For those of you searching for the truth, you have come to the right place. As America is caught up in soap operas, sports, reality tv etc...Global elitist are taking over our country right under our nose's. Our purpose is to awaken the masses to the reality of the day.
Jack nicholson was right in his movie"A few good men" " You Can't Handle The Truth" Many of us really cant handle the truth. you will discover that many will ignore all the hard evidence of whats going on in our country today. We cannot dwell on those, we plant the seed and hope it grows. Time is short and we have to act know. Things are moving fast and every day we loose freedoms our forefathers fought and died for. In the name of fighting terrorism, global elitist are stripping the mightest nation on the planet of everything that made us Great.
CLICK ABOVE LINK
Please don't ignore this and leave it to someone else to do. Each one of us have to take on the responsibility to see to it that H849 gets through!!
The bill will be stuck in committee unless we can get the Committee Chairman, Bill Owens (Dem) and House Speaker, Joe Hackney (Dem) to move it to the floor for a vote. Getting a bill out of committee is the major hurdle and must be our focus. Letters and calls of support for H849 should be focused on the Committee Chairman and the Speaker of the House. With their support, and only with their support, the measure will find its way to the floor wherein Rep. Cleveland believes it will pass.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
Sponsors: Representatives Cleveland, Justice, and Blackwood (Primary Sponsors).
1 A HOUSE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE STATE'S RIGHT TO CLAIM
2 SOVEREIGNTY OVER CERTAIN POWERS UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO
3 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
4 Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as
5 follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it
6 to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people;" and
7 Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being
8 that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
9 Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the
10 federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
11 Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal
12 government; and
13 Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment
14 to the Constitution of the United States; and
15 Whereas, Section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States says, "The
16 United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government," and
17 the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall
18 not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" and
19 Whereas, the United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 112
20 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory
21 processes of the states; and
22 Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now
23 pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the
24 Constitution of the United States; Now, therefore,
25 Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
26 SECTION 1. The North Carolina House of Representatives supports the State's
27 right to claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
28 over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to
29 the people by the Constitution of the United States.
30 SECTION 2. The North Carolina House of Representatives urges the federal
31 government, as the agent of the State, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that
32 are beyond the scope of any constitutionally delegated powers.
33 SECTION 3. The North Carolina House of Representatives further urges that
34 compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
35 penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited
36 or repealed.
Webster G. Tarpley
January 23, 2010
In the aftermath of the Massachusetts Senate vote last Tuesday, we now have a concrete fighting chance to block the reappointment of Wall Street puppet Ben Bernanke as the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by preventing his Senate confirmation next week. This afternoon, Bernanke’s support was eroding hour by hour. The defections from the Bernanke camp feature Democratic senators who are up for reelection this coming November. They have read the tea leaves from Massachusetts, and they know the pitchforks are out, so their response is a mad rush to acquire economic populist and anti-Wall Street cover. The obvious way to do this is to turn against Bernanke and defeat him in the upcoming confirmation vote. Leading the charge late today were Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both endangered Democrats. GOP Senator Corker of Tennessee is now waffling about whether or not he will support Bernanke. The pressure is building on self-styled Democratic economic populists like Sherrod Brown of Ohio to prove that they are worth something. What will Senator-elect Scott Brown do? If he votes for Bernanke, he will have betrayed his voters in less than a week, and will not survive his own re-election campaign in 3 years. Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, succumbing to overwhelming pressure from the Obama White House, announced late this afternoon that he will fall on his sword for Helicopter Ben, but this self-destructive pledge may not survive a weekend in Nevada, where the economic populist pitchforks are as finely honed as anywhere. It is therefore time for all responsible citizens and all persons of good will to mobilize in the days ahead to secure the defeat of Bernanke. Such an event would symbolize the turn of the tide against Wall Street in the struggle to decide who will pay for the current depression — the people or the bankers and hedge fund hyenas.We stress that this is a battle which can be won. Two senators, Bunning of Kentucky and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have placed holds on the Bernanke nomination. This means that a supermajority of 60 votes will be required to bring Helicopter Ben’s nomination to the Senate floor. As of now, no one can know whether these votes will be forthcoming. Republicans have little reason to favor Bernanke over their own careers. The Obama White House, despite its most recent efforts to re-create a populist persona for the chief executive, is foolishly supporting Bernanke — a move which undermines all other economic populist posturing Obama might engage in. Individual Democrats, especially those facing the hour of truth in November, know very well how much Bernanke and his Federal Reserve elitists are hated by Americans. For the moment, this game is therefore out of control and highly vulnerable to the application of mass-based political pressure. If Bernanke can be defeated, the Wall Street-Federal Reserve lockstep will be momentarily broken, and the path to auditing the Fed and, more importantly, nationalizing it as a bureau of the Treasury will be wide open.
