During the collapse you have no food- Now what?
I felt compelled to write this after reading The Survival Institute's article on "What To Do If You Run Out Of Food When The SHTF".
http://survivalinstitute.com/what-to-do-if-you-run-out-of-food-when-the-shtf/
The Survival Institute article leads into foraging for food and some excellent guidelines for edibility testing on suspect plants. Great information and a key wilderness survival skill, but there are few regions in this nation that will, in small areas, provide adequate plants for forage to sustain a small group for very long. Even supplementing with fish and game, this is a iffy proposal.
This is in no way a rebuttal against the Survival Institute, as the scenario they are describing is certainly a type of contingency and we are all about planning contingencies using the PACE model (Primary Plan, Alternate Plan, Contingency Plan and Emergency Plan). Don't try to read into what each letter stands for P-A-C-E,....the idea is to have an alternate plan in case the current plan goes bad. When executing the current plan you may reach obstacles, indicators or criteria which would cue you to switch to the alternate plan. In this case the plan is food sources.
I get it that even the most well stocked SHTF warehouse could (and eventually will) run out of food. So procurement (hunting, fishing or barter) and growing your own food (both animals and plants) have got to receive adequate if nor primary attention (along with water and security) in your overall Collapse Planning. While you should have wilderness survival skills, you also have to an adequate, time effective plan for food and sustaining (growing) the sustainment!
In my mind - in the way I categorize and plan, my food sustainment plan is pretty much what I have outlined below:
~ Pantry or canned, boxed and refrigerated food for immediate use. During a Bug In (hunkering down in place) I will use these foods until they are largely gone.
~ I have vacuum packed small to large bulk storage of food. Everything from rice, beans, chick peas, flour, sugar, coffee, tea, honey, peanut butter, various nuts, ....Some of these are in buckets with handles so you can put them into a vehicle and support a mobile mission away from the defended Bug In site for a certain number of days. The deployed team would be eating out of this bucket and saving their food and supplies in their bug out bags in case they had to leave or abandon the vehicle for any reason. The bucket also serves as a stool, table or to collect water or other material in when emptied.
~ Dehydrated Canned in large #10 cans, vegetables, nuts and fruit.
~ While I do not currently have Chickens, I have boxed up chicken coops so at the right time I can barter for chickens and rabbits to have a source of protein from those sources.
~ Seeds and Growing your own food. While I have a small garden, this year limited to squash, tomatoes, cucumbers and potatoes, I have a large supply of hybrid and non-hybrid seeds to plant more and for barter purposes. I also have lumber and hardware to build off the ground container beds for crops, or to take the material with me if I have to Bug Out and use it elsewhere.
So the topic of food and planning is so important. I probably receive as many questions on food and food stocking as I do any other single subject. Many questions are prepping on a budget. This is simply re-directional spending and does not require giant wads of cash to buy just a bit extra each trip and put it way. If you put the occasional change and dollar bills in a can soon you be surprised to have $80 to $100 to buy a case of dehydrated food. Where there is a need there will be a way to get there.
Showing posts with label SHTF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SHTF. Show all posts
Friday, May 20, 2016
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Disaster,.....Collapse,.......Dealing With It
An article by Bob Rinear, titled "Disaster - Dealing With It, published on the International Forecaster. Pretty good article from a financial analyst. The value in an article like this is for the survival-collapse preparation aspect to be coming from a financial guy as opposed to some guy in camouflage fatigues. In this way it is much more palatable to the average guy. Disaster. It is a word used to describe a multitude of situations, such as an airplane crash, a mudslide, a hurricane, a mass shooting, biological hazards, Earthquakes, Volcano’s, drought, floods, Tidal waves, Industrial accidents… the list goes on and on. Interestingly if you scan the “response” web sites, you never see anything about a disaster as being economic in nature. Yet I assure you, the proper economic “implosion” will be a disaster just as threatening if not more so, then most of the other items listed.
I don’t know how many of you have come through a situation such as Hurricane Katrina or more recently “Super storm” Sandy. But if you did, you know what a physical disaster can do. When Sandy hit landfall in New Jersey, it just happened to “ground zero” in the Little Egg Harbor Inlet, which was just 3 miles straight across the bay from my house. Our little town was completely devastated. Dozens of homes simply gone, hundreds ruined beyond repair. The following two weeks were not easy to deal with. No power, no water, no cell phones, no gas stations…it was tough. It was the first week of November. It was cold. Thousands were homeless. It is something I shall never forget.
Yet we also knew that if you could just get inland a few miles, things were okay. There was food and water and “heat” and for the most part “normalcy”. The storm was a localized event. Help was just a little ways away. Now compare that to a nationwide situation and you come to an ugly conclusion. There’s no place to run. Every place is in the same boat as you. Help isn’t on the way.
Let suppose we do get some form of economic implosion that takes down the economic infrastructure. A few weeks of no banks, no credit cards working, no ATM’s, no way to buy anything…. And it’s nation wide. It isn’t localized. How well would you fare? In the past several issues we’ve discussed the idea of having cash on hand. We’ve discussed having some gold and silver on hand. But what about hard goods? What about protecting yourself? What about basic survival implements? Here’s my guess…..most of you don’t have any plan, and I understand that. We’ve all given up the idea of self sufficiency in this “reliant on others” economy. We rely on the gas company and electric company and banking company and grocery company, etc etc. Well, my Sandy experience taught me in real terms that when we rely on these things, and they aren’t functioning…things go to hell in a handbasket quickly.
The “good part” of an economically based disaster, if anything at that point could be considered good is that even if there’s no food, water or electric, you should still have a place of residence. It isn’t like a tsunami that knocked down your home or apartment.
So, a large part of the equation you don’t have to worry about because you still have shelter. But, here’s the question. How well can you live in that shelter? Will you have heat? Food? Water? Medicine? Then there’s a more disturbing question. If someone that doesn’t have food or water decides they want to come take yours… can you stop them?
You have to decide for yourself as to what level of prepared you’re willing to do based on the size and scope of an emergency. I personally think that every person that lives in a detached stand alone home should have some basics of survival, which includes some water storage, some fuel for a generator, something to cook on such as a propane grill, or a campstove, matches, flashlights, candles, first aid kit, LifeStraw water filter, Inverter, canned goods, dry goods, etc etc. These are just the bare necessities to get past say a storm outage or what have you. From there however, the options are quite limitless.
Let us imagine that we get a derivative cascade that ripples around the globe, so banks shut down to stop the hemmorage, and commerce ceases for a while. With “luck” the government will force electric and water companies to continue to provide, so for at least a time we could all have electric and water and the biggest concern would be food.
Do you at least have enough “in home” to get you past say 3 weeks of no grocery store, or no way to pay? Probably not. You’ll need to fix that and it’s easy. Between canned goods and dry goods, it is simple to stock up 3 weeks worth of enough edibles to get you by. Store it properly and resist the urge to use it in your weekly food preparation and you’re gold.
On the other hand, a true Mad Max scenario, where the grid is attacked, the banks shut down, and no relief in sight for months, is a whole different animal. Very few are prepared for anything even remotely close to that situation and that includes me. While I understand the chances that it could happen, I have consciously decided to avoid it in my mind. I don’t want to go there. That could end up being a very bad choice on my part, but again I simply wish not to allow a worst case scenario in my head. For right or wrong, it is where I stand. I want to be prepared for a bad scenario that lasts up to a few months. Not a whole new lifetime of trouble.
The one thing I do want to stress however is this: History shows us that the people who have not prepared, will seek out those who have prepared and try and take it. On any given day in any state in any city, there’s armed robberies, car thefts, purse snatches, murders, you name it. This is while everything is running, EBT cards are being charged up, the stores have food, the lights are on, etc etc. You can only imagine how much escalation there’d be concerning assault and robbery if things got ugly for a while.
You can look on line and find tons and tons of articles concerning how to prepare for an emergency. There’s tens of thousands of them discussing the things we just talked about such as stocking flashlights and water. But the field narrows considerably when you’re talking about personal protection, and home defense in a bad situation.
Main stream media doesn’t talk about such things, they aren’t allowed and besides the main stream medial doesn’t think you should have the ability to defend yourself in the first place.
I tend to think however that taking care of your immediate family is the most important thing you can do. If someone is going to try and harm me or my wife because we have prepared a bit for a bad situation and they didn’t and therefore they want to take ours, there’s going to be a problem. But trust me on this one folks, this opens a big can of worms, a can you probably never thought about.
Suppose something pretty big hits. Judging by the severity you figure that it could take a month or two before we get even close to barely back to normal. In the first week not too much goes on, people seem to be “okay” but have that panicked look. A few days later you “feel” that more folks are having problems. Then you get that first knock on the door. It’s a neighbor from 4 houses down. They want to know if you’ve got any food around because their 10 year old is getting hungry. First question is… how did they assume you had food? Right there is a MAJOR MISTAKE folks. You cannot allow anyone to know that you have prepared.
The second word gets out that you have food and/or water or what have you, people will flock to your house. At first it would be civil, asking for a hand out. But eventually “they’d come”. The people who left civility behind and will take what they can through any means they have. So, believe it or not, one of the single most important things I can say to you all is this. Don’t let anyone suspect you’ve got “stuff”. If your neighbors are already out of food because they didn’t stock up and their pantry’s empty, don’t make the mistake of cooking up a couple freeze dried steaks on the grill. They’re going to come. They’re going to beg. And what are you going to do? Even if you hand out a little because they’re “friends”, they’ll be back for more. They’ll tell their friends.
Then what?
You don’t want to fall into that mess. So while I can imagine that the first thing you thought of when I mentioned personal home defense was that I’d instantly jump on the gun situation and what to buy and what kind of ammo, and how to set a perimeter…..you’re wrong. The very first line of defense is to ACT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. You want to look hungry. You want to complain, and act nervous. You want to act scared.
If you study real world survival, in the hell holes around the globe, one thing stands out, but no one seems to notice. The people that get robbed, beaten, broken into, ravaged, etc.. are the people that display that they are different from the starving masses. Mobs don’t’ attack themselves. They attack those they perceive to “have” things. It is the number one mistake and it ALWAYS leads to big problems.
So, here’s job one in protecting your home and your family in a serious multi week, or couple month long disaster situation. Keep the secret. Your food should be stored in the dark, never displayed. Prepare it indoors with shades closed. Every instance of eating or drinking should be done behind closed doors. You should interact with the neighbors as much as everyone else does, but make sure they understand that you’re in the same boat as them. You have no food, you have no water, you’re hungry and worried too.
The underground communications network is quite effective. Even if the people nearest you would “never” do anything wrong, they talk to people who talk to people who talk to people. Somewhere down the line, someone will learn that you’ve got stuff. The message you want sent down the line is that “no one on Smith Street has squat, they’re all looking too”.
As long as you appear to be in the same ugly boat as everyone else, you’ve cut your chances of being a target by well over 50%. That’s a great risk reduction in any investment, And it is one that you need to seriously focus on. Remember last week we were discussing having a few grand in cash “on hand”? Well don’t let it slip that you don’t care that the ATM’s are down, because you’ve got some money “stored up”. Big mistake.
Someone will come looking for it. Don’t show off your half a garage full of food stuffs to your neighbor Tom. Tom’s a great guy and all, but Tom told Joe at work about you and how well you’ve prepared for a rainy day. Tom was really impressed. But, Joe however is out on a work release program for theft. Joe now knows where you live. See my point?
This holds true for EVERYTHING folks. Guns, ammo, food, water, money, silver, gold, Medicine, prescription drugs, the whole gambit. Do NOT let people know about any of it. In the “good times” we like to share with people, we’re the social media generation.
We like to express our good fortune. Well, telling 10 people at the water cooler that you’ve got a “fine collection of weapons” because your proud of your collection, just insures that one day you’ll come home and they’re gone. Imagine how fast they’d be coming for them in a disaster period?
In the good times we all like to show off our homes. We make it nice and pretty, and keep the shrubs trimmed and lawn cut. But in dark times, the house that doesn’t get robbed or invaded is the one with an overgrown lawn, a knocked down bird fountain, and a hand painted sign in the yard that says “will work for food”. I’m sure you understand my point. Do not draw attention to yourself. Not your home, not your mannerisms. Blend in; look worse off than those with bad intentions.
That is the first step in surviving a bad time if indeed you have no place to “bug out” to and have to stay where you are. I’ll sprinkle in some more home defense/personal defense articles as we work our way through this crazy economy.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Economic Collapse is Coming - Time to Leave the U.S.
The Dollar Vigilante's Jeff Berwick is back chatting about a myriad of economic and stock market-related issues with Cambridge House Live's anchor, Bridgitte Anderson. Taped at Cambridge House International's Vancouver Resource Investment Conference.
