It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possible false flag secenarios? Takers?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
All the talk of Obama being taken off ballots does it really matter? WE are probably done with having free elections. This president and his cronies in the house and senate have been passing illegal laws and spending money that this country can never pay back.

I mean it's like their thinking we can do what we want, We will never have to be held accountable for it anyway.

I'm watching and waiting for something big to happen this year. Do any of you guys think something is about to happen?

My 2 theories:

1. A nuke in a major US city, Atlanta, Philidelphia, L.A or Boston.
2. A isolated but hard hitting bio attack.

Both could be reason enough to lock everything down.




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The next false flag event won't be in America.

There's no need for it. 9/11 accomplished total dominance of American Society. The next part of the plan is to indoctrinate the rest of the world.

IMO though unified hate of a select few like in WWII.

Enter Israel.

Conflict in the middle east has occurred consistently for the last, well forever really. It's not going to stop soon. Major conflict will most likely erupt between Iran and Israel.

This will be enough to get most other nations involved and bankrupted, conceding more power to the international bankers while eliminating civil liberties at at an exponential rate.

My guess, if there is another in America, it will be a Domestic Terrorism plot, to further things like the Patriot Act.

Think Oklahoma city.

~Keeper



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
tothetenthpower
I agree. Its a crying shame most American's still don't know what really happened in Oklahoma city.

But what I was hinting at is the current administration finding ways to stay in office without causing a rebellion.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 



This president and his cronies in the house and senate have been passing illegal laws


Could you please give an example of an illegal law they have passed...and please explain why that law is illegal???


1. A nuke in a major US city, Atlanta, Philidelphia, L.A or Boston.
2. A isolated but hard hitting bio attack.


Those aren't very good "false flags". They wouldn't want to make a city uninhabital...which is what both of those attacks would do. One physically (nuke and fallout radiation) and one psychologically (bio with the fear of it re-surfacing).

Plus...neither are very controllable...and that is what they would want with a false flag. With a nuke you have a cloud of radiation that would drift wherever the weather takes it...and with a bio attack in any major city you will definately not be able to contain it because of airports.

I personally don't think anything will happen this year...and if it does...I am pretty confident it won't be either of these.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
OutKast Searcher

1. Section 3403 of the Senate health bill, establishing a commission to cut Medicare spending, says the law can't be changed or repealed in the future. This whopper shows that Congress thinks its work should be set in stone. Wrong. The people always have the right to elect a new Congress to change or repeal what a previous Congress has done.

2.The bills require you to enroll in a "qualified health plan," whether you want it or not. Forcing people to buy insurance obviously reduces the number of uninsured. But Congress doesn't have the authority to force people to buy a product.

3.Never before has the federal government intruded into decisions made by doctors for privately insured patients, except on narrow issues such as drug safety. Nothing in the Constitution permits it. But the Senate bill makes you enroll in a plan and then says that only doctors who do what the government dictates can be paid by your plan.

4.Finally, the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment bars government from taking your property without compensation. It should protect everyone, no matter how unpopular -- even insurance companies, but Congress ignored it in writing the health bill. The Senate version goes beyond reining in insurance-company abuses, a just cause, and actually caps insurance-company profit margins at well below current levels, robbing shareholders.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Nebraska to secede and join Canada. Government rallies nation to challenge a threat they can win.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
The problem with "false flag" attacks as I see it is one of acceptable risk. To pull off massive incidents such as this, it's incredibly hard to keep secret (the Gulf of Tonkin, "Poland" attacking Nazi Germany, the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine, ect.)

They usually become public eventually because of the number of people involved, keeping that many silent when there is a lot to be gained by being the "good guy."

Instead, the government can simply make something up and get the media to pick up on it. Look at the WMDs in Iraq, completely and totally false, but it was so big a story, from an expected legitimate source, of course the media would run with it.

We in the media do really dictate what you, the people talk about. Look at the threads on this site, now compare them to the headlines of the day. Notice that as soon as we, the news industry stopped reporting daily on Healthcare Reform, you guys stopped talking about it so much. Now the American press is obsessed with the new immigration law in Arizona, so that is the debate you are having by and large.

We in the media get used as tools by political officials a lot, both willingly and unwillingly. We play them and they play us, because they know that if we ever turn on them, there is nothing on the earth that can save their job.