Late this afternoon, pro-financier spokesmen on Bloomberg and CNBC were talking about a scenario in which Bernanke would remain no matter what as chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee, the unconstitutional body which sets interest rates in accordance with the wishes of the privately owned Federal Reserve districts, above all the New York one. In this scenario, Donald Kohn, the current Fed Vice Chairman, would take Bernanke’s place as the Chairman of the Board of Governors. Kohn, it will be remembered, is just as odious as Bernanke. About a year ago, Kohn’s impudence, arrogance and elitism were highlighted during a Senate hearing when he indignantly refused to reveal the names of the AIG derivatives counterparties who were receiving some $70 billion of US taxpayer money in return for their worthless and toxic financial derivatives. If Bernanke and Kohn should attempts to maintain their power over the Federal Reserve, meaning in practice short-term interest rates in this country, they will create laboratory conditions for a massive economic populist revolt which could well lead to the seizure and nationalization of the Federal Reserve as a bureau of the US Treasury and a public utility to provide 0% credit for production in the interests of the American people. That would put an end to almost a century of financial insurrection by the Wall Street financiers and their puppets against the Constitution — a blatant illegality which goes back to the days of Woodrow Wilson.
All opponents of the illegal, unconstitutional, and failed Federal Reserve system must now realize that this is the hour of action. It is time for every serious intelligent person to send two e-mails and place two phone calls to the Washington and local offices of their senators demanding that they stop Bernanke. Obama should also be warned that Bernanke is an insult to the American people. Those who have been complaining about the Fed for decades now have a real chance to do something about it. These chances are very rare, but this is the best one in many, many decades. Even Paul Adolph Volcker, who had been responsible for an obscene 22% prime rate three decades ago, had an easier time getting reconfirmed than Bernanke. Once Bernanke has been defeated, it will be time to secure the ouster of Treasury Secretary Geithner, the former head of the New York Fed and currently the most visible member of the entire Obama cabinet. The basic outlines of a criminal indictment for Geithner on tax fraud and securities fraud can be culled from virtually any daily newspaper. Geithner ought to be accompanied on his trip home by White House economic czar Larry Summers, the woman-hating former president of Harvard who managed to destroy about a third of the Harvard endowment as a result of his fanatical devotion to the riskiest of financial derivatives. This and more will be within our reach if Bernanke can be checkmated over the next week or two.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/mobilize-now-to-oust-bernanke-as-fed-chair/
Inhofe Announces Climategate Investigation on Fox News
Posted By admin On November 25, 2009 @ 12:27 pm In Washington Politics | 51 Comments
November 25, 2009
Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today sent letters to several scientists, some of whom allegedly manipulated data to prove the scientific “consensus” of global warming, as well as to the inspectors general of several federal agencies, notifying them to retain documents related to the release of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in England.
“I certainly don’t condone the manner in which these emails were released; however, now that they are in the public domain, lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called ‘consensus’ of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world’s leading climate scientists.”
The letters are the first step in the investigation of the climate scandal. Last week, emails released by a computer hacker revealed that several leading climate scientists allegedly manipulated climate data and research used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists also appear to have refused outside access to their raw data, obstructed freedom of information requests, and plotted ways to prevent the publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals by scientists who question global warming alarmism.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/inhofe-announces-climategate-investigation-on-fox-news/
Christopher Monckton — a British hereditary peer and high-profile skeptic of both global warming and international agreements — caused a stir on Oct. 14, 2009, with a forceful denunciation of the upcoming international talks on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark, scheduled for Dec. 7-18, 2009.
In a speech in St. Paul, Minn., Monckton called the pending agreement a "dreadful treaty" and said, among other things, that the parties "are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He's going to sign. He'll sign anything."
Monckton continued, "So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever — and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again. That is how serious it is."