This is more opinion and food for thought on the coming financial-economic collapse. Cast your knowledge net wide, collect and analyze that information, discard what is bunk and plan/prepare.
This is more opinion and food for thought on the coming financial-economic collapse. Cast your knowledge net wide, collect and analyze that information, discard what is bunk and plan/prepare.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Poverty - A Catalyst for Collapse
The Real Numbers: Half Of America In Poverty — And It’s Creeping Toward 75%
I don't know about the 75%, but those in poverty increase everyday and the only remedy being applied is government handouts which not only cannot continue unabated but at some point may stop abruptly. Make up your own mind from this article from Liberty Crier.com
Where does that leave you and your family? In the majority of population in poverty looking vainly for a way to survive? Are you one of the 1% who are prepared to last a period of time in a "no food" available environment? If so, how long? 30 days? 6 months? Two years? Are you and your family going to be victims of those without? - and make no mistake about it - those without will do anything to sustain themselves - wouldn't you?
Anyway, the article from Liberty Crier:
The Census Bureau has reported that one out of six Americans lives in poverty. A shocking figure. But it’s actually much worse. Inequality is spreading like a shadowy disease through our country, infecting more and more households, and leaving a shrinking number of financially secure families to maintain the charade of prosperity.
1. Almost half of Americans had NO assets in 2009
Analysis of Economic Policy Institute data shows that Mitt Romney’s famous 47 percent, the alleged ‘takers,’ have taken nothing. Their debt exceeded their assets in 2009.
2. It’s Even Worse 3 Years Later
Since the recession, the disparities have continued to grow. An OECD report states that “inequality has increased by more over the past three years to the end of 2010 than in the previous twelve,” with the U.S. experiencing one of the widest gaps among OECD countries. The 30-year decline in wages has worsened since the recession, as low-wage jobs have replaced formerly secure middle-income positions.
3. Based on wage figures, over half of Americans are now IN poverty.
According to IRS data, the average household in the bottom 50% brings in about $18,000 per year. That’s less than the poverty line for a family of three ($19,000) or a family of four ($23,000).
Census income figures are about 25% higher, because they include unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, veterans’ payments, and various other monetary sources. Based on this supplemental income, the average household in the bottom 50% brings in about $25,000, which is just above the $23,000 poverty line for a family of four.
Even the Census Bureau recognizes that its own figures under-represent the number of people in poverty. Its Supplemental Poverty Measure increases, by 50%, the number of Americans who earn between one-half and two times the poverty threshold.
4. Based on household expense totals, poverty is creeping into the top half of America.
A family in the top half, making $60,000 per year, will have their income reduced by a total tax bill of about $15,000 ($3,000 for federal income tax and $12,000 for payroll, state, and local taxes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau agree that food, housing, and transportation expenses will deduct another $30,000, and that total household expenditures will be about $50,000. That leaves nothing.
Nothing, that is, except debt. The median debt level rose to $75,600 in 2009, while the median family net worth, according to the Federal Reserve, dropped from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in
5. Putting it in Perspective
Inequality is at its ugliest for the hungriest people. While food support was being targeted for cuts, just 20 rich Americans made as much from their 2012 investments as the entire 2012 SNAP (food assistance) budget, which serves 47 million people.
And as Congress continues to cut life-sustaining programs, its members should note that their 400 friends on the Forbes list made more from their stock market gains last year than the total amount of the food, housing, and education budgets combined.
Arguments about poverty won't end. Neither should our efforts to uncover the awful truth.
I don't know about the 75%, but those in poverty increase everyday and the only remedy being applied is government handouts which not only cannot continue unabated but at some point may stop abruptly. Make up your own mind from this article from Liberty Crier.com
Where does that leave you and your family? In the majority of population in poverty looking vainly for a way to survive? Are you one of the 1% who are prepared to last a period of time in a "no food" available environment? If so, how long? 30 days? 6 months? Two years? Are you and your family going to be victims of those without? - and make no mistake about it - those without will do anything to sustain themselves - wouldn't you?
Anyway, the article from Liberty Crier:
The Census Bureau has reported that one out of six Americans lives in poverty. A shocking figure. But it’s actually much worse. Inequality is spreading like a shadowy disease through our country, infecting more and more households, and leaving a shrinking number of financially secure families to maintain the charade of prosperity.
1. Almost half of Americans had NO assets in 2009
Analysis of Economic Policy Institute data shows that Mitt Romney’s famous 47 percent, the alleged ‘takers,’ have taken nothing. Their debt exceeded their assets in 2009.
2. It’s Even Worse 3 Years Later
Since the recession, the disparities have continued to grow. An OECD report states that “inequality has increased by more over the past three years to the end of 2010 than in the previous twelve,” with the U.S. experiencing one of the widest gaps among OECD countries. The 30-year decline in wages has worsened since the recession, as low-wage jobs have replaced formerly secure middle-income positions.
3. Based on wage figures, over half of Americans are now IN poverty.
According to IRS data, the average household in the bottom 50% brings in about $18,000 per year. That’s less than the poverty line for a family of three ($19,000) or a family of four ($23,000).
Census income figures are about 25% higher, because they include unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, veterans’ payments, and various other monetary sources. Based on this supplemental income, the average household in the bottom 50% brings in about $25,000, which is just above the $23,000 poverty line for a family of four.
Even the Census Bureau recognizes that its own figures under-represent the number of people in poverty. Its Supplemental Poverty Measure increases, by 50%, the number of Americans who earn between one-half and two times the poverty threshold.
4. Based on household expense totals, poverty is creeping into the top half of America.
A family in the top half, making $60,000 per year, will have their income reduced by a total tax bill of about $15,000 ($3,000 for federal income tax and $12,000 for payroll, state, and local taxes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau agree that food, housing, and transportation expenses will deduct another $30,000, and that total household expenditures will be about $50,000. That leaves nothing.
Nothing, that is, except debt. The median debt level rose to $75,600 in 2009, while the median family net worth, according to the Federal Reserve, dropped from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in
5. Putting it in Perspective
Inequality is at its ugliest for the hungriest people. While food support was being targeted for cuts, just 20 rich Americans made as much from their 2012 investments as the entire 2012 SNAP (food assistance) budget, which serves 47 million people.
And as Congress continues to cut life-sustaining programs, its members should note that their 400 friends on the Forbes list made more from their stock market gains last year than the total amount of the food, housing, and education budgets combined.
Arguments about poverty won't end. Neither should our efforts to uncover the awful truth.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
SHTF Alert: Real Life Zombies
This story came out on the web about a medical syndrome called "Walking Corpse Syndrome". Before it's al said and done, we may see more of these people, walking slowly up the urban streets and suburban roads.
Man Describes Life With 'Walking Corpse Syndrome'
A man's account of living with Cotard's syndrome offers a chilling look at a rare condition that has patients convinced they're zombies.
The man, identified only as Graham in an interview with New Scientist, said he awoke from a suicide attempt feeling as though his brain were dead.
"I just felt like my brain didn't exist anymore," Graham told the magazine, recalling his bizarre state of consciousness after surviving an attempt to electrocute himself in his bathtub. "I kept on telling the doctors that the tablets weren't going to do me any good, because I didn't have a brain. I'd fried it in the bath."
Graham was diagnosed with Cotard's syndrome, a mysterious psychiatric condition marked by "the fixed and unshakable belief that one has lost organs, blood or body parts" or has no soul, according to a definition in a 2003 report in the journal Neurology.
"I lost my sense of smell and taste. I didn't need to eat, or speak or do anything," Graham told New Scientist. "I ended up spending time in the graveyard because that was the closest I could get to death."
What little is known about Cotard's syndrome has come from rare case reports dating back to 1882. But Graham's recent diagnosis gave doctors an opportunity to look inside the brain of a Cotard's patient.
What they found was extraordinary.
"I've been analyzing PET scans for 15 years, and I've never seen anyone who was on his feet, who was interacting with people, with such an abnormal scan result," Dr. Steven Laureys of the University of Liège in Belgium, who consulted on Graham's case, told New Scientist. "Graham's brain function resembles that of someone during anesthesia or sleep. Seeing this pattern in someone who is awake is quite unique to my knowledge."
So while Graham's brain was intact, his brain activity looked like that of someone in a coma.
"It seems plausible that the reduced metabolism was giving him this altered experience of the world, and affecting his ability to reason about it," Laureys said.
Graham said he struggled to find pleasure in life, calling the fact that he didn't actually die "a nightmare."
"I just felt really damn low," he said, recalling his desire to lurk in graveyards. "I just felt I might as well stay there. It was the closest I could get to death. The police would come and get me, though, and take me back home."
But over time, with the help of therapy and medication, Graham said he managed to shake his zombie-like state.
"I don't feel that brain-dead anymore," he told New Scientist. "Things just feel a bit bizarre sometimes."
"I'm not afraid of death," Graham added."But that's not to do with what happened - we're all going to die sometime. I'm just lucky to be alive now."
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Just How Likely is Martial Law?
How likely is Martial Law? Ten fold more likely than it was at the beginning of the century, that's how likely. Thanks to Long Island Press and Steve for forwarding this to us.
The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.
UrbanMan's Note: Didn't we see US Army HMMWV's with Military Police logos patrolling the Boston streets during the lock down? Likely they were from Fort Devens. I wonder what their authority was?
The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”
As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”
UrbanMan's Note: The title "commander", in my opinion would mean a Company Commander at the lowest level. That means a Captain, likely in is mid's 20's having the unilateral power to execute military operations in a civilian environment. This is very concerning.
“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”
Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.”
“Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”
The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA—passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction—made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act.
Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday’s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer. The stated purpose of the updated rule is “support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,” but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of “civil disturbance” as one of the few “domestic emergencies” that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil.
To wit, the relatively few instances that federal troops have been deployed for domestic support have produced a wide range of results. Situations have included responding to natural disasters and protecting demonstrators during the Civil Rights era to, disastrously, the Kent State student massacre and the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee.
Michael German, senior policy counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted in a 2009 Daily Kos article that, “there is no doubt that the military is very good at many things. But recent history shows that restraint in their new-found domestic role is not one of them.”
At the time German was referring to the military’s expanded surveillance techniques and hostile interventions related to border control and the War on Drugs. And in fact, many have argued that these actions have already upended the PCA in a significant way. Even before this most recent rule change, the ACLU was vocal in its opposition to the Department of Defense (DoD) request to expand domestic military authority “in the event of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents.” The ACLU’s position is that civilian agencies are more than equipped to handle such emergencies since 9/11. (ACLU spokespersons in Washington D.C. declined, however, to be interviewed for this story.)
But while outcomes of military interventions have varied, the protocol by which the president works cooperatively with state governments has remained the same. The president is only allowed to deploy troops to a state upon request of its governor. Even then, the military—specifically the National Guard—is there to provide support for local law enforcement and is prohibited from engaging in any activities that are outside of this scope, such as the power to arrest.
Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling “an unauthorized power grab.” According to Freedman, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Yet that’s precisely what it did. This wasn’t, however, the Pentagon’s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade.
Déjà vu
During the Bush Administration, Congress passed the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that included language similar in scope to the current regulatory change. It specifically amended the Insurrection Act to expand the president’s ability to deploy troops domestically under certain conditions including health epidemics, natural disasters and terrorist activities, though it stopped short of including civil disturbances. But the following year this language was repealed under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 via a bill authored by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who cited the “useful friction” between the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts in limiting executive authority.
According to the DoD, the repeal of this language had more to do with procedure and that it was never supposed to amend the Insurrection Act. “When it was actually passed,” says the defense official, “Congress elected to amend the Insurrection Act and put things in the Insurrection Act that were not insurrection, like the support for disasters and emergencies and endemic influenza. Our intent,” he says, “was to give the president and the secretary access to the reserve components. It includes the National Guard and, rightfully so, the governors were pretty upset because they were not consulted.”
Senator Leahy’s office did not have a statement as of press time, but a spokesperson said the senator had made an inquiry with the DoD in response to our questions. The defense official confirmed that he was indeed being called in to discuss the senator’s concerns in a meeting scheduled for today. But he downplayed any concern, saying, “Congress at any time can say ‘we don’t like your interpretation of that law and how you’ve interpreted it in making policy’—and so they can call us to the Hill and ask us to justify why we’re doing something.”
Last year, Bruce Afran and another civil liberties attorney Carl Mayer filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of a group of journalists and activists lead by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. They filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, “another NDAA. It’s even worse, to be honest.”
For Hedges and the other plaintiffs, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the government’s ever-expanding authority over civilian affairs has a “chilling effect” on First Amendment activities such as free speech and the right to assemble. First District Court Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with the plaintiffs and handed Hedges et al a resounding victory prompting the Department of Justice to immediately file an injunction and an appeal. The appellate court is expected to rule on the matter within the next few months.
