America will face Riots, Marches, and Revolution

[vector7]

America Will Face Food Riots, Marches, and Revolution

Gerald Celente says America by 2012 on the current path will be the first undeveloped country.

By 2012 we'll be an undeveloped nation and will be in the greatest depression in the world.

We will see food riots......marches and revolution.

No more Christmas shopping, we'll see the beginning of the end of a retail Christmas.

Gifts at Christmas will be food.

Americans will be taking huge, huge, hits. America is going to go through a transition...nobody is really prepared for.

He says don't spend a penny more than you can afford.......start changing your thoughts now.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46MEq...ums/showthread

Also here is his last radio interview on Nov 4 on coast to coast.
Parts 1-4
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...D858B17721D881

[Malsua]

Is there a giant UFO coming too? I should go ahead and just castrate myself as well?

This guy is a load. Whenever the markets are going up, someone predicts huge, endless gains, when it goes down, someone predicts going back to living in caves. It's hooey. There will be adjustments, but no famines.

[vector7]

Brzezinski: ‘Hell, There Could Be Even Riots’

Brzezinski fears class warfare. Not Mika. Zbigniew. And not Barney-Frank-on-Meet-the-Press class warfare. Real, blood-in-the-streets riots.

Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Adviser expressed his concern about the possibility of riots on Morning Joe today. To stave them off, he proposes the creation of a voluntary National Solidarity Fund, whose contributors would be those who made out very well in recent times.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: You also talked about the possibility of class conflict.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I was worrying about it because we’re going to have millions and millions of unemployed, people really facing dire straits. And we’re going to be having that for some period of time before things hopefully improve. And at the same time there is public awareness of this extraordinary wealth that was transferred to a few individuals at levels without historical precedent in America . . . And you sort of say to yourself: what’s going to happen in this society when these people are without jobs, when their families hurt, when they lose their homes, and so forth?

We have the government trying to repair: repair the banking system, to bail the housing out. But what about the rich guys? Where is it? [What are they] doing?

It sort of struck me, that in 1907, when we had a massive banking crisis, when banks were beginning to collapse, there were going to be riots in the streets. Some financiers, led by J.P. Morgan, got together. He locked them in his library at one point. He wouldn’t let them out until 4:45 AM, until they all kicked in and gave some money to stabilize the banks: there was no Federal Reserve at the time.

Where is the monied class today? Why aren’t they doing something: the people who made billions, millions. I’m sort of thinking of Paulson, of Rubin. Why don’t they get together, and why don’t they organize a National Solidarity Fund in which they call on all of those who made these extraordinary amounts of money to kick some back in to [a] National Solidarity Fund?

A bit later, Zbig made his fears explicit.

BRZEZINSKI: And if we don’t get some sort of voluntary National Solidarity Fund, at some point there’ll be such political pressure that Congress will start getting in the act, there’s going to be growing conflict between the classes and if people are unemployed and really hurting, hell, there could be even riots!

Note: This might have been Zbig’s first Morning Joe appearance since he sneeringly dismissed Scarborough as “stunningly superficial.” Unfortunately, from a selfish entertainment-value perspective, there was no renewal of those fireworks, all parties being on their best behavior. Mika, apparently off on vacation, is certainly relieved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu8Nd7xuix4

[vector7]

Bad News From America’s Top Spy

Posted on Feb 16, 2009

AP photo / Petros Giannakouris

Riots have become common occurrences in many countries as the financial meltdown continues. The U.S. military is preparing to quell civil unrest at home.

By Chris Hedges

We have a remarkable ability to create our own monsters. A few decades of meddling in the Middle East with our Israeli doppelgänger and we get Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaida, the Iraqi resistance movement and a resurgent Taliban. Now we trash the world economy and destroy the ecosystem and sit back to watch our handiwork. Hints of our brave new world seeped out Thursday when Washington’s new director of national intelligence, retired Adm. Dennis Blair, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He warned that the deepening economic crisis posed perhaps our gravest threat to stability and national security. It could trigger, he said, a return to the “violent extremism” of the 1920s and 1930s.

It turns out that Wall Street, rather than Islamic jihad, has produced our most dangerous terrorists. You wouldn’t know this from the Obama administration, which seems hellbent on draining the blood out of the body politic and transfusing it into the corpse of our financial system. But by the time Barack Obama is done all we will be left with is a corpse—a corpse and no blood. And then what? We will see accelerated plant and retail closures, inflation, an epidemic of bankruptcies, new rounds of foreclosures, bread lines, unemployment surpassing the levels of the Great Depression and, as Blair fears, social upheaval.

The United Nations’ International Labor Organization estimates that some 50 million workers will lose their jobs worldwide this year. The collapse has already seen 3.6 million lost jobs in the United States. The International Monetary Fund’s prediction for global economic growth in 2009 is 0.5 percent—the worst since World War II. There are 2.3 million properties in the United States that received a default notice or were repossessed last year. And this number is set to rise in 2009, especially as vacant commercial real estate begins to be foreclosed. About 20,000 major global banks collapsed, were sold or were nationalized in 2008. There are an estimated 62,000 U.S. companies expected to shut down this year.