For this item, we'll put aside the debate on whether it is wise to institute policies, such as emissions cuts, to curb climate change — the "prosperity" portion of Monckton's comment. Instead, we'll stick to analyzing Monckton's claim that an agreement coming out of the Copenhagen talks would, one, sign away American sovereignty and, two, be irreversible.
Let's start with some background. The Copenhagen meeting, which President Barack Obama is expected to attend, is part of an ongoing process sponsored by a United Nations body called the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its goal is to secure international cooperation to curb the emission of gases that scientists blame for raising global temperatures, a development that could harm the environment.
The first — and crucially important — point to make is that there is no "treaty" yet. The most recent iteration is a 180-page document, posted publicly in September, called the "reordering and consolidation of text in the revised negotiating text." If you think that title sounds clunky, just check out the document itself: Rendered in impenetrable diplo-speak, the document offers an almost stream-of-consciousness array of alternate options, blanks to be filled in and bracketed phrases. Supporters and critics alike agree that the final text, if one emerges, will be radically shorter and clearer.
In other words, it's impossible to draw conclusions about what international leaders will be asked to sign based on the current draft.
A second point worth noting is that, due to wide differences of opinion among the 192 participating nations, the Copenhagen conference looks increasingly unlikely to produce anything ready to sign.
“There isn’t sufficient time to get the whole thing done,” Yvo De Boer, the Dutch diplomat who oversees the negotiations, said in mid October, according to the New York Times. “But I hope it will go well beyond simply a declaration of principles. The form I would like it to take is the groundwork for a ratifiable agreement next year.”
What we learn from these two points is that the substance of the agreement remains distinctly up in the air, and that Obama is unlikely to be asked to sign anything at the conference beyond a nonbinding statement of interim steps or a promise to meet again — if that.
Now we'll look at Monckton's argument that the Copenhagen talks could eventually produce something that eats away at American sovereignty.
Experts in international law acknowledge that, with the final draft unresolved, anything is possible. But they added that numerous safeguards would help prevent U.S. sovereignty from being yielded.
— Signing a treaty doesn't mean that its provisions become binding. Instead, it simply means that you intend to become a party to the treaty by seeking domestic approval, using whatever procedures are in effect in your country. In the United States, that means taking the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent on ratification.
For instance, the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change — the predecessor to the agreement being negotiated in Copenhagen — but never ratified it due to opposition in the Senate. As a result, the United States was never subject to any of the protocol's rules.
— The Senate would have to approve any binding agreement with a 67-vote supermajority. This means that a treaty only becomes binding after a supermajority of democratically elected senators, plus the president, consent. So if the United States decides to give up some of its sovereignty in the matter of carbon emissions, it will only do so after a significant amount of political consent is given. As a practical matter, the high Senate threshold for ratifying a treaty, set by the Constitution, effectively requires broad support from lawmakers in both parties, something the Kyoto Protocol did not have. (Even after ratification, the treaty may not become binding until a certain number of nations have ratified it, depending how the treaty language is written; this could further delay or even derail the process.)
— The Obama administration has publicly pledged that it will not sign an agreement unacceptable to Congress. According to the New York Times, the chief American climate negotiator, Todd Stern, and his deputy, Jonathan Pershing, have both affirmed this position. “We are not going to be part of an agreement we cannot meet,” Pershing said at a recent negotiators’ meeting in Bangkok.
— The negotiators are aware of sovereignty concerns and are weighing options that would limit intrusiveness. Nigel Purvis, a former State Department negotiator under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said that the Copenhagen negotiations "are premised on the idea that each nation would create its own low- carbon economic growth strategy," adding that the degree of international enforcement is very much in play. Most experts, he said, "agree that punitive noncompliance measures are highly unlikely. Thus, the approach is really quite decentralized and respectful of national sovereignty — the opposite of being subject to a command-and-control U.N. agency."
— Even if the United States does eventually cede some sovereignty on climate change, "freedom" and "democracy" are not at stake. John H. Knox, a law professor at Wake Forest University, calls Monckton's notion "silly."
"Any treaty limits the freedom of the parties, of course, just as any contract limits the freedom of its parties," Knox said. "But none of the proposals on the table, and none that could conceivably be suggested, would deny the United States freedom to keep a democratic system of government, and no such agreement could imaginably be signed or ratified by the United States. And no treaty can override the provisions of the U.S. Constitution in any event."