Another of the plaintiffs in the Hedges suit is Alexa O’Brien, a journalist and organizer who joined the lawsuit after she discovered a Wikileaks cable showing government officials attempting to link her efforts to terrorist activities. For activists such as O’Brien, the new DoD regulatory change is frightening because it creates, “an environment of fear when people cannot associate with one another.” Like Afran and Freedman, she too calls the move, “another grab for power under the rubric of the war on terror, to the detriment of citizens.”
“This is a complete erosion of the rule of law,” says O’Brien. Knowing these sweeping powers were granted under a rule change and not by Congress is even more harrowing to activists. “That anything can be made legal,” says O’Brien, “is fundamentally antithetical to good governance.” As far as what might qualify as a civil disturbance, Afran notes, “In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.” But the focus on the DoD regulatory change obscures the creeping militarization that has already occurred in police departments across the nation. Even prior to the NDAA lawsuit, journalist Chris Hedges was critical of domestic law enforcement agencies saying, “The widening use of militarized police units effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.”
This de facto nullification isn’t lost on the DoD.
The DoD official even referred to the Boston bombing suspects manhunt saying, “Like most major police departments, if you didn’t know they were a police department you would think they were the military.” According to this official there has purposely been a “large transfer of technology so that the military doesn’t have to get involved.” Moreover, he says the military has learned from past events, such as the siege at Waco, where ATF officials mishandled military equipment. “We have transferred the technology so we don’t have to loan it,” he states.
But if the transfer of military training and technology has been so thorough, it boggles the imagination as to what kind of disturbance would be so overwhelming that it would require the suspension of centuries-old law and precedent to grant military complete authority on the ground. The DoD official admits not being able to “envision that happening,” adding, “but I’m not a Hollywood screenwriter.”
Afran, for one, isn’t buying the logic. For him, the distinction is simple.
“Remember, the police operate under civilian control,” he says. “They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn’t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can’t remove the military from power.”
Despite protestations from figures such as Afran and O’Brien and past admonitions from groups like the ACLU, for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention.
“This is where journalism comes in,” says Freedman. “Calling attention to an unauthorized power grab in the hope that it embarrasses the administration.” Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change. As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it’s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.
UrbanMan's Note: There is a large potential for a confrontation between local National Guard and Reserve units and the Active duty military deployed to the communities that the NG and Reserve live in. More likely if the Active Duty military is perceived as being heavy handed or ends up killing a few civilians. The government's first recourse is to recognize ths potential and to activate then deployed National Guard and Reserve unit's far away from their home communities and states.
The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.
UrbanMan's Note: Didn't we see US Army HMMWV's with Military Police logos patrolling the Boston streets during the lock down? Likely they were from Fort Devens. I wonder what their authority was?
The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”
As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”
UrbanMan's Note: The title "commander", in my opinion would mean a Company Commander at the lowest level. That means a Captain, likely in is mid's 20's having the unilateral power to execute military operations in a civilian environment. This is very concerning.
“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”
Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.”
“Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”
The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA—passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction—made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act.
Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday’s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer. The stated purpose of the updated rule is “support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,” but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of “civil disturbance” as one of the few “domestic emergencies” that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil.
To wit, the relatively few instances that federal troops have been deployed for domestic support have produced a wide range of results. Situations have included responding to natural disasters and protecting demonstrators during the Civil Rights era to, disastrously, the Kent State student massacre and the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee.
Michael German, senior policy counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted in a 2009 Daily Kos article that, “there is no doubt that the military is very good at many things. But recent history shows that restraint in their new-found domestic role is not one of them.”
At the time German was referring to the military’s expanded surveillance techniques and hostile interventions related to border control and the War on Drugs. And in fact, many have argued that these actions have already upended the PCA in a significant way. Even before this most recent rule change, the ACLU was vocal in its opposition to the Department of Defense (DoD) request to expand domestic military authority “in the event of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents.” The ACLU’s position is that civilian agencies are more than equipped to handle such emergencies since 9/11. (ACLU spokespersons in Washington D.C. declined, however, to be interviewed for this story.)
But while outcomes of military interventions have varied, the protocol by which the president works cooperatively with state governments has remained the same. The president is only allowed to deploy troops to a state upon request of its governor. Even then, the military—specifically the National Guard—is there to provide support for local law enforcement and is prohibited from engaging in any activities that are outside of this scope, such as the power to arrest.
Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling “an unauthorized power grab.” According to Freedman, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Yet that’s precisely what it did. This wasn’t, however, the Pentagon’s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade.
Déjà vu
During the Bush Administration, Congress passed the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that included language similar in scope to the current regulatory change. It specifically amended the Insurrection Act to expand the president’s ability to deploy troops domestically under certain conditions including health epidemics, natural disasters and terrorist activities, though it stopped short of including civil disturbances. But the following year this language was repealed under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 via a bill authored by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who cited the “useful friction” between the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts in limiting executive authority.
According to the DoD, the repeal of this language had more to do with procedure and that it was never supposed to amend the Insurrection Act. “When it was actually passed,” says the defense official, “Congress elected to amend the Insurrection Act and put things in the Insurrection Act that were not insurrection, like the support for disasters and emergencies and endemic influenza. Our intent,” he says, “was to give the president and the secretary access to the reserve components. It includes the National Guard and, rightfully so, the governors were pretty upset because they were not consulted.”
Senator Leahy’s office did not have a statement as of press time, but a spokesperson said the senator had made an inquiry with the DoD in response to our questions. The defense official confirmed that he was indeed being called in to discuss the senator’s concerns in a meeting scheduled for today. But he downplayed any concern, saying, “Congress at any time can say ‘we don’t like your interpretation of that law and how you’ve interpreted it in making policy’—and so they can call us to the Hill and ask us to justify why we’re doing something.”
Last year, Bruce Afran and another civil liberties attorney Carl Mayer filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of a group of journalists and activists lead by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. They filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, “another NDAA. It’s even worse, to be honest.”
For Hedges and the other plaintiffs, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the government’s ever-expanding authority over civilian affairs has a “chilling effect” on First Amendment activities such as free speech and the right to assemble. First District Court Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with the plaintiffs and handed Hedges et al a resounding victory prompting the Department of Justice to immediately file an injunction and an appeal. The appellate court is expected to rule on the matter within the next few months.
Another of the plaintiffs in the Hedges suit is Alexa O’Brien, a journalist and organizer who joined the lawsuit after she discovered a Wikileaks cable showing government officials attempting to link her efforts to terrorist activities. For activists such as O’Brien, the new DoD regulatory change is frightening because it creates, “an environment of fear when people cannot associate with one another.” Like Afran and Freedman, she too calls the move, “another grab for power under the rubric of the war on terror, to the detriment of citizens.”
“This is a complete erosion of the rule of law,” says O’Brien. Knowing these sweeping powers were granted under a rule change and not by Congress is even more harrowing to activists. “That anything can be made legal,” says O’Brien, “is fundamentally antithetical to good governance.” As far as what might qualify as a civil disturbance, Afran notes, “In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.” But the focus on the DoD regulatory change obscures the creeping militarization that has already occurred in police departments across the nation. Even prior to the NDAA lawsuit, journalist Chris Hedges was critical of domestic law enforcement agencies saying, “The widening use of militarized police units effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.”
This de facto nullification isn’t lost on the DoD.
The DoD official even referred to the Boston bombing suspects manhunt saying, “Like most major police departments, if you didn’t know they were a police department you would think they were the military.” According to this official there has purposely been a “large transfer of technology so that the military doesn’t have to get involved.” Moreover, he says the military has learned from past events, such as the siege at Waco, where ATF officials mishandled military equipment. “We have transferred the technology so we don’t have to loan it,” he states.
But if the transfer of military training and technology has been so thorough, it boggles the imagination as to what kind of disturbance would be so overwhelming that it would require the suspension of centuries-old law and precedent to grant military complete authority on the ground. The DoD official admits not being able to “envision that happening,” adding, “but I’m not a Hollywood screenwriter.”
Afran, for one, isn’t buying the logic. For him, the distinction is simple.
“Remember, the police operate under civilian control,” he says. “They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn’t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can’t remove the military from power.”
Despite protestations from figures such as Afran and O’Brien and past admonitions from groups like the ACLU, for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention.
“This is where journalism comes in,” says Freedman. “Calling attention to an unauthorized power grab in the hope that it embarrasses the administration.” Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change. As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it’s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.
UrbanMan's Note: There is a large potential for a confrontation between local National Guard and Reserve units and the Active duty military deployed to the communities that the NG and Reserve live in. More likely if the Active Duty military is perceived as being heavy handed or ends up killing a few civilians. The government's first recourse is to recognize ths potential and to activate then deployed National Guard and Reserve unit's far away from their home communities and states.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Armed Revolution in the Next Few Years?
This guy write about what some of us fear. I can understand what drives the thought process on the possibility of armed revolution with: the Federal Government openly talking about registration and confiscation on guns; reports of across the board monitoring and collection of all forms of communications; and some states pasing draconian gun laws while other states openly challenge the federal government on future gun laws. Again, while I can understand the thinking, this would be a self induced wound. I don't know if we would be a nation coming out of something so unthinkable as this.
Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years by Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. of TheAnti-Media.org
Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University.
The poll, which surveyed 863 registered voters and had a margin of error of +/-3.4, focused on both gun control and the possibility of a need for an armed revolution in the United States to protect liberty.
The survey asked whether respondents agreed, disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know or refused to respond to the statement: "In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties"
Twenty-nine percent said they agreed, 47 percent said they disagreed, 18 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed, 5 percent said they were unsure, and 1 percent refused to respond.
Results of the poll show that those who believe a revolution might be necessary differ greatly along party lines:
18 percent of Democrats
27 percent of Independents
44 percent of Republicans
The poll found that 38 percent of Americans who believe a revolution might be necessary support additional gun control legislation compared to 62 percent of those who don't think an armed revolt will be needed.
Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and analyst for the poll, says: "The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for. If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you're going to be wary about government efforts to take them away."
The poll was conducted nationally between April 22 and April 28, 2013.
This subject becomes a valid topic when there are reports that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is telling the States that they (DOJ) is not going to recognize State Laws protecting second amendment rights.
Eric Holder says Feds Will Ignore State Laws and Enforce Gun Grab
by Joe Wolverton on SpreadLibertyNews: Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (shown), informing him that the Obama administration considers state attempts to protect the Second Amendment “unconstitutional” and that federal agents will “continue to execute their duties,” regardless of state statutes to the contrary.
The letter, dated April 26, specifically references a Kansas statute recently signed into law by Brownback that criminalizes any attempt by federal officers or agents to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of citizens of the Sunflower State. Section 7 of the new law declares:
It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson
The right of states to refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal acts is known as nullification.
Nullification is a concept of constitutional law recognizing the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.
Nullification exists as a right of the states because the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.
As President Obama and the United Nations accelerate their plan to disarm Americans, the need for nullification is urgent, and liberty-minded citizens are encouraged at the sight of state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of that very powerful and very constitutional principle.
Both Attorney General Holder and President Obama are trained lawyers, so one would expect that they have read the Federalist Papers. In fairness, they probably have, but perhaps they overlooked Federalist, No. 33, where Alexander Hamilton explained the legal validity of federal acts that exceed the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Hamilton wrote:
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]
Holder denies that states have the right to withstand federal tyranny and argues that the Constitution declares federal acts to be the “supreme law of the land.”
His comments echo a common misreading and misunderstanding of Article VI of the Constitution, the so-called Supremacy Clause.
The Supremacy Clause (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.
Read that clause again: “In pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.
Constitutionally speaking, then, whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. Instead, they are “merely acts of usurpations” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance thereof.
Alexander Hamilton put an even finer point on the issue when he wrote in Federalist, No. 78, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.”
Once more legislators, governors, citizens, and law professors realize this fact, they will more readily and fearlessly accept that the states are uniquely situated to perform the function described by Madison above and reiterated in a speech to Congress delivered by him in 1789. “The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty,” Madison declared.
State lawmakers in Kansas and several other states are catching on, and nullification bills stopping federal overstepping of constitutional boundaries are being considered. These measures nullify not only the impending federal gun grab, but the mandates of ObamaCare and the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as well.
In light of Holder’s letter, it appears that we have arrived at a time in the history of our Republic when the author of the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) and the “Father of the Constitution” (James Madison) are considered enemies of liberty.
In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Jefferson and Madison declared their allegiance to the union, but insisted that states have the right — the duty — to interpose themselves between citizens and federal despotism.