Unemployment, when you add people no longer looking for jobs and part-time workers who cannot find full-time employment, is close to 14 percent.

And we have few tools left to dig our way out. The manufacturing sector in the United States has been destroyed by globalization. Consumers, thanks to credit card companies and easy lines of credit, are $14 trillion in debt.

The government has pledged trillions toward the crisis, most of it borrowed or printed in the form of new money. It is borrowing trillions more to fund our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And no one states the obvious: We will never be able to pay these loans back. We are supposed to somehow spend our way out of the crisis and maintain our imperial project on credit.

Let our kids worry about it. There is no coherent and realistic plan, one built around our severe limitations, to stanch the bleeding or ameliorate the mounting deprivations we will suffer as citizens. Contrast this with the national security state’s strategies to crush potential civil unrest and you get a glimpse of the future. It doesn’t look good.

“The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications,” Blair told the Senate. “The crisis has been ongoing for over a year, and economists are divided over whether and when we could hit bottom. Some even fear that the recession could further deepen and reach the level of the Great Depression. Of course, all of us recall the dramatic political consequences wrought by the economic turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, the instability, and high levels of violent extremism.”

The specter of social unrest was raised at the U.S. Army War College in November in a monograph [click on Policypointers’ pdf link to see the report] titled “Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development.” The military must be prepared, the document warned, for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.” The “widespread civil violence,” the document said, “would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”

“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home,” it went on.

“Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD [the Department of Defense] would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance,” the document read.

In plain English, something bureaucrats and the military seem incapable of employing, this translates into the imposition of martial law and a de facto government being run out of the Department of Defense. They are considering it. So should you.

Adm. Blair warned the Senate that “roughly a quarter of the countries in the world have already experienced low-level instability such as government changes because of the current slowdown.” He noted that the “bulk of anti-state demonstrations” internationally have been seen in Europe and the former Soviet Union, but this did not mean they could not spread to the United States. He told the senators that the collapse of the global financial system is “likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging market nations over the next year.” He added that “much of Latin America, former Soviet Union states and sub-Saharan Africa lack sufficient cash reserves, access to international aid or credit, or other coping mechanism.”

“When those growth rates go down, my gut tells me that there are going to be problems coming out of that, and we’re looking for that,” he said. He referred to “statistical modeling” showing that “economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they persist over a one to two year period.”

Blair articulated the newest narrative of fear. As the economic unraveling accelerates we will be told it is not the bearded Islamic extremists, although those in power will drag them out of the Halloween closet when they need to give us an exotic shock, but instead the domestic riffraff, environmentalists, anarchists, unions and enraged members of our dispossessed working class who threaten us. Crime, as it always does in times of turmoil, will grow. Those who oppose the iron fist of the state security apparatus will be lumped together in slick, corporate news reports with the growing criminal underclass.

The committee’s Republican vice chairman, Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, not quite knowing what to make of Blair’s testimony, said he was concerned that Blair was making the “conditions in the country” and the global economic crisis “the primary focus of the intelligence community.”

The economic collapse has exposed the stupidity of our collective faith in a free market and the absurdity of an economy based on the goals of endless growth, consumption, borrowing and expansion. The ideology of unlimited growth failed to take into account the massive depletion of the world’s resources, from fossil fuels to clean water to fish stocks to erosion, as well as overpopulation, global warming and climate change. The huge international flows of unregulated capital have wrecked the global financial system.

An overvalued dollar (which will soon deflate), wild tech, stock and housing financial bubbles, unchecked greed, the decimation of our manufacturing sector, the empowerment of an oligarchic class, the corruption of our political elite, the impoverishment of workers, a bloated military and defense budget and unrestrained credit binges have conspired to bring us down. The financial crisis will soon become a currency crisis. This second shock will threaten our financial viability. We let the market rule. Now we are paying for it.

The corporate thieves, those who insisted they be paid tens of millions of dollars because they were the best and the brightest, have been exposed as con artists. Our elected officials, along with the press, have been exposed as corrupt and spineless corporate lackeys. Our business schools and intellectual elite have been exposed as frauds. The age of the West has ended. Look to China. Laissez-faire capitalism has destroyed itself. It is time to dust off your copies of Marx.

[vector7]

U.S. Army Planning For Economic Collapse
US ARMY READY IF THE DOWNTURN GETS OUT OF HAND

Are you afraid that the economic downturn could get out of hand? I mean, really out of hand?

Well, don’t worry.

The US Army War College is on the case - ready to handle “unforeseen economic collapse” and the “rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the US.”

And you thought we were just dealing with a recession!

knownunknows-pub890_100x130In a report published Nov. 4 - just in time for the holiday season - the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute posited a number of shocks that the country should be prepared for, including unrest caused by the economy’s failure.

The report has a snappy title, “Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development,” and was written by Nathan Freier, a visiting professor at the college.

Freier lists a number of possible things we should worry about - because we probably don’t have enough of our own - including run-of-the-mill terrorism and the fact that China and Russia could align against us politically and economically.

