Is the coup is here?
- Thread starter Scott Free
- Start date
The Quiet Militarization of America
The name of the so-called "U.S. Department of Homeland Security" has always disturbed and rankled me.
Created in the frenzied political aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it sounds like something Hitler's propaganda minister Josef Goebbels would have dreamed up to impress the gullible masses. Indeed, the attitude too often displayed at airports by overpaid DHS minions is akin to that of storm troopers.
Two years ago, I and others called attention to a dangerous provision slipped into an omnibus appropriation bill. The provision gave the President of the United States the unprecedented power to deploy the U.S. military for domestic duty within the United States as he sees fit.
President Bush (or someone who had his ear) came up with the disturbing idea that the U.S. military should be put in charge of domestic police matters when a "major catastrophe" occurs within America.
The operative factor here depends squarely on how one defines "major catastrophe." It's an elastic phrase that could be expanded at the stroke of a presidential pen. (Read some of the Presidential Emergency Declarations currently in effect and you may have trouble sleeping.)
Nevertheless, this extraordinary power was written into law. Now, for the first time, an active U.S. Army Infantry Brigade has been assigned "to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities."
Reportedly, these active duty troops will "learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it. They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control."
What possible rationale could there be for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States? One has to assume they would be used for such things as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President's sole discretion. What good could this serve the American people?
Perhaps they will be deployed to assure that the pending elections (or any Florida recounts) will be orderly. Or maybe they will be sent to Capitol Hill to convince a congressional majority that Wall Street deserves a US$700 billion bailout.
Recalling the unconstitutional excesses under the misnamed PATRIOT Act, are we now to believe a military trained to kill the enemy is going to play the role of Officer Clancy on the local beat?
BOB BAUMAN, Legal Counsel
Source
If this is true it's starting to feel a little like Poland circa 1938 around here...
The name of the so-called "U.S. Department of Homeland Security" has always disturbed and rankled me.
Created in the frenzied political aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it sounds like something Hitler's propaganda minister Josef Goebbels would have dreamed up to impress the gullible masses. Indeed, the attitude too often displayed at airports by overpaid DHS minions is akin to that of storm troopers.
Two years ago, I and others called attention to a dangerous provision slipped into an omnibus appropriation bill. The provision gave the President of the United States the unprecedented power to deploy the U.S. military for domestic duty within the United States as he sees fit.
President Bush (or someone who had his ear) came up with the disturbing idea that the U.S. military should be put in charge of domestic police matters when a "major catastrophe" occurs within America.
The operative factor here depends squarely on how one defines "major catastrophe." It's an elastic phrase that could be expanded at the stroke of a presidential pen. (Read some of the Presidential Emergency Declarations currently in effect and you may have trouble sleeping.)
Nevertheless, this extraordinary power was written into law. Now, for the first time, an active U.S. Army Infantry Brigade has been assigned "to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities."
Reportedly, these active duty troops will "learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it. They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control."
What possible rationale could there be for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States? One has to assume they would be used for such things as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President's sole discretion. What good could this serve the American people?
Perhaps they will be deployed to assure that the pending elections (or any Florida recounts) will be orderly. Or maybe they will be sent to Capitol Hill to convince a congressional majority that Wall Street deserves a US$700 billion bailout.
Recalling the unconstitutional excesses under the misnamed PATRIOT Act, are we now to believe a military trained to kill the enemy is going to play the role of Officer Clancy on the local beat?
BOB BAUMAN, Legal Counsel
Source
If this is true it's starting to feel a little like Poland circa 1938 around here...
Oh it's true alright.... I've posted this in a few threads in a few forums since it originally passed.
At that time a "major catastrophe" could have related to a natural disaster, another terrorist attack, the economy dropping into the ground, or the main one that caught my eye was if Bush felt that the incoming president would compromise the efforts in Iraq by giving a time table for withdrawl, if they planned to pull out troops..... basically if the new president coming in goes against everything he's been planning so far.
Basically it could be used in any reason Bush sees fit.
Whether or not he will use the bill remains to be seen, but he still has plenty of time to do so.
Added:
The thing you should really be concerned about is this:
Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d
^ And that's the kicker right there..... the US forces can be put on Canadian soil, with no accountability to our own laws and government, can not be controlled by our forces/military command..... but the US can order our forces to do whatever they want.
And the connection between this and the above report, is that for the questionable things US soldiers could end up doing against their own people, they can simply send down our troops to do the dirty work for them, and vice versa..... thereby giving them a green light to do whatever they wish without any accountability to their own laws in their respected nations.
Sounds like a load of fun doesn't it?
Say goodbye to your freedom while you can. This can only be used for oppression, there is no other practical use.
Oh and you can thank Harper for all of this of course.