What Holder fails to appreciate is that the consent of the states created the Constitution and thus created the federal government. This act of collective consenting is called a compact. In this compact (or contract), the states selected delegates who met in Philadelphia in 1787 and conferred some of the powers of the states to a federal government. These powers were enumerated in the Constitution drafted at that convention and the Constitution became the written record of the compact.
This element of the creation of the union is precisely where the states derive their power to nullify acts of the federal government that exceed its constitutional authority. It is a trait woven inextricably within every strand of sovereignty, and it was the sovereign states that ceded the territory of authority that the federal government occupies.
In his letter to Governor Brownback, Attorney General Holder demonstrates that he is as ignorant as his boss as to the proper, constitutional relationship between state governments and the federal government. Accordingly, when Holder threatens to use “all appropriate action” to “prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law,” what he is saying is that he will use any means necessary to prevent the sovereign state of Kansas (and any other state brave enough to take a stand against the federal government) from exercising its right to protect its citizens from federal disarmament.
And, more importantly, by disregarding a legally enacted Kansas statute preserving the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms, the Obama administration is not only ignoring the Second Amendment, but it is also ignoring the 10th Amendment and its restrictions on federal power.
Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years by Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. of TheAnti-Media.org
Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University.
The poll, which surveyed 863 registered voters and had a margin of error of +/-3.4, focused on both gun control and the possibility of a need for an armed revolution in the United States to protect liberty.
The survey asked whether respondents agreed, disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know or refused to respond to the statement: "In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties"
Twenty-nine percent said they agreed, 47 percent said they disagreed, 18 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed, 5 percent said they were unsure, and 1 percent refused to respond.
Results of the poll show that those who believe a revolution might be necessary differ greatly along party lines:
18 percent of Democrats
27 percent of Independents
44 percent of Republicans
The poll found that 38 percent of Americans who believe a revolution might be necessary support additional gun control legislation compared to 62 percent of those who don't think an armed revolt will be needed.
Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and analyst for the poll, says: "The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for. If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you're going to be wary about government efforts to take them away."
The poll was conducted nationally between April 22 and April 28, 2013.
This subject becomes a valid topic when there are reports that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is telling the States that they (DOJ) is not going to recognize State Laws protecting second amendment rights.
Eric Holder says Feds Will Ignore State Laws and Enforce Gun Grab
by Joe Wolverton on SpreadLibertyNews: Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (shown), informing him that the Obama administration considers state attempts to protect the Second Amendment “unconstitutional” and that federal agents will “continue to execute their duties,” regardless of state statutes to the contrary.
The letter, dated April 26, specifically references a Kansas statute recently signed into law by Brownback that criminalizes any attempt by federal officers or agents to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of citizens of the Sunflower State. Section 7 of the new law declares:
It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson
The right of states to refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal acts is known as nullification.
Nullification is a concept of constitutional law recognizing the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.
Nullification exists as a right of the states because the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.
As President Obama and the United Nations accelerate their plan to disarm Americans, the need for nullification is urgent, and liberty-minded citizens are encouraged at the sight of state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of that very powerful and very constitutional principle.
Both Attorney General Holder and President Obama are trained lawyers, so one would expect that they have read the Federalist Papers. In fairness, they probably have, but perhaps they overlooked Federalist, No. 33, where Alexander Hamilton explained the legal validity of federal acts that exceed the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Hamilton wrote:
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]
Holder denies that states have the right to withstand federal tyranny and argues that the Constitution declares federal acts to be the “supreme law of the land.”
His comments echo a common misreading and misunderstanding of Article VI of the Constitution, the so-called Supremacy Clause.
The Supremacy Clause (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.
Read that clause again: “In pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.
Constitutionally speaking, then, whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. Instead, they are “merely acts of usurpations” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance thereof.
Alexander Hamilton put an even finer point on the issue when he wrote in Federalist, No. 78, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.”
Once more legislators, governors, citizens, and law professors realize this fact, they will more readily and fearlessly accept that the states are uniquely situated to perform the function described by Madison above and reiterated in a speech to Congress delivered by him in 1789. “The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty,” Madison declared.
State lawmakers in Kansas and several other states are catching on, and nullification bills stopping federal overstepping of constitutional boundaries are being considered. These measures nullify not only the impending federal gun grab, but the mandates of ObamaCare and the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as well.
In light of Holder’s letter, it appears that we have arrived at a time in the history of our Republic when the author of the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) and the “Father of the Constitution” (James Madison) are considered enemies of liberty.
In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Jefferson and Madison declared their allegiance to the union, but insisted that states have the right — the duty — to interpose themselves between citizens and federal despotism.
What Holder fails to appreciate is that the consent of the states created the Constitution and thus created the federal government. This act of collective consenting is called a compact. In this compact (or contract), the states selected delegates who met in Philadelphia in 1787 and conferred some of the powers of the states to a federal government. These powers were enumerated in the Constitution drafted at that convention and the Constitution became the written record of the compact.
This element of the creation of the union is precisely where the states derive their power to nullify acts of the federal government that exceed its constitutional authority. It is a trait woven inextricably within every strand of sovereignty, and it was the sovereign states that ceded the territory of authority that the federal government occupies.
In his letter to Governor Brownback, Attorney General Holder demonstrates that he is as ignorant as his boss as to the proper, constitutional relationship between state governments and the federal government. Accordingly, when Holder threatens to use “all appropriate action” to “prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law,” what he is saying is that he will use any means necessary to prevent the sovereign state of Kansas (and any other state brave enough to take a stand against the federal government) from exercising its right to protect its citizens from federal disarmament.
And, more importantly, by disregarding a legally enacted Kansas statute preserving the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms, the Obama administration is not only ignoring the Second Amendment, but it is also ignoring the 10th Amendment and its restrictions on federal power.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Government on Alert for Radical Extremism
Received this from a reader: "UrbanSurvivalSkills, be aware that the Federal Government is moving to put the Military, most likely the Army, into a martial law posture to respond to civil disturbance, food riots, population control and weapons-food confiscation. The Army is briefing their leaders on radical extremism of Citizens. My son is a Military policeman and is concerned about what he says is rampant misunderstanding of the Army's role inside the United States. He says that many of his fellow soldiers believe that not only can the Army be deployed against the civilian population but should be deployed against citizens. My son is going to get out of the service this fall and he sent me a flyer that say's, verbatim: There is no way to be 100% certain that an individual is becoming radicalized to the point that they may be considering violent action. However, recent experiences show that there are certain warning signs, or early indicators, worth review. The indicators that if observed would be a pre-disposition to radicalization and violence:"
Complains about bias
Advocates violence beyond what is “normal”
Exhibits abrupt behavioral shifts
Needs empowerment
Is socially withdrawn
Believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia
Is frustrated with mainstream ideologies
Experiences personal crisis and does not properly recover
Demonizes others freely
Lacks positive identity with country, unit, family, or friends
Exhibits sudden reclusiveness
"My son is a college grad and level headed. If he is concerned, so am I. Just as soon as I can manage a week off I am heading to my hunting cabin in (state deleted) just in case something stupid happens." (name removed)."
UrbanMan replies: While I do not like the belief in the Army, institutional or individual, that the Army has a role on policing or enforcement in the United States, I have a tendency to believe that what your son sent you was a pretty routine brief about violent bent people that are a part of every organization,..from the military, to law enforcement, to common businesses, and of course the Post Office.
I'm not trying to drag the military down, but the doors are not being busted down with people trying to enlist. The military's back ground checks for enlistment probably leave a lot ot be desired, therefore with 600,000 people in uniform you are bound to get some type of "radicals" be they gang bangers, white supremists, or just plain haters,......not to mention some devoid of the capacity for basic reasoning.
Again, I think this is a routine effort to "protect the force", to educate military personnel to keep an eye out for high potential violence doers. However, I am somewhat skittish about today's military especially their key leaders and the road our Federal government has taken with disregard for individual rights and vastly increased regulation across all commodity and business lines. Therefore, I'll remain one of those who are waiting to be convincned one way or the other that this may be preparation for martial law.
Thank your son for his service to the nation. And regarding your cabin,.....it may be a a good idea to make it your Bug Out location, so preparing it so could be a wise decision.
And so I thought it ended,...until reports out of Colorado where a DHS sponsored law enforcement threat briefing brought to light more Government oriented targeting of "radicals". From PersonalLiberty.com
"The Department of Homeland Security and the military have, in reports published over the past
several years, equated a large segment of the U.S. population with terrorists for simply expressing
displeasure of the nation’s course, preparing for disaster or even paying in cash. DHS and the Barack Obama regime are aided in this endeavor by government propaganda arm mainstream media and organizations like the Southern Preposterous Lie Center (aka Southern Poverty Law Center)."
Their belief coming from a report from a letter from Undersheriff Ron Trowbridge of Prowers County Sheriff’s Office:
"On April 1, 2013 I attended training in La Junta, Colorado hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP). The training was from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm and covered two topics, Sovereign Citizens, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. I was pretty familiar with motorcycle gangs but since we often deal with the so-called sovereign citizen groups I was interested to see what they had to say. The group consisted of police officers, deputies, and CSP troopers. There were about 20 people in attendance.
Trooper Joe Kluczynski taught a 2-hour section on sovereign citizens. Kluczynski spent most of his
two hours focusing on how, in his view and apparently the view of Homeland Security, people turn
to the sovereign citizen movement. Kluczynski started off by saying there are probably some
sovereign citizens in this room and gave a generalized list of those groups that have sovereign
citizen views. Among those groups, Kluczynski had listed, were those who believe America was
founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and “fundamentalists”.
Kluczynski did not explain what he meant by “fundamentalists” but from the context it was clear he
was referring again to those who took the Bible literally or “too seriously.”
While Kluczynski emphasized that sovereign citizens have a right to their beliefs, he was clearly
teaching that the groups he had listed should be watched by law enforcement and should be treated
with caution because of their potential to assault law enforcement. Kluczynski explained why he
believed these groups were dangerous saying they were angry over the election of a black president.
When someone in the group suggested the failing economy was probably much more to blame,
Kluczynski intimated that those who are not going along with the changes in America will need to
be controlled by law enforcement. Kluczynski even later questioned some of the troopers present if
they were willing and prepared to confiscate “illegal” weapons if ordered to.
Kluczynski’s assignment with the CSP was an Analyst for the Colorado Information Analysis Center,
(CIAC). CIAC is funded by Homeland Security funds and run by the CSP. Kluczynski said he gets
his information from the Department of Homeland Security. Kluczynski said he was leaving the CSP
at the end of that week (March 29, 2013) to begin his new career with Homeland Security. I thought
he was perfect for the job.
Ron Trowbridge
Undersheriff
Prowers County Sheriff’s Office
April 5, 2013
Okay, another thing to list as indicators,...lets keep our eyes out for anymore nonsense like this and any reason to think it may be Government directed or sponsored as opposed to some individual's perspective. I would be concerned if this ass clown Kluczynski does not get counseled by his management if for nothing more than this statement "those who are not going along with the changes in America will need to
be controlled by law enforcement:........pretty damn scary thought pattern here.
Complains about bias
Advocates violence beyond what is “normal”
Exhibits abrupt behavioral shifts
Needs empowerment
Is socially withdrawn
Believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia
Is frustrated with mainstream ideologies
Experiences personal crisis and does not properly recover
Demonizes others freely
Lacks positive identity with country, unit, family, or friends
Exhibits sudden reclusiveness
"My son is a college grad and level headed. If he is concerned, so am I. Just as soon as I can manage a week off I am heading to my hunting cabin in (state deleted) just in case something stupid happens." (name removed)."
UrbanMan replies: While I do not like the belief in the Army, institutional or individual, that the Army has a role on policing or enforcement in the United States, I have a tendency to believe that what your son sent you was a pretty routine brief about violent bent people that are a part of every organization,..from the military, to law enforcement, to common businesses, and of course the Post Office.
I'm not trying to drag the military down, but the doors are not being busted down with people trying to enlist. The military's back ground checks for enlistment probably leave a lot ot be desired, therefore with 600,000 people in uniform you are bound to get some type of "radicals" be they gang bangers, white supremists, or just plain haters,......not to mention some devoid of the capacity for basic reasoning.
Again, I think this is a routine effort to "protect the force", to educate military personnel to keep an eye out for high potential violence doers. However, I am somewhat skittish about today's military especially their key leaders and the road our Federal government has taken with disregard for individual rights and vastly increased regulation across all commodity and business lines. Therefore, I'll remain one of those who are waiting to be convincned one way or the other that this may be preparation for martial law.
Thank your son for his service to the nation. And regarding your cabin,.....it may be a a good idea to make it your Bug Out location, so preparing it so could be a wise decision.