“Some of the most plausible defense-relevant strategic shocks remain low-probability events,” Freier soft-pedals before going on to scare the hell out of us.

The War College says “widespread civil violence inside the US would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”

Among things Freier wants us to worry about are:
- deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction,
- unforeseen economic collapse,
- loss of functioning political and legal order,
- purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency and
- catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

[vector7]

Glenn Beck on California, America's Future

[American Patriot]

I'm with Mal. This is a load of hooey, it's sensationalism, fear-mongering and alarmism.

(Ok, *I* am stocking up on everything though... LOL)

Hey, it never hurts to be ahead of the game and my motto as many of you know is "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best!"

[Backstop]

No more Christmas shopping, we'll see the beginning of the end of a retail Christmas.

Wait a minute.

I thought the world was gonna end before Christmas 2012.

You mean there's a chance we might still be alive?

[vector7]

Wait a minute.

I thought the world was gonna end before Christmas 2012.

You mean there's a chance we might still be alive?

It hasn't even been 30 days since the start of the Socialist Occupation.

Yes I'm hoping for the best but with thousands of jobs being lost each day we are already seeing it impacting the retail sector. If the bleeding doesn't stop soon things are going to get much darker in this area before they get better.

Most companies are in the midst of restructuring, downsizing and layoffs now except for the Government which is poised to balloon and expand.

The Socialists have new deals mapped out, however they may not all turn out the same for everyone.

Yeah we'll be here, but may not like what we're in by then.

[Segestan]

These views are not sensationalism. Get you're Gold and Silver , and those documents you'll need to flee harms ways.


http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-32-is-...cal_a2805.html


Back in February 2006, LEAP/E2020 estimated that the global systemic crisis would unfold in 4 main structural phases: trigger, acceleration, impact and decanting phases. This process enabled us to properly anticipate events until now. However our team has now come to the conclusion that, due to the global leaders’ incapacity to fully realise the scope of the ongoing crisis (made obvious by their determination to cure the consequences rather than the causes of this crisis), the global systemic crisis will enter a fifth phase in the fourth quarter of 2009, a phase of global geopolitical dislocation.

According to LEAP/E2020, this new stage of the crisis will be shaped by two major processes happening in two parallel sequences:

A. Two major processes:
1. Disappearance of the financial base (Dollar & Debt) all over the world
2. Fragmentation of the interests of the global system’s big players and blocks

B. Two parallel sequences:
1. Quick disintegration of the current international system altogether
2. Strategic dislocation of big global players.

We had hoped that the decanting phase would give the world’s leaders the opportunity to draw the proper conclusions from the collapse of the global system prevailing since WWII. Alas, at this stage, it is no longer possible to be optimistic in this regard (1). In the United States, as in Europe, China and Japan, leaders persist in reacting as if the global system has only fallen victim to some temporary breakdown, merely requiring loads of fuel (liquidities) and other ingredients (rate drops, repurchase of toxic assets, bailouts of semi-bankrupt industries,…) to reboot it. In fact (and this is what LEAP/E2020 means ever since February 2006 using the expression « global systemic crisis”), the global system is simply out of order; a new one needs to be built instead of striving to save what can no longer be saved.

[vector7]

I posted this in Rick's thread Making Martial law easier.

I'm going follow up with more as things are starting to move in this area more toward Revolution than Martial Law.

However you could post them in both places as they may become tangled.

Watch for the "Bubba Effect".

This was the first time I had heard of this label being used for rural living folks.

War Games - SHTF Scenario #3 - Anger in America

[vector7]

Here's comes the Left to stir the pot...

Fox News War Games & The Coming Civil War

Sunday Feb. 22, 2009 07:36 EST
Fox News "war games" the coming civil war

Bill Clinton's election in 1992 gave rise to the American "militia movement": hordes of overwhelmingly white, middle-aged men from suburban and rural areas who convinced themselves they were defending the American way of life from the "liberals" and "leftists" running the country by dressing up in military costumes on weekends, wobbling around together with guns, and play-acting the role of patriot-warriors. Those theater groups -- the cultural precursor to George Bush's prancing 2003 performance dressed in a fighter pilot outfit on Mission Accomplished Day -- spawned the decade of the so-called "Angry White Male," the movement behind the 1994 takeover of the U.S. Congress by Newt Gingrich and his band of federal-government-cursing, pseudo-revolutionary, play-acting tough guys.

What was most remarkable about this allegedly "anti-government" movement was that -- with some isolated and principled exceptions -- it completely vanished upon the election of Republican George Bush, and it stayed invisible even as Bush presided over the most extreme and invasive expansion of federal government power in memory. Even as Bush seized and used all of the powers which that movement claimed in the 1990s to find so tyrannical and unconstitutional -- limitless, unchecked surveillance activities, detention powers with no oversight, expanding federal police powers, secret prison camps, even massively exploding and debt-financed domestic spending -- they meekly submitted to all of it, even enthusiastically cheered it all on.

