Police chiefs to discuss terrorism at White House

Originally posted by sonnny1


Agree.

The question,is how long before the majority have this question handed to them.

"Papers please?"

They already do that around here - they set up random road blocks, ostensibly to catch "drunk drivers", but I've never known of one to actually get caught in one of those dragnets.

Instead, they walk up to your car and and demand your papers...

God help you if you turn around and haul ass!

Originally posted by nenothtu


They already do that around here - they set up random road blocks, ostensibly to catch "drunk drivers", but I've never known of one to actually get caught in one of those dragnets.

Instead, they walk up to your car and and demand your papers...

God help you if you turn around and haul ass!

I have been lucky not to have seen random road checks..........


The obvious precursor to "papers please",and National database check,into EVERYTHING you EVER said on the internet.

reply to post by sonnny1


I've not said anything on the internet that I won't say to them in person, so I'm covered - they seem not to be very happy with some of it in either case... If it hits the fan, though, t might be a good idea to say it to them through a megaphone, from a distance...

Just a quickie following on from the question about what contingencies may be in place...

SOP for having police violently disperse people demonstrating in or near their own communities is to use officers from elsewhere. A brush up on what happened during the early 80s in the UK couldn't hurt - Google "Miners Strike". I suppose it's different in the USA because you have a big difference between local, state and federal authorities, but a piece of neno's jigsaw I'd call decidedly telling will be if you hear of DHS funds being used to ferry LEOs around, especially if those LEOs are getting paid overtime or some other kind of bonus for going.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I seem to recall hearing something about a miner's strike gone wrong in Wales, but can't recall the specific decade. However, in general SOP, that's about right. I grew up in coal country in the Appalachians, and every 3 years when the contract came up for renegotiation, like clockwork, we'd have trouble. It wasn't an unusual thing, which is why I probably didn't pay much attention to a violent miner's strike in the UK - it just seemed normal to me, a matter of course.

Anyhow, whenever contract time came around, we'd have an influx of Law Enforcement from all over the state. They would pull in State police from all areas of the state and concentrate them in the little corner where the mines were. The last time I can recall hearing numbers, there were something like 600 Troopers brought in, so yeah, they bring in "furriners" even here. There was of course the normal compliment of local police, and security companies from all over were brought in for the duration, including some of a mercenary bent. There was an article in Soldier of Fortune back in the eighties titled "Guerrilla War Comes to the Appalachians" or something like that, and that's just about what it amounted to, every 3 years.

The influx of outsiders was pretty much universally resented, as was the miner violence that brought it down on our heads to begin with. A good time was not had by all.

Back in those days, there was no DHS. There was a light FBI presence, but the coordination was done by the State Police. The FBI was generally only there for observation and investigation of certain incidents that locals were not equipped for. I presume that if that sort of thing were to go on now, DHS would be up to their elbows in it. Most of the mines closed down in the early 90's, but lately I hear they've started reopening some, so we may have the chance to test that theory out fairly soon. There is a DHS Fusion Center less than an hour's drive from me right now, and I'd be willing to bet there's one not far from the coal fields up there, too.

It's a whole different world now from what it was then. It could get interesting.

reply to post by nenothtu


The 80s miners strike in the UK was national - it had to be because the mines were owned by a nationalised company. There were violent clashes all over the place but the worst were in South Yorkshire and Derbyshire. Otherwise it was pretty similar to what you describe, except perhaps that the local communities were generally right behind the miners, violence or no. As the strike dragged on though people got sick of it and I suspect that the destruction of their communities due to closing pits leaving everyone unemployed ate the heart out of their struggle against Thatcher's regime.

That's the thing with gubmint vs folk - they can and do use multiple strategies, including controlling the media, to beat you down from every angle. Eventually the only people left prepared to carry on the fight are those who are just too damn stubborn to realise that, with almost everyone else having given up, been jailed or perhaps just slunk away or died, there's nothing left to win... at which point I suppose they have actually become the "extremist" they were originally mis-portrayed as.