And so I thought it ended,...until reports out of Colorado where a DHS sponsored law enforcement threat briefing brought to light more Government oriented targeting of "radicals". From PersonalLiberty.com
"The Department of Homeland Security and the military have, in reports published over the past
several years, equated a large segment of the U.S. population with terrorists for simply expressing
displeasure of the nation’s course, preparing for disaster or even paying in cash. DHS and the Barack Obama regime are aided in this endeavor by government propaganda arm mainstream media and organizations like the Southern Preposterous Lie Center (aka Southern Poverty Law Center)."
Their belief coming from a report from a letter from Undersheriff Ron Trowbridge of Prowers County Sheriff’s Office:
"On April 1, 2013 I attended training in La Junta, Colorado hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP). The training was from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm and covered two topics, Sovereign Citizens, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. I was pretty familiar with motorcycle gangs but since we often deal with the so-called sovereign citizen groups I was interested to see what they had to say. The group consisted of police officers, deputies, and CSP troopers. There were about 20 people in attendance.
Trooper Joe Kluczynski taught a 2-hour section on sovereign citizens. Kluczynski spent most of his
two hours focusing on how, in his view and apparently the view of Homeland Security, people turn
to the sovereign citizen movement. Kluczynski started off by saying there are probably some
sovereign citizens in this room and gave a generalized list of those groups that have sovereign
citizen views. Among those groups, Kluczynski had listed, were those who believe America was
founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and “fundamentalists”.
Kluczynski did not explain what he meant by “fundamentalists” but from the context it was clear he
was referring again to those who took the Bible literally or “too seriously.”
While Kluczynski emphasized that sovereign citizens have a right to their beliefs, he was clearly
teaching that the groups he had listed should be watched by law enforcement and should be treated
with caution because of their potential to assault law enforcement. Kluczynski explained why he
believed these groups were dangerous saying they were angry over the election of a black president.
When someone in the group suggested the failing economy was probably much more to blame,
Kluczynski intimated that those who are not going along with the changes in America will need to
be controlled by law enforcement. Kluczynski even later questioned some of the troopers present if
they were willing and prepared to confiscate “illegal” weapons if ordered to.
Kluczynski’s assignment with the CSP was an Analyst for the Colorado Information Analysis Center,
(CIAC). CIAC is funded by Homeland Security funds and run by the CSP. Kluczynski said he gets
his information from the Department of Homeland Security. Kluczynski said he was leaving the CSP
at the end of that week (March 29, 2013) to begin his new career with Homeland Security. I thought
he was perfect for the job.
Ron Trowbridge
Undersheriff
Prowers County Sheriff’s Office
April 5, 2013
Okay, another thing to list as indicators,...lets keep our eyes out for anymore nonsense like this and any reason to think it may be Government directed or sponsored as opposed to some individual's perspective. I would be concerned if this ass clown Kluczynski does not get counseled by his management if for nothing more than this statement "those who are not going along with the changes in America will need to
be controlled by law enforcement:........pretty damn scary thought pattern here.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Obama's Secret Army?
I received this e-mail from a reader: "What do you know about the secret FEMA Youth Corps? I understand that they have just started building up and doing training but already have several hundred. It looks to me like Obama is creating the security force like he talked about 4 yesars ago. This is very disconcerting to me as this FEMA Corps is made of young, and therefore brainwashable youth. They also bought tons of ammunition. What is to keep Obama or the next dictator from using this FEMA Youth Corps as an army for martial law? Do these people have weapons?"
UrbanMan replies: I admit this caught me by surprise and I initially thought this was some internet legend until I started researching the FEMA Youth Corps which is easy to find information on. It is a legitmate government sponsored program to create a force of paid or volunteer young people capable of responding to national emergencies under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
I did see some comments on websites which called this group "Hitler Youth", "Homeland Youth" and "Obama Youth". There are concerns from legitimate segments of society that FEMA would be the agency coordinating or managing any declared martial law under their national emergency authorities. And there is some discussions about hidden or secret Obama executive orders concerning a wide range of topics such as weapons, confiscation, food confiscation, martial law and planned martial law areas, travel restrictions, shutting down the internet, etc.
In regards to the FEMA Youth Corps, while I understand how some people see the advantage of hiring impressionable young people,..... the perception that they serve as Obama's army as well as the totality of suspicion about the current administration, .....I still do not see any nefarious activity going on here. Other people and I will be checking on this from time to time, but unless this FEMA Corps is being trained in quelling civil disturbances, security operations, firearms and martial/military type subjects, I do not see too much to get worried about.
The below is from the Department of Homeland Security site detailing this first class of 231 volunteers who graduated last fall. I could not find any reference to continung classes.........maybe the government couldn't find any more volunteers.
Welcome to the FEMA Corps Inaugural Class FEMA Deputy Administrator Rich Serino gives the keynote address at the Induction Ceremony for the inaugural class of FEMA Corps members. FEMA Corps members assist with disaster preparedness, response, and recovery activities, providing support in areas ranging from working directly with disaster survivors to supporting disaster recovering centers to sharing valuable disaster preparedness and mitigation information with the public.
Yesterday, we welcomed 231 energetic members into the first ever FEMA Corps class. The members just finished off their first month of training with our partners at the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and are one step closer to working in the field on disaster response and recovery. They will now head to FEMA’s Center for Domestic Preparedness to spend the next two weeks training in their FEMA position-specific roles. Once they complete both the CNCS and FEMA training, these 231 dedicated FEMA Corps members will be qualified to work in one of a variety of disaster related roles, ranging from Community Relations to Disaster Recovery Center support.
FEMA Corps builds on the great work of AmeriCorps to establish a service cadre dedicated to disaster response and recover. To be sure, responding to disasters is nothing new for Americorps. In fact, the great work that AmeriCorps already does during disasters was the inspiration for FEMA Corps. When I visited communities all over the country that were devastated by disasters, from Joplin, MO to Bastrop, Texas, I always encountered the incredible members of AmeriCorps lending a helping hand to survivors. I was continually struck by the level of compassion, dedication, and skill these members brought to the table.
The inductees are pioneers, combining the exceptional record of citizen service at AmeriCorps’ National Civilian Community Corps with FEMA’s specialized mission of supporting survivors with their recovery after a disaster. The new members, who range in age from 18-24 years old, will contribute to a dedicated, trained, and reliable disaster workforce by working full-time for ten months on federal disaster response and recovery efforts. As we announced in March, FEMA Corps sets the foundation for a new generation of emergency managers; it promotes civic engagement and offers an educational and financial opportunity for young people; and is designed to strengthen the nation’s disaster response by supplementing FEMA’s existing Reservist workforce.
UrbanMan replies: I admit this caught me by surprise and I initially thought this was some internet legend until I started researching the FEMA Youth Corps which is easy to find information on. It is a legitmate government sponsored program to create a force of paid or volunteer young people capable of responding to national emergencies under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
I did see some comments on websites which called this group "Hitler Youth", "Homeland Youth" and "Obama Youth". There are concerns from legitimate segments of society that FEMA would be the agency coordinating or managing any declared martial law under their national emergency authorities. And there is some discussions about hidden or secret Obama executive orders concerning a wide range of topics such as weapons, confiscation, food confiscation, martial law and planned martial law areas, travel restrictions, shutting down the internet, etc.
In regards to the FEMA Youth Corps, while I understand how some people see the advantage of hiring impressionable young people,..... the perception that they serve as Obama's army as well as the totality of suspicion about the current administration, .....I still do not see any nefarious activity going on here. Other people and I will be checking on this from time to time, but unless this FEMA Corps is being trained in quelling civil disturbances, security operations, firearms and martial/military type subjects, I do not see too much to get worried about.
The below is from the Department of Homeland Security site detailing this first class of 231 volunteers who graduated last fall. I could not find any reference to continung classes.........maybe the government couldn't find any more volunteers.
Welcome to the FEMA Corps Inaugural Class FEMA Deputy Administrator Rich Serino gives the keynote address at the Induction Ceremony for the inaugural class of FEMA Corps members. FEMA Corps members assist with disaster preparedness, response, and recovery activities, providing support in areas ranging from working directly with disaster survivors to supporting disaster recovering centers to sharing valuable disaster preparedness and mitigation information with the public.
Yesterday, we welcomed 231 energetic members into the first ever FEMA Corps class. The members just finished off their first month of training with our partners at the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and are one step closer to working in the field on disaster response and recovery. They will now head to FEMA’s Center for Domestic Preparedness to spend the next two weeks training in their FEMA position-specific roles. Once they complete both the CNCS and FEMA training, these 231 dedicated FEMA Corps members will be qualified to work in one of a variety of disaster related roles, ranging from Community Relations to Disaster Recovery Center support.
FEMA Corps builds on the great work of AmeriCorps to establish a service cadre dedicated to disaster response and recover. To be sure, responding to disasters is nothing new for Americorps. In fact, the great work that AmeriCorps already does during disasters was the inspiration for FEMA Corps. When I visited communities all over the country that were devastated by disasters, from Joplin, MO to Bastrop, Texas, I always encountered the incredible members of AmeriCorps lending a helping hand to survivors. I was continually struck by the level of compassion, dedication, and skill these members brought to the table.
The inductees are pioneers, combining the exceptional record of citizen service at AmeriCorps’ National Civilian Community Corps with FEMA’s specialized mission of supporting survivors with their recovery after a disaster. The new members, who range in age from 18-24 years old, will contribute to a dedicated, trained, and reliable disaster workforce by working full-time for ten months on federal disaster response and recovery efforts. As we announced in March, FEMA Corps sets the foundation for a new generation of emergency managers; it promotes civic engagement and offers an educational and financial opportunity for young people; and is designed to strengthen the nation’s disaster response by supplementing FEMA’s existing Reservist workforce.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The Horrifying Collapse of America Predicted
Chris Hedges saying "Brace yourself,...the American Empire is Over and the Descent is going to be Horrifying". Mr Hedges paints a terrible picture on the decline of America, why it is happening and how it is irreversible. While some of Hedges says I personally disagree with, it is really irreflutable that debt, corruption, over burdening and heavy handed government and simply incompetence has doomed this country.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
SHTF and Chaos Just A Little Bit Closer
This week is no different that the last 52 finding the world in turmoil, perhaps just a bit more as the U.S. Economy continues to degrade and all of us are just a little closer to a Economic Collapse than ever before.
Greater chances of a multi-nation war in the Middle East closing off as much as 25% of our oil imports. Israel crossed in Syrian air space to attack Syrian troops. Syrian rebels, backed in part by Al Qaida, took the side of th Syrian government who has been massacring them. When, not if, but when the Syrian rebels succeed in driving Assad from power, Israel will have a much more hateful enemy on their northern border.
Prior to the attack Iran stated that any attack on Assad and Syria is an attack on Iran. It doesn't matter that Iran did nothing yet in retaliation for the Israeli strike, this makes Iran much more likely to plunge the Middle East and some of our oil imports into chaos with terrorist and/or nuclear strikes on Israel. Add in the Syrian chemical weapons threat and the situation is dire.
North Korea and Kim "Baby Face" Jong-un are planning another nuclear test. China is bashing about Japan and threatening conflict over a series of islands in the South China Sea. A shooting war here, even short lived, could be a global economic collapse trigger.
Then you have the situation in the United States,.......
2012 4th Quarter Gross Domestic Product data showed that the economy slowed or contracted to 0.1% growth. Furthermore, the previous 3rd Quarter growth was adjusted to 1.5%. It is very troublesome that multiple sessions of money printing, called Quantitative easing, has failed to stimulate any growth. Exports and consumer confidence are way down as well. Discretionary spending cuts of over $1 Trillion due to the "sequestration" and the large tax burden being placed on the people courtesy of obamacare with a 10%+ health insurance premium hikes all spend doom and gloom for the future. Not the far off future, "let's kick the can down the road aways" future, but the very near future.
This past years drought, adding to the recent agricultural woes combined with the predictions of continued drought and poor harvests add to the concerns over very high food prices and diminished availability. Many are expecting food riots, especially if Federal entitlement cuts reduce food stamp and welfare output.
And then the threat of internal turmoil, to what extent nobody really can even guess. But on the smaller scope, the factors of (probable) sociology-ethnic trouble over the Supreme Court soon reviewing Obama's birth certificate and social security card for authenticity makes upheaval in major cities,....Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, St Louis and others seem like a distinct possibility. The socialist bent threats or plans to enact some sort of weapons ban or even confiscation bring a dire future into focus.