They're the same people who embraced and justified full-scale, impenetrable federal government secrecy and comprehensive domestic spying databases conducted in the dark and against the law when perpetrated by a Republican President -- but have spent the last week flamboyantly pretending to be scandalized and outraged by the snooping which Bill Moyers did 45 years ago (literally) as part of a Democratic administration. They're the people who relentlessly opposed and impugned Clinton's military deployments and then turned around and insisted that only those who are anti-American would question or oppose Bush's decision to start wars.

They're the same people who believed that Bill Clinton's use of the FISA court to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on Americans was a grave threat to liberty, but believed that George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the law was a profound defense of freedom. In sum, they dressed up in warrior clothing to fight against Bill Clinton's supposed tyranny, and then underwent a major costume change on January 20, 2001, thereafter dressing up in cheerleader costumes to glorify George Bush's far more extreme acquisitions of federal power.

In doing so, they revealed themselves as motivated by no ideological principles or political values of any kind. It was a purely tribalistic movement motivated by fear of losing its cultural and demographic supremacy. In that sense -- the only sense that mattered -- George Bush was one of them, even though, with his actions, he did everything they long claimed to fear and despise. Nonetheless, his mere occupancy of the White House was sufficient to pacify them and convert them almost overnight from limited-government militants into foot soldiers supporting the endless expansion of federal government power.

But now, only four weeks into the presidency of Barack Obama, they are back -- angrier and more chest-beating than ever. Actually, the mere threat of an Obama presidency was enough to revitalize them from their eight-year slumber, awaken them from their camouflaged, well-armed suburban caves. The disturbingly ugly atmosphere that marked virtually every Sarah Palin rally had its roots in this cultural resentment, which is why her fear-mongering cultural warnings about Obama's exotic, threatening otherness -- he's a Muslim-loving, Terrorist-embracing, Rev.-Wright-following Marxist: who is the real Barack Obama? -- resonated so stingingly with the rabid lynch mobs that cheered her on.

With Obama now actually in the Oval Office -- and a financial crisis in full force that is generating the exact type of widespread, intense anxiety that typically inflames these cultural resentments -- their mask is dropping, has dropped, and they've suddenly re-discovered their righteous "principles." The week-long CNBC Revolt of the Traders led by McCain voter Rick Santelli and the fledgling little Tea Party movement promoted by the Michelle Malkins of the world are obvious outgrowths of this 1990s mentality, now fortified by the most powerful fuel: deep economic fear. But as feisty and fire-breathing as those outbursts are, nothing can match -- for pure, illustrative derangement -- the discussion below from Glenn Beck's new Fox show this week, in which he and an array of ex-military and CIA guests ponder (and plot and plan) "war games" for the coming Civil War against Obama-led tyranny. It really has to be seen to be believed.

Before presenting that to you, a few caveats are in order: There is nothing inherently wrong or illegitimate with citizens expressing extreme anger towards the Government and the ruling political class. There isn't even anything wrong or illegitimate with citizens organizing themselves into a movement that -- whether by design or effect -- is threatening to entrenched elites. If anything, we've had too little of that. In fact, it's only a complete lack of fear of a meek, passive and impotent citizenry on the part of political and financial rulers -- a certainty that there will be no consequences no matter what they do -- that could have given rise to the endless corruption, deceit, lawbreaking, destruction, and outright thievery of the last eight years. A political and financial elite that perceives itself as invulnerable from threat or consequence will inevitably vest itself with more power and more riches. That's what we've had and, largely, still have.

But this Rush-Limbaugh/Fox-News/nationalistic movement isn't driven by anything noble or principled or even really anything political. If it were, they would have been extra angry and threatening and rebellious during the Bush years instead of complicit and meek and supportive to the point of cult-like adoration. Instead, they're just basically Republican dead-enders (at least what remains of the regional/extremist GOP), grounded in tribal allegiances that are fueled by their cultural, ethnic and religious identities and by perceived threats to past prerogatives -- now spiced with legitimate economic anxiety and an African-American President who, they were continuously warned for the last two years, is a Marxist, Terrorist-sympathizing black nationalist radical who wants to re-distribute their hard-earned money to welfare queens and illegal immigrants (and is now doing exactly that).

That's the context for this Glenn Beck "War Games" show on Fox News this week -- one promoted, with some mild and obligatory caveats, by Michelle Malkin's Hot Air. In the segment below, he convened a panel that includes former CIA officer Michael Scheuer and Ret. U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tim Strong. They discuss a coming "civil war" led by American "Bubba" militias -- Beck says he "believes we're on this road" -- and they contemplate whether the U.S. military would follow the President's orders to subdue civil unrest or would instead join with "the people" in defense of their Constitutional rights against the Government (they agree that the U.S. military would be with "the people"):

And most enlisted Americans would:It's the Presidents need for a national security force that's in question

They don't seem very interested in bipartisanship and in transcending ideological divisions.

Immediately prior to that segment, Fox viewers were warned (as usual) that the unruly, uncivilized, violent Muslims are coming, and only Benjamin Netanyahu will be able to subdue them with a massive attack:

[vector7]

Marxist Attempt To Conquer Union Threatened With Military Challenges

Pat Dollard | Young Americans

Prepare to have your opinion of this war changed forever.