This is all stuff I have been saying to people for many years now. It has nothing to do "conspiracy theory", it is just plain in-your-face fact.
The thing is, anyone "not them" is considered a potential threat to their schemes and the political status quo that exists, no matter which main party is in power. I remember seeing a very good quote a long time ago, along the lines of "if voting worked, it would be illegal", which is so close to the truth.

Both main parties (in the US, as in most of the western world) are beholden to the same big money interests, so it doesn't matter which one occupies the big house, they still answer to the same paymasters. Anyone threatening that control, even through non-violent and peaceful means is to be removed. If simple discrediting and smear campaigns don't work, then a lone gunman will usually get the job done!

Here in the UK, as in the US, there has been a steady politicization of the police forces over many years, with senior brass carefully selected for their brown-nosing abilities and bowing to the government. The rule of law is ignored and people are deliberately harrassed for speaking out or demonstrating. So, we are all now viewed as a threat, under suspicion and watched for any indication of ill feeling towards those in power. I think that is an important point that people need to remember, because it shows that they actually fear us!

reply to post by nenothtu


S & F

Great thread.
I appreciate all the replies.
Giving this thread a well deserved bump.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


In the American coalfield strikes, control of the media was mitigated by the "grapevine telegraph". News spread by word of mouth, bypassing the media. We still got news from the media, but it was not our only source, and the setup allowed us to evaluate what we heard by recognizing media slant produced by various agendas - much like what is done via the internet today, which is why they are so hard after trying to put a bridle on the internet. They want control of that "grapevine telegraph" as well as the regular media outlets, so that they control ALL distribution of information.

In any adversarial situation, one of the tenets of control are command of the "lines of communication". That traditionally applies to railroads, roadways, telegraph lines, etc - any avenue by which "communication" can be accomplished. The internet fits that bill perfectly, and that is PRECISELY what legislation such as SOPA is designed to gain control of. It's not about "piracy", "kiddie porn", or anything else other than CONTROL. The rest are all just excuses to pass the control measures. It's NOT "for the children", it's for The Powers That Be.

In smaller, tight-knit communities such as the coal fields, word of mouth travels with the speed of light, because of the limited scope of the area to be communicated to, and the closeness of the people, whether opposition or not. In a wider venue, such as the entire planet, that doesn't apply as well. We'll need to develop secondary lines of communication, in addition to the fight to retain the primary lines, like the internet. THAT is what allows us to evaluate officially released propaganda by identifying the spin placed upon it.

You mentioned the strikes specifically relative to Yorkshire. Even here, we've heard of the stubbornness of Yorkshiremen, the notion that they've got no reverse gears to back up with. It's not all that different from the stubbornness inherent in American hillbillies. Maybe it IS the mines - or more properly the fighting centered around the mines, people vs overlords, that breed exactly that sort of stubbornness, or maybe it's already there, and adversity just brings it to the fore. Either way, we'll likely be seeing an increase in that sort of hard-headedness as this battle progresses from front to front, in the struggle to maintain self-determination.

"Determination" is actually probably the key to that whole struggle.

reply to post by Britguy


In America, we have the "Big Two" of Democrat and Republican parties, but for all practical purposes there is no difference at all between the two where the rubber meets the road. They may as well merge into a single party and call itself the Demican or Republicrat Party.

I've been saying for over a year now that Mitt Romney will be the candidate for the Republicans - it was determined quite some time ago, and all these "primaries" and "caucuses" are nothing more than bread and circuses to keep the masses amused and distracted. Obama will of course be the contender for the Democrats. There is NO practical difference between the two other than the rhetoric they spew - action, however, is what we need to examine. I see no substantial difference between them. Romney was selected so that, no matter which wins, they will have continuity, the "same guy" in office. It's a "win-win", but not for the People, and the people are following the primaries like a pack of puppies, buying the line that it will make some difference.