Lastly, if Congress doesn't pass a budget, the Pentagon will have to absorb $46 Billion in spending restrictions for this fiscal year. Overall, the military will furlough 800,000 civilian workers for up to 22 days each throughout the rest of the FY, and, lay off 46,000 temporary and contract employees. Secretary of Defense Panetta said, "These steps would seriously damage the fragile American economy,......". Imagine what the sequestration will do if the Military has to reduce forces putting tens of thousands of service members out on the street?
Greater chances of a multi-nation war in the Middle East closing off as much as 25% of our oil imports. Israel crossed in Syrian air space to attack Syrian troops. Syrian rebels, backed in part by Al Qaida, took the side of th Syrian government who has been massacring them. When, not if, but when the Syrian rebels succeed in driving Assad from power, Israel will have a much more hateful enemy on their northern border.
Prior to the attack Iran stated that any attack on Assad and Syria is an attack on Iran. It doesn't matter that Iran did nothing yet in retaliation for the Israeli strike, this makes Iran much more likely to plunge the Middle East and some of our oil imports into chaos with terrorist and/or nuclear strikes on Israel. Add in the Syrian chemical weapons threat and the situation is dire.
North Korea and Kim "Baby Face" Jong-un are planning another nuclear test. China is bashing about Japan and threatening conflict over a series of islands in the South China Sea. A shooting war here, even short lived, could be a global economic collapse trigger.
Then you have the situation in the United States,.......
2012 4th Quarter Gross Domestic Product data showed that the economy slowed or contracted to 0.1% growth. Furthermore, the previous 3rd Quarter growth was adjusted to 1.5%. It is very troublesome that multiple sessions of money printing, called Quantitative easing, has failed to stimulate any growth. Exports and consumer confidence are way down as well. Discretionary spending cuts of over $1 Trillion due to the "sequestration" and the large tax burden being placed on the people courtesy of obamacare with a 10%+ health insurance premium hikes all spend doom and gloom for the future. Not the far off future, "let's kick the can down the road aways" future, but the very near future.
This past years drought, adding to the recent agricultural woes combined with the predictions of continued drought and poor harvests add to the concerns over very high food prices and diminished availability. Many are expecting food riots, especially if Federal entitlement cuts reduce food stamp and welfare output.
And then the threat of internal turmoil, to what extent nobody really can even guess. But on the smaller scope, the factors of (probable) sociology-ethnic trouble over the Supreme Court soon reviewing Obama's birth certificate and social security card for authenticity makes upheaval in major cities,....Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, St Louis and others seem like a distinct possibility. The socialist bent threats or plans to enact some sort of weapons ban or even confiscation bring a dire future into focus.
Lastly, if Congress doesn't pass a budget, the Pentagon will have to absorb $46 Billion in spending restrictions for this fiscal year. Overall, the military will furlough 800,000 civilian workers for up to 22 days each throughout the rest of the FY, and, lay off 46,000 temporary and contract employees. Secretary of Defense Panetta said, "These steps would seriously damage the fragile American economy,......". Imagine what the sequestration will do if the Military has to reduce forces putting tens of thousands of service members out on the street?
Sunday, January 20, 2013
SHTF: Inflation Into Hyper-Inflation
While not too concerned about larger Government conspiracies I am concerned about Inflation leading into Hyper-Inflation and the good chance that this will all precipitate a economic collapse. This is much more likely to be the root cause of SHTF,...... barring any nuclear attack, super density cyber attack or flaming metorite strikes on the earth.
A total economic collapse could also be the cause of large government restrictions on the population and placing martial law into effect.
But we get closer and closer to runaway inflation with the fuel prices, and prices of foods and other commodities increasing daily, compounded by the reduction of earnings through higher taxation. On an every two week basis, my pay has been reduced $125. That's basically a $250 reduction in buying, saving, investing and ultimately prepping power each month.
Even the major news networks and Government are warning of higher food prices. While there is not a single cause for this, droughts, natural disasters, higher fuel prices and the devalued dollar are all combining to cause these higher food prices. The article below is from a USDA paid economist. I think he is vastly understating the potential of increased prices as other good sources tell us that, on average, food prices have went up 20% through 2012. Look at you own checkbook and grocery receipts and come to your own conclusion.
Higher Food Prices Coming,.....for sure. A USDA economist says Americans will be paying more at the grocery store in 2013.
"Inflation's going to pick up in 2013 over what we have seen in 2012. So we are looking ahead at a year of above normal food price inflation," says economist Ricky Volpe of USDA's Economic Research Service. Volpe says to expect food price inflation of 3% to 4% in 2013. He says the drought affecting two-thirds of the nation is partly to blame.
"The major impact of the drought in the Midwest, higher corn prices leads to higher feed prices, leads to higher animal prices, and higher prices for all animal products," Volpe says. He adds that consumers will see especially higher prices for beef. "We are still faced with historically low inventory for cattle in the U.S.," Volpe says. "So we still have supply that's low relative to demand. We have strong inflation; that's not going anywhere, and the drought is only exacerbating that." Egg and dairy prices will also be higher as drought drives up feed costs.
"So we have these higher feed prices translating into higher milk prices, which especially in the coming months and the first quarter of 2013 we expect to see this translate into a hike in overall dairy prices," Volpe says. "As the impacts of higher corn prices and higher feed prices translate throughout much of the year, we’re looking at egg prices to go up another 3% to 4% in 2013."
Fresh produce prices, which stayed low in 2012, are also expected to rise in 2013.
A total economic collapse could also be the cause of large government restrictions on the population and placing martial law into effect.
But we get closer and closer to runaway inflation with the fuel prices, and prices of foods and other commodities increasing daily, compounded by the reduction of earnings through higher taxation. On an every two week basis, my pay has been reduced $125. That's basically a $250 reduction in buying, saving, investing and ultimately prepping power each month.
Even the major news networks and Government are warning of higher food prices. While there is not a single cause for this, droughts, natural disasters, higher fuel prices and the devalued dollar are all combining to cause these higher food prices. The article below is from a USDA paid economist. I think he is vastly understating the potential of increased prices as other good sources tell us that, on average, food prices have went up 20% through 2012. Look at you own checkbook and grocery receipts and come to your own conclusion.
Higher Food Prices Coming,.....for sure. A USDA economist says Americans will be paying more at the grocery store in 2013.
"Inflation's going to pick up in 2013 over what we have seen in 2012. So we are looking ahead at a year of above normal food price inflation," says economist Ricky Volpe of USDA's Economic Research Service. Volpe says to expect food price inflation of 3% to 4% in 2013. He says the drought affecting two-thirds of the nation is partly to blame.
"The major impact of the drought in the Midwest, higher corn prices leads to higher feed prices, leads to higher animal prices, and higher prices for all animal products," Volpe says. He adds that consumers will see especially higher prices for beef. "We are still faced with historically low inventory for cattle in the U.S.," Volpe says. "So we still have supply that's low relative to demand. We have strong inflation; that's not going anywhere, and the drought is only exacerbating that." Egg and dairy prices will also be higher as drought drives up feed costs.
"So we have these higher feed prices translating into higher milk prices, which especially in the coming months and the first quarter of 2013 we expect to see this translate into a hike in overall dairy prices," Volpe says. "As the impacts of higher corn prices and higher feed prices translate throughout much of the year, we’re looking at egg prices to go up another 3% to 4% in 2013."
Fresh produce prices, which stayed low in 2012, are also expected to rise in 2013.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Rebellion
This article was published on Forbes under the title, "How the U.S. Military Would Crush a Tea Party Rebellion"
I found this interesting as this country is not only more divided than ever before, but when you add the whole gun control control-registeration-possible confiscation issues AND the probable economic collapse, well,.....
A right-wing militia inspired by the Tea Party movement has taken over the city of Darlington, South Carolina, arrested the local government, and declared that the federal government should be overthrown. As the militia establishes checkpoints across I-95, other extremist groups across the nation rush to declare their support. South Carolina’s governor – a Tea Party supporter – declines to send in law enforcement to quash the militia, but quietly asks for federal intervention. The President invokes the Insurrection Act to authorize the use of federal troops, as the Pentagon prepares for war at home….
This is a drill, repeat, this is a drill. Actually, it’s a thought exercise by two authors exploring just how the U.S. military would respond to domestic insurrection. It sounds almost paranoid, except that nine days after Obama’s reelection, petitions for secession have sprouted in all 50 states, gun sales have soared for fear of what a second term means for gun owners, and white nationalist groups are elated over Obama’s victory. Add in a stagnant economy, a polarized electorate, and perhaps some disgruntled Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, and domestic strife seems improbable but not impossible.
The scenario appeared last July – before Obama’s reelection – in the respected Small Wars Journal. The article, titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future”, was written by Kevin Benson, a retired Army colonel who teaches at University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Jennifer Weber, a history professor at University of Kansas and a Civil War historian.
Benson and Weber (the team sounds like a cigarette brand) explored how the military might domestically apply its concept of full spectrum operations, which cover everything from all-out war to counterinsurgency and nation-building. In fact, the Army’s operating concept for 2016 to 2028 considers highly likely a future where the U.S. is threatened by “radical U.S. citizens operating domestically and abroad”. The Pentagon was probably thinking of Al Qaeda sympathizers in the U.S., but radicals come in all flavors.
Benson and Weber boldly argue that “if we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” They also argue that preparations for such a scenario must begin now, including proper equipment for the U.S. military as well as liaison between federal and state authorities. Actually, the issue is really the conduct of operations against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, but Benson and Weber (who declined to speak with the War Games blog) depict a convoluted situation where the military intervenes in South Carolina using techniques honed by hunting Taliban, while still trying to remain within the law.
Make no mistake, this isn’t the Pentagon providing military support to hurricane victims, or even sending troops to support local authorities as during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. This is a war. There will be casualties. Refugees from the fighting must be housed and fed. But it’s a strange kind of war. Thus U.S. forces begin, as any combat forces would, by attempting to collect intelligence on enemy forces – but then have to erase the intel within 90 days after operations are completed, in order not to run afoul of federal privacy laws. They will be eavesdropping on “enemy” communications, but only with a court order. They must depend on local law enforcement for information on the rebels, but the local cops may be rebel sympathizers. There will be “information/influence operations designed to present a picture of the federal response and the inevitable defeat of the insurrection.”
Curiously, the authors don’t really delve the fundamental issue of American soldiers firing on American civilians, except to note that troops would have to comply with standing rules on force, which require graduated levels of violence. Civil support in South Carolina makes counterinsurgency in Kabul look like a picnic.
Predictably, the Small Wars Journal article drew fire from outraged conservative newspapers and protestors. The critics missed the point. This wasn’t really aimed at the far right, except that insofar as there are heavily armed groups in America that dispute the authority of the federal government, they do tend be right-wing. Yet this scenario could just as easily be applied to radical left violence like the 1999 Battle of Seattle riots.
Benson and Weber present a scenario that is somewhat artificial. For example, American law enforcement has become militarized after 9/11. Who needs to call in Army troops when your local police force has armored vehicles, grenade launchers and automatic weapons? One has to wonder if a militia would be so formidable that the state National Guard couldn’t handle it. But then the premise of Benson and Weber’s scenario is that local authorities might not be able to trust local forces to fight rebels, or that local voters might punish politicians who try to do so.
The old gun lobby line that a pack of civilians with hunting rifles will stop a tyrannical federal government is silly. This isn’t 1776, the U.S. military is a tad better equipped than King George’s redcoats, and if the U.S. Army decides to crush an insurrection, it will do so. But it is also true that the nature of warfare is changing, as the spread of high-tech weapons has the Pentagon worried that even weak states can field missiles that make sending in the Marines a bloody operation. If Hamas and Hezbollah can obtain anti-tank missiles, why not a Michigan militia or a Los Angeles street gang? If drug cartels deploy heavy weapons on the Mexico-U.S. border, then perhaps only the U.S. military has the firepower to stop them.
However, the real question is this: under what circumstances should federal troops conduct military operations against American citizens on American soil? Is this scenario likely enough that the U.S. military prepare for such operations, or should we worry that preparation will inevitably lead to action? Note the part about American soil, because American supporters of Al Qaeda are already being killed on foreign soil. Laws like the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus are designed to tightly restrict using the military against the American people. But if there were a rebellion, I wonder if the President would stand on legalities. Lincoln is remembered for winning the Civil War, not suspending habeus corpus.
I found this interesting as this country is not only more divided than ever before, but when you add the whole gun control control-registeration-possible confiscation issues AND the probable economic collapse, well,.....
A right-wing militia inspired by the Tea Party movement has taken over the city of Darlington, South Carolina, arrested the local government, and declared that the federal government should be overthrown. As the militia establishes checkpoints across I-95, other extremist groups across the nation rush to declare their support. South Carolina’s governor – a Tea Party supporter – declines to send in law enforcement to quash the militia, but quietly asks for federal intervention. The President invokes the Insurrection Act to authorize the use of federal troops, as the Pentagon prepares for war at home….