If you want a false-flag, just convince a journalist of a bigtime lie. That's a lot more effective than any fake bombing or staged terrorist attack would be.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I realize you were addressing Outkast Searcher but I'm going to answer you anyway.


Originally posted by Loken68
OutKast Searcher

1. Section 3403 of the Senate health bill, establishing a commission to cut Medicare spending, says the law can't be changed or repealed in the future. This whopper shows that Congress thinks its work should be set in stone. Wrong. The people always have the right to elect a new Congress to change or repeal what a previous Congress has done.


You're referring to Section 3403, Section 1899A, (d)(3)(C) which states: LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

Completely ignoring the next lines, Section 3403, section 1899A, (d)(3)(D): WAIVER- This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

and

Section 3403, section 1899A, (d)(3)(E): APPEALS- An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph.



2.The bills require you to enroll in a "qualified health plan," whether you want it or not. Forcing people to buy insurance obviously reduces the number of uninsured. But Congress doesn't have the authority to force people to buy a product.


I had no idea you were a constitutional lawyer, have you contacted the handful of state attorney general's that are fighting the bill to offer your professional expertise on the matter?


3.Never before has the federal government intruded into decisions made by doctors for privately insured patients, except on narrow issues such as drug safety. Nothing in the Constitution permits it. But the Senate bill makes you enroll in a plan and then says that only doctors who do what the government dictates can be paid by your plan.


Never before...is there any wonder why we needed this legislation when it was never before offered? What part, exactly, in the senate bill says that only doctors who do what the government dictates can be paid by the insurance companies? Specifics, please. Yes, I've read the bill.


4.Finally, the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment bars government from taking your property without compensation. It should protect everyone, no matter how unpopular -- even insurance companies, but Congress ignored it in writing the health bill. The Senate version goes beyond reining in insurance-company abuses, a just cause, and actually caps insurance-company profit margins at well below current levels, robbing shareholders.


You realize the government isn't exactly 'taking' that money, right? I didn't think money was considered property. What you're talking about is basically limiting the profit of an insurance company to 20% of income, the remainder (80%) going towards medical expenditures. Completely reasonable regulation in my opinion. Progress hurts sometimes, you'll catch up soon enough.


Originally posted by pablos
Nebraska to secede and join Canada.


Why Nebraska? There two states between Nebraska and Canada...



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 




1. Section 3403 of the Senate health bill, establishing a commission to cut Medicare spending, says the law can't be changed or repealed in the future. This whopper shows that Congress thinks its work should be set in stone. Wrong. The people always have the right to elect a new Congress to change or repeal what a previous Congress has done.


False



2.The bills require you to enroll in a "qualified health plan," whether you want it or not. Forcing people to buy insurance obviously reduces the number of uninsured. But Congress doesn't have the authority to force people to buy a product.


No...congress does not...but your State does. And that is what the bill is mandating...that the Sates enforce an individual mandate. That is why STATES are currently suing...and not individuals. Even if they win...the federal government will most likely cut medicare funding (and rightly so) to the states that decide not to enforce the mandate. Nothing illegal about any of this...you may not agree with it...but it is all legal and has been done before.


3.Never before has the federal government intruded into decisions made by doctors for privately insured patients, except on narrow issues such as drug safety. Nothing in the Constitution permits it. But the Senate bill makes you enroll in a plan and then says that only doctors who do what the government dictates can be paid by your plan.


Would you care to provide a link to the section of the bill that says the government will dictate what will be paid or that they will dictate what the doctors do???


4.Finally, the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment bars government from taking your property without compensation. It should protect everyone, no matter how unpopular -- even insurance companies, but Congress ignored it in writing the health bill. The Senate version goes beyond reining in insurance-company abuses, a just cause, and actually caps insurance-company profit margins at well below current levels, robbing shareholders.


Please show me in the bill where insurance company profits are capped.



I can't go looking through the whole bill searching for the claims you have made. If you are making the claim...I assume you have already done the research and know the exact section that these claims come from. So it shouldn't take you long to reply back and give me the sections. I may not respond till tomorrow...because I'm going to be signing off soon.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
OutKast Searcher

All you can tell me is false and you haven't even read the bill. You should run for the senate.

Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

Senator DeMint responded: DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.


Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

We can beat this mule all day.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Well I'm thinking that a major attack against some transporatition other than airline is likely. Metro, train or cruise ship could be next target. What better way to sell those naked body scanners to every transportation terminal outside airports?



new topics




 
2

log in

join