Goldman Sachs already owns both Obama and Romney. if you don't believe me, check into it yourself. No lesson is learned as well as the one you uncover on your own.

That, and a search for a viable third party, with concomitant support thrown behind same, should be the focus of both the OWS crowd and the Tea Party people. make a change, make a difference, shake up the status quo, then afterwards we can get back to bickering among ourselves, haggling over details,

Either way, I expect unrest in the upcoming year, leading up to the general election, and that, I believe, is the reason behind the push lately to "identify domestic terrorists". The only people that should be terrified by them are TPTB.

A "lone gunman" is severely limited in his ability to affect the outcome when there are millions in the streets to be shot by him. The real enforcers are the military and the police, and the line between the two has become increasingly blurred over the past few years. TPTB are trying furiously to indoctrinate them, and where that isn't likely to work, decreasing their numbers and power. The entire thing will hinge on which side the majority of them choose to stand on - with "us" or with "them - TPTB"

This is why the DHS indoctrination program is ramping up lately. It's not about "domestic terrorists", as is clearly demonstrated by their list of "suspicious" things to watch for.

It's about US.

Originally posted by nenothtu


Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
Homeschooling
Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

Religious views concerning the Apocalypse?

Could they actually be coming for Pat Robertson and some of his ilk? I think a lot of leaders from the religious sector actually instigate a lot of this. Even though they may not actually be saying "stockpile stuff" they tiptoe around it and make implications. Religions own most of the private schools, but then, all the homeschool groups I have known of also have a "church" backing, as in influence of a local church or congregation. Churches may not come right out and speak against the government, but again, it's a dance of implication. There is one religion that claims not to be "politically involved" which is Jehovah Witnesses, however, they certainly speak out against the UN and try to turn people against any peace keeping efforts that may come from the UN. If that's not political, I don't know what is! And yet other religions allow their churches to be used for town hall governmental meetings---thus showing there really is no separation of "church" and "state".

Is it not the religions that actually want the NWO? It seems that the gig is up and people have been leaving religions in droves. So now, these organizations need a change of venue. Many denominations have changed their names and have now become "interfaith" organizations. Same snake, but with a facelift. Now, instead of "saving the pagan babies" in third world countries (which they took in a lot of money over the years on that pretense) now the religions are jumping on the "Green" bandwagon and attempting to establish this as common ground for the interfaith groups. NWO seems to be a reorganization of the worlds religions. Religions are the "silent" government and that is the wheel that turns all the other gears. Religions have more money and stock portfolios than any government. Shouldn't that be an indication as to who is really running the show?

reply to post by Alethea


I don't believe Pat Robertson to be a religious figure. He seems to me to be a politician in a religious veneer. You seem to have an inordinate fear of religion. I generally ignore them. There's really nothing they can do to me or FOR me that spooks me all that much.

There are those who allow their religious views to cloud their political view, and that too is fine by me - it's THEIR religion and politics, not mine. It's not up to me to think for them, any more than I will allow them to think for me. I tend to draw the line at allowing religious interference in state matters - whatever the religion. The Constitution clearly states that religion has no place in politics, as does the christian bible, and that's good enough for me.

The State has no say in religion, according the the Constitution, and Christianity has no say in politics, according to the Bible. It then devolves to a matter of individual choice. This is why when religions push to force prayer in schools, I am against it, and when atheists push to eliminate prayer in schools, I am against that as well. NEITHER camp has a proper say in the matter at all, according to the documents they each cite as "support". It's a matter for the individual each to decide for himself.

I don't know any religious people who are in favor of a NWO. All of the ones I know are universally AGAINST such governance, since they know right in their cores that it would be the death of them, their children, and their religion.

Of course, I don't fool with any religions that stockpile money and treasure, as the Catholics do, and nowadays some of the more secular-minded Protestant congregations. That sort of thing flies right in the face of their own teachings, making them hypocritical. Their own documents claim that "you cannot serve two masters - you cannot serve both God and Mammon", and that "treasure is to be piled up in Heaven", not on Earth. What they do in their heaven is on their own time, not mine.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Alethea

 

I don't believe Pat Robertson to be a religious figure. He seems to me to be a politician in a religious veneer.