This is a drill, repeat, this is a drill. Actually, it’s a thought exercise by two authors exploring just how the U.S. military would respond to domestic insurrection. It sounds almost paranoid, except that nine days after Obama’s reelection, petitions for secession have sprouted in all 50 states, gun sales have soared for fear of what a second term means for gun owners, and white nationalist groups are elated over Obama’s victory. Add in a stagnant economy, a polarized electorate, and perhaps some disgruntled Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, and domestic strife seems improbable but not impossible.
The scenario appeared last July – before Obama’s reelection – in the respected Small Wars Journal. The article, titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future”, was written by Kevin Benson, a retired Army colonel who teaches at University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Jennifer Weber, a history professor at University of Kansas and a Civil War historian.
Benson and Weber (the team sounds like a cigarette brand) explored how the military might domestically apply its concept of full spectrum operations, which cover everything from all-out war to counterinsurgency and nation-building. In fact, the Army’s operating concept for 2016 to 2028 considers highly likely a future where the U.S. is threatened by “radical U.S. citizens operating domestically and abroad”. The Pentagon was probably thinking of Al Qaeda sympathizers in the U.S., but radicals come in all flavors.
Benson and Weber boldly argue that “if we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” They also argue that preparations for such a scenario must begin now, including proper equipment for the U.S. military as well as liaison between federal and state authorities. Actually, the issue is really the conduct of operations against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, but Benson and Weber (who declined to speak with the War Games blog) depict a convoluted situation where the military intervenes in South Carolina using techniques honed by hunting Taliban, while still trying to remain within the law.
Make no mistake, this isn’t the Pentagon providing military support to hurricane victims, or even sending troops to support local authorities as during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. This is a war. There will be casualties. Refugees from the fighting must be housed and fed. But it’s a strange kind of war. Thus U.S. forces begin, as any combat forces would, by attempting to collect intelligence on enemy forces – but then have to erase the intel within 90 days after operations are completed, in order not to run afoul of federal privacy laws. They will be eavesdropping on “enemy” communications, but only with a court order. They must depend on local law enforcement for information on the rebels, but the local cops may be rebel sympathizers. There will be “information/influence operations designed to present a picture of the federal response and the inevitable defeat of the insurrection.”
Curiously, the authors don’t really delve the fundamental issue of American soldiers firing on American civilians, except to note that troops would have to comply with standing rules on force, which require graduated levels of violence. Civil support in South Carolina makes counterinsurgency in Kabul look like a picnic.
Predictably, the Small Wars Journal article drew fire from outraged conservative newspapers and protestors. The critics missed the point. This wasn’t really aimed at the far right, except that insofar as there are heavily armed groups in America that dispute the authority of the federal government, they do tend be right-wing. Yet this scenario could just as easily be applied to radical left violence like the 1999 Battle of Seattle riots.
Benson and Weber present a scenario that is somewhat artificial. For example, American law enforcement has become militarized after 9/11. Who needs to call in Army troops when your local police force has armored vehicles, grenade launchers and automatic weapons? One has to wonder if a militia would be so formidable that the state National Guard couldn’t handle it. But then the premise of Benson and Weber’s scenario is that local authorities might not be able to trust local forces to fight rebels, or that local voters might punish politicians who try to do so.
The old gun lobby line that a pack of civilians with hunting rifles will stop a tyrannical federal government is silly. This isn’t 1776, the U.S. military is a tad better equipped than King George’s redcoats, and if the U.S. Army decides to crush an insurrection, it will do so. But it is also true that the nature of warfare is changing, as the spread of high-tech weapons has the Pentagon worried that even weak states can field missiles that make sending in the Marines a bloody operation. If Hamas and Hezbollah can obtain anti-tank missiles, why not a Michigan militia or a Los Angeles street gang? If drug cartels deploy heavy weapons on the Mexico-U.S. border, then perhaps only the U.S. military has the firepower to stop them.
However, the real question is this: under what circumstances should federal troops conduct military operations against American citizens on American soil? Is this scenario likely enough that the U.S. military prepare for such operations, or should we worry that preparation will inevitably lead to action? Note the part about American soil, because American supporters of Al Qaeda are already being killed on foreign soil. Laws like the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus are designed to tightly restrict using the military against the American people. But if there were a rebellion, I wonder if the President would stand on legalities. Lincoln is remembered for winning the Civil War, not suspending habeus corpus.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Some Believe Martial Law is Coming
This is the verbiage published with the video: Just remember what has been done by the Federal government already and you have a pretty good idea of what they intend to do with us. This video is a stark reminder of how far we have fallen since "911." Be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones. Please.
If you watched the above video, then there would be a link to another recomended video that claims that DHS is preparing for a "massive civil war" within the U.S. While my DHS sources tell me they know nothing about any planned civil war response, UrbanSurvivalSkills.com is posting this video because survival preppers are all about planning and preparing for all contingencies including the worst case as far fetched as they may be.
Verbiage leading into the below video: In a riveting interview on TruNews Radio, private investigator Doug Hagmann said high-level, reliable sources told him the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for "massive civil war" in America.
"We have problems . . . The federal government is preparing for civil uprising," he added, "so every time you hear about troop movements, every time you hear about movements of military equipment, the militarization of the police, the buying of the ammunition, all of this is . . . they (DHS) are preparing for a massive uprising."
Hagmann goes on to say that his sources tell him the concerns of the DHS stem from a collapse of the U.S. dollar and the hyperinflation a collapse in the value of the world's primary reserve currency implies to a nation of 311 million Americans, who, for the significant portion of the population, is armed.
Hagmann, and Host Rick Wiles share their concerns that even our Congressmen, and Senators are afraid to stand up to Barack Obama, and the emerging Police State out of fear "for the safety of their own familes, and Grandchildren as Chicago Style Mob Rule has overtaken the Executive Branch.
Friday, December 14, 2012
US Power Grid Vulnerable to Attack, Disaster and Collapse
US Power Grid Vulnerable to Just About Everything by Jen Alic of OilPrice.com
As Washington hunts ill-defined al-Qaeda groups in the Middle East and Africa, and concerns itself with Iran’s eventual nuclear potential, it has a much more pressing problem at home: Its energy grid is vulnerable to anyone with basic weapons and know-how.
Forget about cyber warfare and highly organized terrorist attacks, a lack of basic physical security on the US power grid means that anyone with a gun—like disgruntled Michigan Militia types, for instance--could do serious damage.
For the past two months, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has been tasked with creating a security strategy for the electric grid and hydrocarbon facilities through its newly created Office of Energy Infrastructure Security. So far, it’s not good news.
“There are ways that a very few number of actors with very rudimentary equipment could take down large portions of our grid,” warns FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff. This, he says, “is an equal if not greater issue” than cyber security.
FERC’s gloom-and-doom risk assessment comes on the heels of the recent declassification of a 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Sciences on 14 November warned that a terrorist attack on the US power grid could wreak more damage than Hurricane Sandy. It could cause massive blackouts for weeks or months at a time. But this would only be the beginning, the Academy warns, spelling out an “end of days” scenario in which blackouts lead to widespread fear, panic and instability.
What they are hinting at is revolution—and it wouldn’t take much.
UrbanMan's comment:So what would happen if the grid went down starting widespread fear, panic and instability,....and as the article says, possible revolution?
Several immediate effects come to mind: lack of power for heating in cold winter months could potenially create tens of thousands of casualties - mostly elderly as well as create angry groups of rioters and looters, mainly youths and young adults to begin with.
The combined Army and National Guard could not control these mainly urban population centers as well as food supply depots, lines of comunciations and existing working power stations or protect the workers attempting to repair the problem. It would be a huge problem to provide power to run the plants that produce, package and ship the nations food supply. Look around your community and imagine no food for four or five days,...how about ten to fourteen days? What would your community look like?
So what is being done to mitigate risk? According to FERC, utility companies aren’t doing enough. Unfortunately, FERC does not have the power to order utilities to act in the name of protecting the country’s energy infrastructure. Security is expensive, and more than 90% of the country’s grid is privately owned and regulated by state governments. Private utilities are not likely to feel responsible for footing the bill for security, and states may not be able to afford it.
One key problem is theoretically a simple one to resolve: a lack of spare parts. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the grid is particularly vulnerable because it is spread out across hundreds of miles with key equipment not sufficiently guarded or antiquated and unable to prevent outages from cascading.
We are talking about some 170,000 miles of voltage transmission line miles fed by 2,100 high-voltage transformers delivering power to 125 million households.
"We could easily be without power across a multistate region for many weeks or months, because we don't have many spare transformers,” according to the Academy.
High-voltage transformers are vulnerable both from within and from outside the substations in which they are housed. Complicating matters, these transformers are huge and difficult to remove. They are also difficult to replace, as they are custom built primarily outside the US. So what is the solution? Perhaps, says the Academy, to design smaller portable transformers that could be used temporarily in an emergency situation.
Why was the Academy’s 2007 report only just declassified? Well, its authors were worried that it would be tantamount to providing terrorists with a detailed recipe for attacking and destabilizing America, or perhaps for starting a revolution.
The military at least is preparing to protect its own power supplies. Recently, the US Army Corps of Engineers awarded a $7 million contract for research that demonstrates the integration of electric vehicles, generators and solar arrays to supply emergency power for Fort Carson, Colorado. This is the SPIDERS (Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security), and the Army hopes it will be the answer to more efficient and secure energy.
Back in the civilian world, however, things are moving rather slowly, and the focus remains on the sexier idea of an energy-crippling cyberattack.
Last week, Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) urged House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) to pass a bill—the GRID Act--which would secure the grid against cyberattacks.
"As the widespread and, in some cases, still ongoing power outages from Superstorm Sandy have shown us, our electric grid is too fragile and its disruption is too devastating for us to fail to act," Markey wrote. "Given this urgency, it is critical that the House act immediately in a bipartisan manner to ensure our electrical infrastructure is secure."
This bill was passed by the House, but has failed to gain any traction in the Senate.
FERC, of course, is all for the bill, which would give it the authority to issue orders and regulations to boost the security of the electric grid's computer systems from a cyberattack. But it’s only a small piece of the security puzzle, and FERC remains concerned that authorities are overlooking the myriad simpler threats to the electricity grid. These don’t make for the easy headlines, especially since they are not necessarily foreign in nature.
UrbanMan's comment: Survialists have to consider developing some type of power solutions. A minimum level would probably be small solar panels to charge batteries for FRS or other radios, flashlights, small lanterns, etc. Beware of some of the cheap solar panels kits. Most are made in China.
I have several small wattage ridig solar panel kits, all but one still in the box, and I will use for barter or I may rig into my Bug In location grid. Right now they are boxed in order to trade or to pack for Bug Out.
And I have some individual solar powered motion detection lights that I have installed on the sides of my house for perimeter security, and if necessary can use for lights at night inside buildings as they are portable if you install these, with wing nuts rather than lock washers and bolts.
Solutions from Science offers some higher end solar systems that are still portable. This is solidly constructed kit. Getting what is advertised. Click on Solutions from Science to get more information on this solar generator.
As Washington hunts ill-defined al-Qaeda groups in the Middle East and Africa, and concerns itself with Iran’s eventual nuclear potential, it has a much more pressing problem at home: Its energy grid is vulnerable to anyone with basic weapons and know-how.
Forget about cyber warfare and highly organized terrorist attacks, a lack of basic physical security on the US power grid means that anyone with a gun—like disgruntled Michigan Militia types, for instance--could do serious damage.
For the past two months, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has been tasked with creating a security strategy for the electric grid and hydrocarbon facilities through its newly created Office of Energy Infrastructure Security. So far, it’s not good news.
“There are ways that a very few number of actors with very rudimentary equipment could take down large portions of our grid,” warns FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff. This, he says, “is an equal if not greater issue” than cyber security.
FERC’s gloom-and-doom risk assessment comes on the heels of the recent declassification of a 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Sciences on 14 November warned that a terrorist attack on the US power grid could wreak more damage than Hurricane Sandy. It could cause massive blackouts for weeks or months at a time. But this would only be the beginning, the Academy warns, spelling out an “end of days” scenario in which blackouts lead to widespread fear, panic and instability.
What they are hinting at is revolution—and it wouldn’t take much.
UrbanMan's comment:So what would happen if the grid went down starting widespread fear, panic and instability,....and as the article says, possible revolution?
Several immediate effects come to mind: lack of power for heating in cold winter months could potenially create tens of thousands of casualties - mostly elderly as well as create angry groups of rioters and looters, mainly youths and young adults to begin with.
