: Ever since the Christianization of European royalty and the rise of Islam. It has reached a point where both sides, the right and the left, are so powerful that they just keep swapping local thrones back and forth without anyone ever really gaining ultimate superiorty. It may be futile for both of them.

Both sides are getting desperate, and that's why they keep using crisis situations (like terrorism) to advance their role as savior and protector as a front for taking away rights and claiming other people's property.

There.
Have I said it?

reply to post by triaxrob


There wasn't much resistance in 1930's/40's Germany, was there?
When the Red Cross were allowed to inspect Nazi facilities they were told that the "poor sick Jews" were being cared for there and nursed back to health at certain camps which were tailored nicely to look benign and friendly. The Red Cross people actually believed it on the first few visits. Shortly after that the war broke out and visiting hours were over.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

The above link talks about that a little. I have to admit that the account is slightly different than I remember from my Holocaust class that I took about 20 years ago. But it gives generally the same idea and I think you agree that a similar veil could be pulled over the eyes of the American people, especially when they're so engrossed in watching manufactured reality TV shows and playing video games while consuming energy drinks and junk food.