The Winds Of Civil War: Illinois-Driven Marxist Attempt To Conquer Union Threatened With Military Challenges

February 22nd, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard.

New Hampshire fired the first shot. Although 7 other states have similar pending resolutions and bills, the Oklahoma House is the first to actually pass one. Another 27 states are expected to make similar moves in the coming months. That’ll leave the country split 71-29.

Now, before you get too excited, bear in mind that all of this was likely Obama’s goal. To bait us into rebellion. Boiled down, all of these state measures are threats of secession. Recall, if you will, Obama’s obsession to be the 21st Century Abraham Lincoln, and his ominous calls to recreate and rebuild America. Who was Lincoln? Why, he was the man who “preserved” the Union by way of implementing military force against states that had seceded. Lincoln knew full well that he would not be preserving the Union, but that he would be conquering sovereign nations, nations whose cultures and ideologies he would then have to destroy, and then remake, in the image of the North’s, in order to maintain their subjugation. And that is precisely what happened in the aftermath of Lincoln’s war of aggression. He didn’t preserve the Union, he changed it forever and handed unprecedented powers to the Federal Government.

The Lincoln household was most characterized by a dark spirit, an unyielding pall of gloom. He was plagued by mysterious and absolutely crippling headaches. Three of his sons were struck dead before age 20. His wife slowly went insane, the result of a ceaseless, degenerative depression. Lincoln was assassinated.

Now I’m going to run with a theory.

So, what if Obama, Soros and Emanuel understand fully that our current, sudden, violent lurch into Socialism will not be tolerated by many to most of the American people, and that these people may possess sufficient physical concentration in order to secede in large territorial chunks, including those already defined by current state borders? They understand that they will be facing a crisis, right? Well, what is a crisis to the current Marxist regime of Obama other than an opportunity? Based on Emanuel’s stated philosophy, one can conclude that he and Obama seek the greatest crisis that they can possibly create. And this is it. Civil war born of broad secession is the Mother of All Crises, and therefor it is the nirvana of all crises. The current regime seeks civil war just as it seeks oxygen and food. And the actions of Abraham Lincoln provide the precise blueprint by which Obama can achieve all of his life ambitions. They provide the map with which he can navigate to the zenith of personal power, the desired destination of every narcissistic psychopath. Yes, he is a dedicated Marxist, but only insofar as Marxism is his chosen vessel to reach his ultimate goal of Absolute Power. He will defend Marxism until the day he dies, for Marxism is the only means by which he can be king, and being king is the only reason for which he lives.

In order to possess long-term dictatorial powers, Obama must recreate America as a Marxist culture and Marxist economy protected by both a limitless intelligence agency and a paramilitary police force. Once these goals are achieved, the traditional military will be preserved to support similar revolutions overseas, and to defend against foreign threats. (Subduing you is his first goal, but not his ultimate one. His brain his already 150 chess moves past the end of the upcoming American civil war. You are but stepping stones. In his mind, he’s already buried you.) Audacious? Yes. The epitome of change? Yes.

Now, how does Obama achieve and maintain the goals laid out in the paragraph above? Implementing Marxism by legislation in a pluralistic democracy is not sufficient to maintain the reigns of both Marxism and a Marxist leader. They can be voted and legislated away. Capitalism can then return as the controlling process of the economy. Any Marxist who let things stand as such would be committing a fatal crime against Marxism. As such, Obama can not let America stand as a pluralistic democracy. If he is to follow his duty to his Allah, one Karl Marx of Germany, he must terminate pluralistic democracy. In order to achieve this, he must first adopt the assumption that this can only be achieved by force. This is a highly convenient assumption, given that in order to maintain a Marxist dictatorship, he has to establish a paramilitary police state, along with a plausible rationale for its existence. There is one swift way to achieve all three goals. Civil war.

All he has to do is create an excuse to wage literal war on those who would oppose him. This allows him to suspend democracy, crush his enemies, and establish a permanent police state, with the excuse to the American people that all of the above were done in order to preserve the Union. (The permanence of the police state will be secured by the slogan “Never Again”.) An updated version of Lincoln’s playbook, through and through.

For Obama, in order to catalyze a civil war, he must first create a crisis of secession or rebellion. He intends to do so via a mix of irresponsible, crisis-creating government, and legislative implementation of the first stages of absolute Marxism. These two will be sufficient to create a rebellion against his government. The rest will follow naturally.

The simplest remedy for this? For the employees of the Federal Government to refuse to work for him. No secession, no rebellion, no bloodshed, just a man who gave a war, but nobody came.

Just don’t count on it.

Oklahoma 10th Amendment Resolution passes in House 83 to 13″ on Constitutional Emergency

WHEREAS, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

COMMITTEE REPORT BY: COMMITTEE ON RULES, dated 02-12-09 - DO PASS, As Coauthored.

Washington Times:

States Assert Sovereignty With 10th Amendment

Worried the federal government is increasing its dominance over their affairs, several states are pursuing legislative action to assert their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in hopes of warding off demands from Washington on how to spend money or enact policy. The growing concerns even have a handful of governors questioning whether to accept federal stimulus money that comes with strings attached.