Now, for Monckton's second claim, that "neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again."
Our experts say it's nonsense. Either a country can exit a treaty using a procedure described in the treaty itself — usually involving formal notice, a delay and the forefeit of rights to have a further say in implementing or shaping the treaty in question — or it can simply walk away. Doing either would likely entail consequences for the departing country, but they would most likely be "soft" penalties such as loss of international esteem.
"There's nothing in any of the documents for Copenhagen that talk about any greater penalties than those," said Jake Schmidt, the international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
Of course, other countries could react to a withdrawal by pursuing bilateral or multilateral action, such as a trade embargo or a cutoff of diplomatic contacts. But they could take such actions today, even without a climate change agreement.
"Even if a new climate treaty were ratified and the United States thus became a party to it, the United States could later choose to withdraw from it," Knox said. "Withdrawing from a treaty is perfectly acceptable under international law unless the treaty itself precludes it. Even in that case, the United States could always choose not to comply with the treaty, just as a person can choose to violate a domestic law, with the important difference that the international community does not have a police force standing by to arrest wrongdoing nations. The United States would not suddenly lose its discretion to decide whether to comply with the treaty, in other words."
Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, acknowledges that Monckton's claims are "perhaps overstated a bit." But he argues that being vigilant on the sovereignty consequences of a Copenhagen agreement is still important.
Groves suggests that it's possible to devise an agreement that protects national sovereignty, perhaps by eliminating an international enforcement mechanism and relying instead on self-regulation by member countries. But doing so would mean instituting an agreement without much teeth, because it would require trusting countries with little transparency and a lot of self-interest to evade the rules. On the other hand, implementing a more forceful international oversight regime would likely run into more problems on the sovereignty front.
"For a treaty to be effective in ratcheting down emissions, you would need some sort of enforcement mechanism with real teeth, and that raises legitimate sovereignty concerns," said Ben Lieberman, another Heritage fellow.
Even so, we find Monckton's claims to not only be unsupported but preposterous. First, it's impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen, and when. Second, the U.S. procedure for ratifying treaties requires consent by a supermajority of the Senate — a steep hurdle. Third, it's hard to envision anything coming out of Copenhagen that would change the United States' bedrock principles of freedom and democracy. And fourth, contrary to what Monckton says, the United States can leave an international agreement. So while it pays to be vigilant about threats to U.S. sovereignty, this one is not the threat that Monckton's rhetoric suggests. So Lord Monckton earns a special ruling — Britches on Fire!
|Militarization of Swine Flu Preparations||| Print ||
|Written by Alex Newman|
|Friday, 14 August 2009 14:00|
The increasing militarization of preparations for an outbreak of swine flu is proceeding rapidly and without very much public debate, despite the relatively mild nature of the disease so far and the fact that many experts believe the panic has been overblown.
Earlier this week, Republican Representative Paul Broun of Georgia warned a town hall meeting that a “socialistic elite” may be preparing to declare martial law in the United States using a pandemic disease as the pretext. “They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over,” he told attendees according to an article in the Athens Banner-Herald. “We’ve seen that historically.”
In another alarming development this week, National Guard troops are involved in a drill to take over a high school in Maine to deal with potential riots and panic over distribution of treatment for the H1N1 virus, the Maine Sun Journal reported Thursday. “The National Guardsmen will take on the roles of panicked citizens and military police and practice what they would do, such as using tear gas, in the case of a riot,” said the newspaper article entitled “National Guard Drill at High School to Prepare for Possible H1N1 Riot.” The story also noted that local law enforcement would be involved.
This is all despite the fact that the Maine Center for Disease Control has reported just one death tied to the swine flu, and the man actually died from “underlying conditions complicated by H1N1,” according to Dr. Dora Mills, the center’s director.
“This is just a component of moving the stuff from point A to B,” assured the director of Oxford County’s emergency management agency, Scott Parker. He told the Sun Journal that the plan would only be put in place “if needed.”
Apparently concerns about panic and disorder were raised during a conference in April, so the governor and the adjutant General of the Maine National Guard decided to formulate a plan to bring in military police.
But if state military police preparations weren’t bad enough, the federal government now wants to usurp state forces for domestic use under the Pentagon’s command. Though at least the states are fighting back on this issue.