Added Again:
Oh this was a nice little tid bit from a US opinion on the matter in the above link:
Have a nice day
Last edited:
I agree all the elements are there and the stage is set but what I don't see is why the election wouldn't go forward. It keeps people busy, believing they live in a democracy and therefore a little more stable. I don't see, at this point, any advantage in the Bush as emperor scenario. Run a smear here; rig some voting machine there; disenfranchise the blacks, and boom McCain and his pit bull win.
America hasn't had a proper democratic system for quite some time; lobbying and electronic voting have seen to that.
America hasn't had a proper democratic system for quite some time; lobbying and electronic voting have seen to that.
A truly serious subject! Here is something similar found in another forum, also very serious. It leaves me wondering, if the Nov. 4th election will be hijacked again by the Neo-Cons.
http://www.rollingstone.com/national...ote-blocking/#
watch the video!
http://www.rollingstone.com/national...ote-blocking/#
watch the video!
The only people who have been trying to hijack the Nov 4th election is the Democrats and Liberals via ACORN.
So far they have registered thousands of dead people, infant children, the whole roster of the Dallas Cowboys were registered by ACORN in Las Vegas, fake names, multiple names, paying their employees to register people in the street for cigarettes and booze...it goes on and on.
And Obama supports ACORN.
Can you say FRAUD?
So far they have registered thousands of dead people, infant children, the whole roster of the Dallas Cowboys were registered by ACORN in Las Vegas, fake names, multiple names, paying their employees to register people in the street for cigarettes and booze...it goes on and on.
And Obama supports ACORN.
Can you say FRAUD?
The dems are only trying to make things even after 2000.
In the end the counrty will be better off once the cons are out on the street begging for loose change.
Oh, and it seems McCain likes ACORN as well.
So they were attacked and that attack was made easy because of their open borders. Why is it such a stretch to accept the fact they're tightening up those borders and preparing to respond to any more threats (of which there are many). If you had your doors unlocked and then someone robbed you wouldn't you start locking your doors. Hell you might even be so affected by it you even replace the doors and windows to something big and secure and even hire a security company to patrol the house. It would be an inconvenience to yourself and those you live with but you would likely do it to feel more secure wouldn't you?
Oh it's true alright.... I've posted this in a few threads in a few forums since it originally passed.
At that time a "major catastrophe" could have related to a natural disaster, another terrorist attack, the economy dropping into the ground, or the main one that caught my eye was if Bush felt that the incoming president would compromise the efforts in Iraq by giving a time table for withdrawl, if they planned to pull out troops..... basically if the new president coming in goes against everything he's been planning so far.
Basically it could be used in any reason Bush sees fit.
Whether or not he will use the bill remains to be seen, but he still has plenty of time to do so.
Added:
The thing you should really be concerned about is this:
Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d
^ And that's the kicker right there..... the US forces can be put on Canadian soil, with no accountability to our own laws and government, can not be controlled by our forces/military command..... but the US can order our forces to do whatever they want.
And the connection between this and the above report, is that for the questionable things US soldiers could end up doing against their own people, they can simply send down our troops to do the dirty work for them, and vice versa..... thereby giving them a green light to do whatever they wish without any accountability to their own laws in their respected nations.
Sounds like a load of fun doesn't it?
Say goodbye to your freedom while you can. This can only be used for oppression, there is no other practical use.
Oh and you can thank Harper for all of this of course.
Added Again:
Oh this was a nice little tid bit from a US opinion on the matter in the above link:
Have a nice day
I wonder if the pipeline bombing near Dawson Creek would be such an excuse.
Sure! Happy too!
Here is a good one to start with
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081016/D93RT3100.html
Here they tried to register Mickey Mouse
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article852295.ece
This man was paid with cigarettes and dollar bills to register 73 times by ACORN
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1223973289273860.xml&coll=2
Below is the article where ACORN in Las Vegas Registered the whole roster of the Dallas Cowboys
http://www.lvrj.com/news/30613864.html
Would you like more or would you rather roll your eyes?
Thanks a million, Eagle! I will need some time to read through all that!! :roll::lol:
no accountability to our own laws and government, can not be controlled by our forces/military command..... but the US can order our forces to do whatever they want.
Give me a break. No American or Canadian politician would EVER give up their own sovereignty to another's military. Not now Not ever. It's a mutual assistance pact. Remember a month or so ago a Canadian plane was sent to New Orleans to help with the evacuation, well that's what it about, no more no less. Neighbours helping each other out.
Give me a break. No American or Canadian politician would EVER give up their own sovereignty to another's military. Not now Not ever. It's a mutual assistance pact. Remember a month or so ago a Canadian plane was sent to New Orleans to help with the evacuation, well that's what it about, no more no less. Neighbours helping each other out.