The sentiments to declare themselves legally independent from Washington have swept across as many as a dozen states, renewing a debate over so-called unfunded mandates that last raged in the 1990s. The states question whether the U.S. government can force states to take actions without paying for them or impose conditions on states if they accept certain federal funding.

“We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state and want to be treated as such. We are not a branch of the federal government,” said Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called “Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment.”

Ms. Burges was inspired to action by a pair of Bush administration initiatives: The No Child Left Behind education law of 2002 and the Real ID Act, a 2005 law that established national standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.

In other states, lawmakers say they are bracing to repeal federal mandates to spend their money that they expect will emanate from Washington once President Obama begins delivering some of the big-ticket programs promised during his presidential campaign.

Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon introduced a resolution that he said would enable his state to “reclaim its 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation of the 10th Amendment.”

Other states pursuing sovereignty resolutions are Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington. Similar measures are likely to be introduced in more than a dozen other states, analysts said.

“The states are sending a message,” said Robert Alt, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation.

The nearly $800 billion stimulus bill also has raised worries.

Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations this week about accepting their states’ shares of the stimulus package because they are worried that the federal government will impose conditions on how it can be spent.

As a self-styled staunch conservative, Mr. Sanford, the new head of the Republican Governors Association, aggressively opposed the stimulus plan. However, in a Thursday morning interview on CBS’ “The Early Show,” Mr. Sanford said his state would accept money from the stimulus bill. Opposing the plan “doesn’t preclude taking the money,” said Mr. Sanford. South Carolina’s 9.5 percent unemployment rate is the nation’s third-highest.

[American Patriot]

The one link has been pulled already! hahahaha

[vector7]

Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government

by Lance L. Landon

www.opednews.com

Could this be an ominous shadow drawing on the end of the United States of America? For years the Federal Government has presumed to be the all-powerful force governing our country, but it just could be that the Federal Government only exists at the pleasure of the state governments and the citizens thereof. States declaring sovereignty sounds like an act of secession and revolution. However the federal government can apparently be dissolved and another one formed anew at the discretion of the states. The existing Federal government may not leave willingly like so many European governments that are replaced routinely and it may engage a military effort with our own soldiers or the likes of a Black Water illegal military invasion to retain total control over us.

United States Federal Government laws are often in violation of the Tenth Amendment, which is perturbing, these events. This is predicated on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation, which states that, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation [now Federation] expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

A growing number of states are declaring their sovereignty afforded under the U S Constitution’s Tenth Amendment however the conventional news media are not telling you about what is happening. The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire [2009], Montana [2009], Hawaii [2009], Michigan [2009], Missouri [2009], Arizona [2008], Oklahoma [2008], Georgia [1996], and California [1994] all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty. Some other states have done this in the past but then let the issue go. Additionally, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering similar measures. More well may follow, such as Wyoming and Mississippi.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791 and states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Historically, this was done to reassert the assignment of the remaining rights to the states and the people of our country if they were not specifically delegated by our Constitution to the United States Government. Further, Amendment Nine on the Construction of the Constitution, Ratified on 15 December 1791 states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Arizona State Legislature is currently formulating a bill that declares their state sovereignty. Their bill further asserts their state’s right during martial law to call back servicemen to protect Arizona state, "…if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state …” There is more near the end of this article.

A lot of this recent activity has come about due to the reckless demise of the banking system now and also in memory of the past during the great depression that fomented during 1929. There is a Russian academic, Igor Panarin who recently predicted that the United States would break apart into about six separate regions by 2010. Predictions of similar persuasion have been made before, rather they are right or not some big problems may soon ensue.

Much of the presidential character of the cabinet assembled by President Obama is representative of that of the previous administration. Obama perhaps is keeping the Adage, “keep your friends close and keep your enemies even closer.” A disrespect for our so-called leaders is met from our so-called leaders disrespect for us the citizens of our country. Should this be the case yet again, this would establish further reason for the states course of recent action

It may seem ironic that as we have a President from the land of Lincoln, and one who admires Lincoln, that another civil war could be brewing. It’s further ironic that states are beginning to fight back. Many individuals that were imprisoned by Abraham Lincoln for advocating their free speech on issues of the day. These times may be as exciting and revolutionary as when our country was beginning. Benjamin Franklin said something on the order of, “if we do not hang together, we most certainly will hang separately.” Its also ironic that our revolutionary war was with Great Britain and that the so-called Federal Reserve Board (The Banksters) is a corporate instrument of Great Britain, still engorging itself with our blood, our wealth and our money.

The state sovereignty issue was discussed on late night radio on Coast-to-Coast AM. Comments reflected by Alex Jones indicate federal misjurisdiction of its authority that is infringing on state matters and on individual rights. States formed this federal government and it may be disempowered by 34 states [2/3rds]. The Federal government may have disenfranchised itself by making treatise that subvert its powers. As such the Federal government may already be insolvent even though it’s still operating. There is mostly Republican, some Democratic and much nonpartisan sponsorship on recreating state sovereignty to resolve these issues. Take a look at these links: click here and here.