The National Governors Association wrote a letter to the Department of Defense last week criticizing the proposals to take control of their National Guard units for domestic disasters. “Strong potential exists for confusion in mission execution and the dilution of governors' control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander," the letter stated.
But no matter who retains control of the National Guard troops preparing to deal with swine flu, the federal government’s increasingly militarized “emergency preparations” for the virus are developing quickly and mostly under the radar. Just last month CNN and Fox News reported online that the U.S. military was drawing up plans to deal with a spread of the swine flu. “The Pentagon is preparing to make troops available if necessary to help the Federal Emergency Management Agency tackle a potential outbreak of the H1N1 virus,” according to a July 29 Fox News article entitled "Military Poised to Help FEMA Battle Swine Flu Outbreak."
And as early as last year, reports also began to surface that federal troops were preparing for “homeland defense” missions and would be operating on American soil — in what would appear to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement.
“They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control,” noted the Army Times in a 2008 article entitled "Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1." The soldiers will also be responsible for things like knowing how to set up road blocks and the use of “nonlethal” weapons normally reserved for war-zones to subdue Americans.
Additionally, the Obama administration has recently resurrected the heavily criticized Bush-era proposal to “update” quarantine regulations, while the U.S. Army advertises jobs for “internment/resettlement specialists” on its website.
The federal government’s health authorities operate quarantine centers from Anchorage to Miami, and in 2005 George W. Bush used an executive order to add flu that has the “potential” to create a pandemic to a list of quarantinable diseases. Will the military be used to enforce the quarantines? It is appearing increasingly possible, if it comes to that.
This is all happening at a time when countless experts are warning that fears about the swine-flu virus have been blown out of proportion. In many places the disease even seems to be dissipating. “We'll probably see something that won't be that bad,” said Ontario’s former chief medical officer, Dr. Richard Schabas. “We would not expect it to be as bad as the flu year was in 2003 with the Fujian strain.”
He noted that a pandemic would be expected to kill thousands just in Canada, but so far the swine flu has claimed 66 lives there. “You tell me how overblown that is.… Our preparations always have to be advised not just by the sense of possibilities, but by a sense of probabilities.”
England’s chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, recently announced plans to scale back the National Pandemic Flu Service from about 1,600 call-center workers to less than 600 as the number of cases there continues to fall. He warned of the potential for a “second wave,” but so far the disease has been less deadly than even the regular seasonal flu.
Australian National University microbiologist Peter Collignon told ABC News the H1N1 virus was no worse than annual influenza strains. “My major concern about what's happening is the fear is out of proportion to what the data shows," he said, adding that the use of the word “pandemic” was creating unnecessary concern.
But here in the United States, the emergency preparations continue to expand along with the power of the federal government. There has already been discussion of forced vaccinations. And an inspection of so-called “executive orders” issued by past presidents and continuing under Obama reveals that the executive branch already claims sweeping “emergency” powers to deal with health concerns.
Unless Americans start demanding some transparency and accountability, the trend towards bigger and more aggressive government will likely continue. This time the excuse happens to be swine flu, but there will always be some “crisis” not to be “wasted,” as Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel put it.
The preparations currently under way to deal with swine flu are not only unconstitutional, they are probably more dangerous than the virus itself. It is time for Americans to take personal responsibility for their health and their government and to say enough is enough.
Photo: AP Images
Kurt Nimmo writes........
"The two exercises serve as prime examples of an orchestrated attempt by the government to train soldiers to militarily confront domestic “militia” groups.
In April, a leaked DHS report on “rightwing extremism” said “right-wing militias” will recruit veterans returning from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. “DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat,” the report claims. “These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists — including lone wolves or small terrorist cells — to carry out violence.”
The corporate media hyped the supposed threat posed by “lone wolves” after white supremacist and probable government operative James von Brunn allegedly attacked the Holocaust museum in Washington. “The lone wolf is what concerns the Washington field office, what concerns the FBI the most,” John Perren, head of the counterterrorism branch at the FBI’s Washington field office, told the Associated Press.
After Von Brunn’s brutal attack, the corporate media shill and government disinfo operative Glenn Beck attempted to link 9/11 truth activists to the deranged accused killer. The corporate media has attempted to link truth activists and patriots to the Von Brunn incident and an earlier one in Pittsburgh.