Bingo! Now you see how religion disguises itself in many forms. Religion is not about spirituality. It is about politics....and war, and stock portfolios, etc.

Originally posted by nenothtu
You seem to have an inordinate fear of religion.

No, I have contempt for liars and frauds.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I tend to draw the line at allowing religious interference in state matters - whatever the religion. The Constitution clearly states that religion has no place in politics, as does the christian bible, and that's good enough for me.

The State has no say in religion, according the the Constitution, and Christianity has no say in politics, according to the Bible.

Do you observe with your eyes? Do you not see politicians being endorsed by religious leaders? Do you not see church pulpits being used for political "town hall" meetings? Do you not see political programs that fund church projects, i.e. in exchange for the church keys so that the buildings can be shared for political functions? What some paper says and what actually takes place are two different things. If "religion has no place in politics" then why would the senate throw a big bash for a huckster like Oral Roberts? (He's good for commerce, most likely?) If "religion has no place in politics" then why were so many of the DOJ staff under Bush graduates from the Pat Robertson University?



In response to your earlier quote from the article, I am just trying to make the point that religion is heavily involved in scaring people with this "end of the world, god is going to anihilate everyone, head for the hills, pack your survival gear, hide in a cave" mentality. If you look at many of these behaviors you can see that they have been influenced by religious dogma and it is being used to manipulate people. Religion buys whoever it wants. The Vatican owns the world and all the contracts.

Originally posted by nenothtu
So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist? Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:

Wait wait wait, STOP JUST A MINUITE!!!!

Let's see if this sounds better if we label it what it really is.



Characteristics of people who will be a threat to the NWO takeover of America.



clears throat.
"Ahemmm"

Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
Survivalist literature (fictional books such as "Patriots" and "One Second After" are mentioned by name)
Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
Homeschooling
Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

Excellent Source and some scary chit.

Only thing I didn't read , as I read the thread, is why?

I mean even if 10% of the US fits the criteria , extreme people, that would be 35 million people to detain, house, feed.

I,m not argueing, I just don,t see the point.

It was most deserving to be your 2nd thread in 4 years. Nice Find.

Originally posted by Alethea

Do you observe with your eyes? Do you not see politicians being endorsed by religious leaders? Do you not see church pulpits being used for political "town hall" meetings? Do you not see political programs that fund church projects, i.e. in exchange for the church keys so that the buildings can be shared for political functions?

Yes, I see those things, and they mean exactly... nothing. I also see labor union bosses endorsing various politicos. That doesn't mean the entirety of the rank and file do - although too frequently their dues are misappropriated to buy politicians against their wishes. I see barbers, bakers, and candlestick makers endorsing politicians as well - AND donating to them. I know of no instance where a religion has donated from their coffers to a politician, but perhaps you can correct me on that with an example.

I've seen churches used for a plurality of functions, from "town hall meetings" to Boy Scout meetings to conversion into Bingo parlors. That doesn't mean the church owns and operates the Boy Scouts. I'm unaware of any political programs to benefit church projects, but here again, you seem to know of such, and so perhaps can enlighten me.

What some paper says and what actually takes place are two different things. If "religion has no place in politics" then why would the senate throw a big bash for a huckster like Oral Roberts? (He's good for commerce, most likely?)

Maybe. Maybe not, It seems that if that were the case and Oral Roberts were running a Shadow Government, there would have been more of an uproar, This leads me to think that the reason may have been "other".

If "religion has no place in politics" then why were so many of the DOJ staff under Bush graduates from the Pat Robertson University?

Because they need a diploma to get a foot in the door? Why did Bush graduate from Yale? Why do other politicians graduate from other schools? You seem to think that schools operated by religions teach only religious subjects. Such is not the case. Even Theological Seminaries branch out into other subjects, despite their designation.