Strings attached by the federal government to returning state money for federal programs may be invalid. States are rejecting federal intervention. Issues at hand involve the National Guard, Posse Commentates, and FEMA Prisons for events of rebellion [or civil demonstration] and revolution and a reimposition of the concept of establishing a North American Union. Take a look at Jerome Corsi’s book, “The Late Great USA”.

Federal negation of states’ rights is selling us out and is treasonous is among the repressive efforts against the states. States may dissolve this federal government. An effort in Missouri to push for sovereignty began three years ago when Missouri started to revive interest in its sovereignty. Other issues are 2nd Amendment Rights being taken away and the institution of civil disobedience, revolution and re-evaluation of where we want our government to go.

Unfunded mandates are forcing issues that the states will block is just one of many issues at hand. The Federal Government essentially has succeeded from our union. PDD-51, part of The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, allows for martial law a lot too easily; this is really not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.

The negation of Congressional authority by the Executive branch is further ammunition for the states to declare their sovereignty. Congress has become a ceremonial branch of the government with no real power left. Congress has just given up its power by not reading the legislation it is being persuaded to pass hurriedly. Nobody in Congress seems to read the bills they pass. We must educate ourselves or suffer the consequences for lack of knowledge. Presidents have become front men for wealthier world powers.

Generally all state resolutions and bills to regain states inherent rights are a perfectly legitimate concept. While succession could be a possibility, the dissolution of the entire federal government and the institution of a new one predicated mostly on our current one is a distinct possibility.

It has come to the point where the banks are controlling Washington DC [or, is it the Bilderbergers as part of the new world order?]. Or is it just the old world order they are trying to recreate? The use of crises to terrorize us and promote a new world order, based not on what is good for us, but for them! Any world government that should arise must be democratic and not arbitrary. Actually, it is still the Old World Order that the new world order advocates guised in the remains of globalism misused.

The primary Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal government are to control our borders, our currency and our military of which they are abdicating on all of these. Granted there is an enumeration in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution providing for eighteen or so in total responsibilities and rights. Clause 18, considered the expansion or elastic clause states, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The union is already gone and America has been sold out to foreign banks. States have the right to dissolve the federal government in order to reconstitute it. There is a non-democratic globalist effort that is stealthily moving ahead with its plan for a world government and economy made in their image, not ours.

The Constitutional principle in the Tenth Amendment is reflective of Federalism in that by providing that powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. In the Articles of Confederation, a precursor to our Federal Government today, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Once our Constitution was ratified, many desired the addition of a similar amendment limiting the Federal government to powers to those "expressly" delegated; this would have denied the use of implied powers. These powers result under the Elastic Clause the Constitution. Those implied powers are powers not given to the government directly through the Constitution, but are considered to be implied in Section Eight of our Constitution.

This document lets the government create Legislation and laws they considered necessary and proper so that they may remain in force, to meet as then or in the future unanticipated applications of the Constitution. The word "expressly" did not appear in the final version of the Tenth Amendment as it then was ratified.

Some state representatives on late night radio Coast to Coast AM were Matt Shea - WA, Jim Guest - MO, Dan Itse - NH, & Charles Key – OK provided a range of views on this subject. Click here.

In response to increasing federal encroachment, a growing number of states have passed and proposed resolutions to assert the Tenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

The Declaration Of Independence states: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

A new vision for America is in the works. This is not just about state sovereignty, but America’s Sovereignty. We will be rebuilding America in the image we want, not what outsiders want. We are not ending America, but providing it a new beginning.

Here in are some of the resolutions and portions thereof:

A small portion from the resolution in Arizona created in 2009: “Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”

~~~

Each state’s resolution has some language that is about the same but also has more to say in many cases. The California Resolution initiated in 1994 reads thusly,

“WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and

WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, In the year 1994, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the California Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America.”

~~~

While each State Resolution and/or Bill is written somewhat differently but expresses much of the same determination. New Hampshire has a rather interesting and long dissertation in its resolution, excerpted here are some poignant points,

“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government . . .”

Read the whole document.

[MinutemanCO]

Okay, help me out here a little, would you. A little American History 101 for the guy from New York, preferably by those of you who were raised below the Mason Dixon Line. I have a distinct feeling that you may hold a more comprehensive understanding of the causes of the American Civil War than we northerners. We were taught that slavery and the potential dissolution of the union were the primary reasons the Civil War was fought. Someone please enlighten me as to the more accurate, if not more publicized, motivations.

…and be direct, I can take it.

The reason I’m hitting on this subject is that the afore-posted article makes a claim that Obama may have aspirations to foment a Civil War in our nation by usurping state sovereignty and treading on the rights of individual states. Also comparisons are being made between our current governmental situation and that of the 1860s. The states are already opposing Obama’s overt actions with claims on the 10^th Amendment to the Constitution. The 10^th Amendment apparently gives states a vehicle to remake the Federal Government if their sovereignty is laid waste by the Feds.