A report produced by the Missouri State Police, entitled “The Modern Militia Movement,” specifically characterizes constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters as domestic terrorists. “Red flags outlined in the document include political bumper stickers such as those for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, talk of conspiracy theories such as the plan for a mega-highway from Canada to Mexico and possession of subversive literature,” the Missouri Information Analysis Center report states."
- Infowars - http://www.infowars.com -
Homeland Security and U.S. Army Plan Invasion of States
Posted By admin On July 1, 2009 @ 3:37 pm In War on Terror | 426 Comments
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.”
Fortunately, NewsWithViews.com had exclusive access to the discussion and the explanations by Homeland Security and Defense Departments officials.
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.”
The meeting reinforced the important relationship between the two organizations and focused on the operational role of US Northern Command and what resources and skills they bring to any major Federal effort related to all-hazards preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. It was also an opportunity to meet operational leaders who would fill key positions in those support efforts.
“NORTHCOM plays a vital role in disaster response in support of state and local officials,” Fugate said. “I am impressed by their commitment to teamwork and interoperability. They are leaning forward and are solutions-oriented partners among the nation’s emergency response team.”
“We are committed to teaming with and supporting our civilian partners,” added Renuart. “If our federal partners, state and local officials are successful in responding to contingency operations, then ultimately we are successful. We look forward to our continued collaboration and cooperation.”
However, many law enforcement executives and organizations went on the record saying they did not appreciate the prospect of federal troops usurping the authority of local and state law enforcement agencies or the role of the National Guard unit currently under the control of governors.
“My initial reaction is: why are we allowing federal troops to basically invade the sovereignty of individual states when each state has its own law enforcement agencies and each state possesses an armed and trained National Guard and, in the case of some states such as New York, a trained militia?” according to New York police officer Edna Aquino.
“We have not used armed federal troops in New York since the Civil War when Union troops and Navy battleships attacked dissenters who opposed conscription by the Union Army,” she added.
According to officials from the Homeland Security Department, FEMA and Northern Command share a common interest and a unified approach to disaster response and recovery.
“Both organizations also understand that the most effective plans to save lives and protect property begins with preparedness. This meeting was an important stepping stone to ensure mutual preparedness and effective planning in support of state and local officials,” said one official.
Homeland Security Department officials offered these two rationales for their joint ventures with the Department of Defense:
“Emergency preparedness is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone should have a personal response plan for a disaster, everyone should know who their first responders are at the local and state level, and everyone should be prepared to be self-sufficient for at least the first 72 hours.
“FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.”
Political strategist Mike Baker is disturbed over this latest “emergency plan” designed to allow federal troops to operate freely within US borders.
“This is a constitutionally unsound development for our nation. While President Barack Obama and his ilk worry about how America’s military is perceived by other nations and are concerned with how we treat enemies, they seem to be willing to use extreme measures against their own citizens.
Will we witness another Branch Davidian massacre in the name of ‘emergency response’ or other rationale? It’s not a positive development for this nation,” said Baker.
Northcom was established about a year after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and is responsible for an area of operations that includes the United States, Canada and Mexico. It serves as a “one-stop-shopping” point for military support in case of an attack on American soil. However, according to officials speaking during the teleconference, the Obama Administration is expanding that role to include natural disasters or emergencies that were once the domain of state and local authorities.
Over the years, according to Baker, the federal government has expanded its role and even included other nations in operational plans within the US. For example NORAD is a joint US-Canadian command established 51 years ago to defend against nuclear-armed Soviet aircraft entering North American airspace. Decades later, the command’s mission has expanded to include early detection of threats via air, space, land and sea.
The sheer number of participants speaks to NORAD’s level of preparation and coordination to operate within US borders. Teaming up to deal with emergencies are American and Canadian NORAD agents, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Transportation Security Administration, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, NAV Canada, the White House, U.S. Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
“This is not something we should be celebrating. This is something we as Americans should fear,” states another NYPD officer.
“If states do not have the capability to respond on their own to a hurricane or earthquake, then perhaps they should increase their capabilities or change their leadership,” said Det. Benny Cardoza.
“Using Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to increase federal authority in the affairs of individual states is a sorry excuse and one that should be shunned by citizens and local cops,” states the decorated cop.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-and-us-army-plan-invasion-of-states/
Copyright © 2008 Infowars. All rights reserved.
“Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”