In response to your earlier quote from the article, I am just trying to make the point that religion is heavily involved in scaring people with this "end of the world, god is going to anihilate everyone, head for the hills, pack your survival gear, hide in a cave" mentality. If you look at many of these behaviors you can see that they have been influenced by religious dogma and it is being used to manipulate people. Religion buys whoever it wants. The Vatican owns the world and all the contracts.

Oh, no doubt that many religions use fear tactics to keep their adherents in line. You'll get no argument from me on that point. Look at all the 2012 hoopla, entirely based upon a "misunderstanding" (probably intentionally fostered by new age gurus) of ancient Mayan theology. They are idjits. If a god truly intended to annihilate everyone, do they really think he couldn't find them in a cave or in the hills to snuff them out? That would seem to me to be a fairly weak deity if it could be thwarted by us mere mortals so easily.

The Vatican may be a special case - I don't view it as a religion so much as I do an attempted control structure, a government with not much territory. The Vatican seems interested in controlling Catholics regardless of their location, but doesn't seem to control much else. I can't seem to find instances of the Vatican following the alleged teachings of Jesus - they seem to be more interested in writing policy for God, which may catch up with them in the end if even half of what they claim is true.

I don't know about the Vatican "owning the world" - I can take you to at least 40 acres or so of the world that the Vatican neither owns nor holds sway over. I can also verify that the Vatican owns none of my contracts, but I don't enter into contractual obligations lightly, frivolously, or very often. For example I have no bank accounts or credit cards, nor do I have a mortgage or the like.

The Pope can bite me, same as any other politician - I don't live in his kingdom.

reply to post by Screwed


The answer to that is to never cease being a "threat" to the "NWO take over of America", despite what they WANT you to fall for.

Remember, "if you let them take your freedom, the terrorists win". Just be clear on precisely WHO "the terrorists" are - define them for yourself, do not let them make the definitions FOR you.

That just helps them to win!

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Excellent Source and some scary chit.

Only thing I didn't read , as I read the thread, is why?

I mean even if 10% of the US fits the criteria , extreme people, that would be 35 million people to detain, house, feed.

I,m not argueing, I just don,t see the point.

It was most deserving to be your 2nd thread in 4 years. Nice Find.

Thank you.

It seems to me that the objective is control. They want to herd us like cattle. Ask any cowboy or farm boy how you lead a herd - you guide the lead animal, and the rest of the herd just follows their leader. You can direct a thousand head of cattle nearly as easily as you can guide a single beast. the key lies in finding the right one to herd.

They wouldn't need to imprison all 35 million in your example. They need only steer the lead beast, and if he refuses to be steered, take him out as an object lesson and let another take lead. Wash, rinse, repeat. they eventually get a "leader" that is more tractable that way.

They watch people with those characteristics to find out who they look to for leadership.

That's what this is about - stemming the stampede, because once a stampede starts, it's anyone's guess as to just who will get trampled, but it is VASTLY more difficult to regain control. In the panic of the stampede, they just follow the next critter to the front, and lose track of the "leader". Bad juju to get in the way once it boils over.

So here's the thing - we have numbers, but they have concentrated force. They HAVE to concentrate themselves at a single point - or a SMALL series of single points - to be effective. Those points, if the balloon goes up, will be the houses of the perceived "leadership", more than sweeps of entire areas. they just don't have then numbers to concentrate force for area wide actions.

That's where their vulnerability lies, They won't round up masses of people, but what happens if they don't get all the leaders at once, and enough are left to concentrate a much larger force on them as they transport any captured leadership?

A stampede, despite their best efforts to stop it.

All the training and DHS-supplied equipment in the world can't stop that.

Originally posted by nenothtu
do not let them make the definitions FOR you.

I see in too many instances,its already been done ,or "changed" at a whim,when purpose arises..........

Just wanna bump this thread.

It is way to important to collect dust.
It brings all the meaning of recent new passing laws to a head.
There is a design in place, and it is being carried out.