Is this the road to civil war at the hands of our Marxist CINC? Creepy stuff.

[American Patriot]

You will find MANY dissertations on this subject and having been born and mostly raised in Detroit, Michigan, but spending a few years of my formative childhood years (I'm still in my "formative adult years"!) in Kentucky I have heard both sides of the story as told by teachers.

I've heard many things and read many different things in books.

Basically though, the Civil was WAS over "States Rights". While those "rights" of the state weren't necessarily CORRECT (Some states wanted slavery, others didn't, and the Federal government didn't want to allow other states that did NOT have slavery already to start it up) the issue still was that states could set internal laws and the Feds weren't supposed to interfere.

Essentially, from my point of view as an avid reader of history - American slave owners counted on slave labor to perpetuate their profits. The Northern states mostly did NOT have slavery and disallowed it by state laws. The southern states did NOT ban it by law.

Lincoln proposed the prevention of the spread of slavery.

There's a lot more to that though, the Emancipation Proclamation was put in place for a much greater political aim.

The English (who had outlawed slavery in the recent past) was taking up with the South.

The French were pulled into the war on the side of the North - and the timing was such that when Lincoln signed the Proclamation in an effort to PREVENT the English from joining the South - and thereby prevented an even greater disaster. (The English were really NOT our friends even then. We were on, even then, tenuous treaties after the war of 1812.)

Now - Lincoln was not attempting to foment a Civil War. In fact, he was trying to prevent it, and stopping slavery wasn't one of the platforms he ran on, specifically. In fact, he detested it, and spoke against it, but it wasn't a plank in his platform. Instead Lincoln campaigned against the spread of Slavery, and a great many people, both Northerners and Southerners agreed with this sentiment which is really why he was elected.

When Lincoln was elected, seven states in the Union sought to dissolve the bonds between the several states and the Federal government - or Union. They declared their secession just before Lincoln took office.

Think about this for a minute.

Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN.

Most of the Southern States were DEMOCRATS, and a majority of the people in those states were Democrats.

So - let's look at history for a minute since you asked... who is it that caused the Civil War again? Republicans? No, it was SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS.

Who held slaves? MOSTLY SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS.

Who struck the first blow in the Civil war? The South! Jan 1861, the first shots were fired by the South to prevent a Union ship from bringing supplies to Fort Sumter where some 200 Union personnel had moved themselves in an attempt to stay in S. Carolina.

In April 1861 the Confederate army such as it was at the time, attacked Fort Sumter after repeated calls for the removal of Union army personnel.

The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't signed until September 1862!!!

The war escalated from that point, more people, more ships, more military.

Roughly 620,000 military people died and countless civilians....

And the President didn't try to cause the problem. He tried to stop it.

Will the current President attempt to "rewrite history" by writing the future of this country in his own image? Dunno.

I'm in wait-and-see mode.

[MinutemanCO]

Rick, Thanks for the quick tour through Civil War History. I'm the better for it.

It's time for some personal due diligence. If Obama is attempting to CHANGE America, I need to be up to speed on the metaphor he's employing. I'm amazed, though, at how quickly states are coming out in opposition to his veiled attempts at control.

BTW - how did Obama and his staff compose the 1,000+ page stimulus package document in just a few weeks since he's been in office? Something to think about.

[vector7]

Fights for housing help

[vector7]

Lawmaker Warns Of “Forced Servitude” Under Obama

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 24, 2009

[IMG]http://www.************.com/images/February2009/240209top.jpg[/IMG]

New Hampshire state representative Dan Itse, who is one of many lawmakers leading the charge to assert state sovereignty against federal encroachment, has warned that the Obama administration seeks to institute “involuntary servitude”.

Appearing on Fox News to discuss the states’ rights movement, Itse told hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade, “This is about drawing a line in the sand and saying we’ve tolerated usurpations for so long but we’re not going to tolerate you violating the constitution, we’re going to hold you accountable.”

Asked if his warning about involuntary servitude under Obama meant young people being forced to attend community service, Itse responded, “Exactly, I mean, if you are required to do a job against your will with a pay scale not set by you or not agreed to by you, that’s involuntary servitude.”

Despite denials that Obama plans to institute a mandatory program of national service, his original change.gov website stated that Americans would be “required” to complete “50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year”. The text was only later changed to state that Americans would be “encouraged” to undertake such programs.

In addition, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly stated his intention to help create “universal civil defense training” in 2006. Such fears were also stoked when Obama himself said that a “national civilian security force,” that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military was required.

Itse cited the No Child Left Behind program as an example of the federal government encroaching on states’ rights.

“They dangle a dollar in front of us and we chase it like the donkey with a carrot on a stick but ultimately they are infringing upon our domestic policies in the states, manipulating our domestic policies and we need to stand up and say that’s not your job, that’s our job,” said Itse, adding that if enough states stood up to Washington then they would have to pay attention.

In response to increasing federal encroachment, a growing number of states have passed and proposed resolutions to assert the Tenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.

“This is about enforcing the constitution which states to the government, you’re not the boss of us, we’re the boss of you,” concluded the lawmaker