The combined Army and National Guard could not control these mainly urban population centers as well as food supply depots, lines of comunciations and existing working power stations or protect the workers attempting to repair the problem. It would be a huge problem to provide power to run the plants that produce, package and ship the nations food supply. Look around your community and imagine no food for four or five days,...how about ten to fourteen days? What would your community look like?
So what is being done to mitigate risk? According to FERC, utility companies aren’t doing enough. Unfortunately, FERC does not have the power to order utilities to act in the name of protecting the country’s energy infrastructure. Security is expensive, and more than 90% of the country’s grid is privately owned and regulated by state governments. Private utilities are not likely to feel responsible for footing the bill for security, and states may not be able to afford it.
One key problem is theoretically a simple one to resolve: a lack of spare parts. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the grid is particularly vulnerable because it is spread out across hundreds of miles with key equipment not sufficiently guarded or antiquated and unable to prevent outages from cascading.
We are talking about some 170,000 miles of voltage transmission line miles fed by 2,100 high-voltage transformers delivering power to 125 million households.
"We could easily be without power across a multistate region for many weeks or months, because we don't have many spare transformers,” according to the Academy.
High-voltage transformers are vulnerable both from within and from outside the substations in which they are housed. Complicating matters, these transformers are huge and difficult to remove. They are also difficult to replace, as they are custom built primarily outside the US. So what is the solution? Perhaps, says the Academy, to design smaller portable transformers that could be used temporarily in an emergency situation.
Why was the Academy’s 2007 report only just declassified? Well, its authors were worried that it would be tantamount to providing terrorists with a detailed recipe for attacking and destabilizing America, or perhaps for starting a revolution.
The military at least is preparing to protect its own power supplies. Recently, the US Army Corps of Engineers awarded a $7 million contract for research that demonstrates the integration of electric vehicles, generators and solar arrays to supply emergency power for Fort Carson, Colorado. This is the SPIDERS (Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security), and the Army hopes it will be the answer to more efficient and secure energy.
Back in the civilian world, however, things are moving rather slowly, and the focus remains on the sexier idea of an energy-crippling cyberattack.
Last week, Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) urged House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) to pass a bill—the GRID Act--which would secure the grid against cyberattacks.
"As the widespread and, in some cases, still ongoing power outages from Superstorm Sandy have shown us, our electric grid is too fragile and its disruption is too devastating for us to fail to act," Markey wrote. "Given this urgency, it is critical that the House act immediately in a bipartisan manner to ensure our electrical infrastructure is secure."
This bill was passed by the House, but has failed to gain any traction in the Senate.
FERC, of course, is all for the bill, which would give it the authority to issue orders and regulations to boost the security of the electric grid's computer systems from a cyberattack. But it’s only a small piece of the security puzzle, and FERC remains concerned that authorities are overlooking the myriad simpler threats to the electricity grid. These don’t make for the easy headlines, especially since they are not necessarily foreign in nature.
UrbanMan's comment: Survialists have to consider developing some type of power solutions. A minimum level would probably be small solar panels to charge batteries for FRS or other radios, flashlights, small lanterns, etc. Beware of some of the cheap solar panels kits. Most are made in China.
I have several small wattage ridig solar panel kits, all but one still in the box, and I will use for barter or I may rig into my Bug In location grid. Right now they are boxed in order to trade or to pack for Bug Out.
And I have some individual solar powered motion detection lights that I have installed on the sides of my house for perimeter security, and if necessary can use for lights at night inside buildings as they are portable if you install these, with wing nuts rather than lock washers and bolts.
Solutions from Science offers some higher end solar systems that are still portable. This is solidly constructed kit. Getting what is advertised. Click on Solutions from Science to get more information on this solar generator.
Friday, October 19, 2012
7 Day Warning to SHTF
"Hey Urbanman, saw a conversation in a forum about what would you do if you had 7 days notice
until SHTF. I'd like to hear from you about what you would do in this situation. To be sure, I don't
believe I need seven days and I ain't thinking I'm going to be getting it. Prepare Well, Fight Hard.
Frankster."
UrbanMan replies: Frankster, to be frank (I had to make that pun) seven days notice would be great. I routinely look at a wide variety of sources, from financial to political, to develop any sense of an impending collapse. A lot can happen in seven days and I don't expect anyone to be able to predict the collapse in a coming seven days.
I do think that one can analyze threat streams and conclude that the near term collapse is very likely,......whether it takes 2 day or 60 days. Therefore, once I think that SHTF is imminent there are some things, in a list of priorities, that I would try and do hoping to get them all accomplished before the time to hunker down and wait it out.
These are my priorities. The rest of my team's priorities may be a little different since our concept and agreement is that we would consolidate at my place (primary) and another's location (alternate) – these are our initial safe Bug In Locations. So some of my team's priorities would be the start moving additional items to my place.
My priorities: I am listing these priorities using a numbering system and the same numbers to indicate what I think I can do simultaneously.
1. Withdrawal of my bank accounts to maximize the use of fiat currency until that is no longer accepted. I think we'll see cash purchases still accepted but at extremely high mark ups. As I start seeing more critical indicators, I would start keeping more cash on hand. Banks can be ordered to close and ATM’s machines can cease to work.
1. Fill up all empty fuel cans,....using credit cards, fiat currency, barter items, then silver in that order. While I am filling up last remaining fuel containers, procure extra filled propane canisters as well. I can use them for many things among them cooking, heating and barter.
1. Fill up all my empty water containers – 5 gallon cans, bathtub bobs and 55 gallon drums.
Note: While I always have some stored water and fuel, both will eventually go bad if stored forever, so I only maintain a minimal amount. Timing is important to getting maximum life out of your stocks.
As I write this I made myself aware that what I don't have is an extra oil change set with motor oil and filters and an new air cleaner. I'll rectify this in the next two weeks, so this will be off my list. May as well pickup an additional bottle of chain oil for the chain saws, although I have two extra chains - one new, one used.
2. I make a lumber run picking up some plywood and 2x4x8's because they'll come in handy. If the crash is truly imminent, then my credit cards or cash ain't going to worth very much soon, may as well turn it into something useful. 2. I'll buy as much canned and boxed food as I can, using the same modes of payment as above. In fact, all my last minute pre-SHTF purchases will be on this model: credit, cash, barter then silver. Although I will not put myself at risk going to people packed grocery stores. At this time with the collapse imminent, the two person rule will be in effect and if some of my team consolidates at my place, we'll start to implement a 24 hour cycle of security.
I won't need to visit any of the sporting goods or gun shops. I am pretty well set on survival firearms, ammunition, camping gear and miscellaneous items. Maybe a stop at the local Dollar store to buy socks, t-shirts, sweat shirts, and miscellaneous first aid item but only if these stores are not a mad house of humanity.
The bottom line is that once the collapse is occurring or it is evident to the massed population of TEOTWAKI, the safest place to be is hunkered down at your Bug Out location. Make each and every venture outside of this safety in a cold, sober manner and only execute if it is absolutely necessary.
UrbanMan replies: Frankster, to be frank (I had to make that pun) seven days notice would be great. I routinely look at a wide variety of sources, from financial to political, to develop any sense of an impending collapse. A lot can happen in seven days and I don't expect anyone to be able to predict the collapse in a coming seven days.
I do think that one can analyze threat streams and conclude that the near term collapse is very likely,......whether it takes 2 day or 60 days. Therefore, once I think that SHTF is imminent there are some things, in a list of priorities, that I would try and do hoping to get them all accomplished before the time to hunker down and wait it out.
These are my priorities. The rest of my team's priorities may be a little different since our concept and agreement is that we would consolidate at my place (primary) and another's location (alternate) – these are our initial safe Bug In Locations. So some of my team's priorities would be the start moving additional items to my place.
My priorities: I am listing these priorities using a numbering system and the same numbers to indicate what I think I can do simultaneously.
1. Withdrawal of my bank accounts to maximize the use of fiat currency until that is no longer accepted. I think we'll see cash purchases still accepted but at extremely high mark ups. As I start seeing more critical indicators, I would start keeping more cash on hand. Banks can be ordered to close and ATM’s machines can cease to work.
1. Fill up all empty fuel cans,....using credit cards, fiat currency, barter items, then silver in that order. While I am filling up last remaining fuel containers, procure extra filled propane canisters as well. I can use them for many things among them cooking, heating and barter.
1. Fill up all my empty water containers – 5 gallon cans, bathtub bobs and 55 gallon drums.
Note: While I always have some stored water and fuel, both will eventually go bad if stored forever, so I only maintain a minimal amount. Timing is important to getting maximum life out of your stocks.
As I write this I made myself aware that what I don't have is an extra oil change set with motor oil and filters and an new air cleaner. I'll rectify this in the next two weeks, so this will be off my list. May as well pickup an additional bottle of chain oil for the chain saws, although I have two extra chains - one new, one used.
2. I make a lumber run picking up some plywood and 2x4x8's because they'll come in handy. If the crash is truly imminent, then my credit cards or cash ain't going to worth very much soon, may as well turn it into something useful. 2. I'll buy as much canned and boxed food as I can, using the same modes of payment as above. In fact, all my last minute pre-SHTF purchases will be on this model: credit, cash, barter then silver. Although I will not put myself at risk going to people packed grocery stores. At this time with the collapse imminent, the two person rule will be in effect and if some of my team consolidates at my place, we'll start to implement a 24 hour cycle of security.
I won't need to visit any of the sporting goods or gun shops. I am pretty well set on survival firearms, ammunition, camping gear and miscellaneous items. Maybe a stop at the local Dollar store to buy socks, t-shirts, sweat shirts, and miscellaneous first aid item but only if these stores are not a mad house of humanity.
The bottom line is that once the collapse is occurring or it is evident to the massed population of TEOTWAKI, the safest place to be is hunkered down at your Bug Out location. Make each and every venture outside of this safety in a cold, sober manner and only execute if it is absolutely necessary.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Urban Farming for Surviving the Collapse
With unpredecented rises in food prices many people, including urban dwellers, are trying to reduce costs by growing their own food and bartering services or goods for food, and vice versa.
The United States used to practically feed the world. Then we went from a agricultural society to a manufacturing society and now to an entitlement society and really to a "pre-collapse society", so the bits and pieces we can see of people learning to take care of themselves, especially through these urban farming co-operatives, are not only good news but gives examples for urban survivalists.
The below is from an article titled Farmscape Brings Urban Agriculture to Los Angeles http://www.good.is/post/farmscape-brings-urban-agriculture-to-los-angeles/
In a dry and sunny city like Los Angeles, planting grass is one of the more useless ways to use your property. It takes a lot of water to grow and it's expensive—but beyond that, what's the point when the climate supports much more interesting flora, like succulents, and delicious ones, like fruits and vegetables?
A company called Farmscape is proving that there's enough of an appetite for farming on residential land to turn the proposition into a high-growth business. The less-than-four-year-old company has 12 full-time employees—including seven farmers who receive a living wage plus healthcare—and is looking to keep growing. "One of the things that people don’t talk about when they talk about the food system is who is working," says Rachel Bailin, Farmscape's marketing manager. It's often poorly paid and vulnerable migrant workers.
But the company is changing that by bringing farm labor out into the open, into the yards of city-dwellers and businesses. So far they've installed more than 300 urban farms throughout the L.A. area and maintain 150 of them weekly. Projects range from a rooftop garden on a downtown Los Angeles highrise to small plots for families. An exciting project in the works is a three-quarter acre-sized farm for a restaurant in the West San Fernando Valley. And the diversity of the projects is echoed by the diversity of their clients. "When we first started, we expected that our clients would be of a higher income level and would be two-parent working families," says Bailin.
Instead, Farmscape has been delighted to build gardens for preschool teachers, single mothers, and institutions and businesses that want employee gardens as perks. Bailin says the challenges of farming in Los Angeles are manifold. "You have to account for spaces that haven't had life or biodiversity for decades and then you kind of have to bring it back." The company uses raised beds to avoid contaminated soil and drip irrigation systems to provide water. And their newest challenge? Running for office.
The company has thrown its hat into the ring for the office of mayor of Los Angeles in the 2013 election, running on the platform of bringing back farms into the city. Bailin says it's an ironic way of questioning the bounds of "corporate personhood," extended to a corporation's right to free speech by the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United in 2010. "We’re testing the limit of what it is. If corporations are already deciding our politics by giving a bunch of money and lobbying, why not see if we can take out the middleman that would be the politician and make corporations the politician?" It's a joke, of course, and the company will presumably never make it onto the ballot, but it's a clever way to get the word out about the company while making a statement. And perhaps this corporate candidate wouldn't be so bad anyway.
Urban Farming Sources
Another article:
http://www.good.is/post/five-innovative-urban-gardening-programs-in-los-angeles/
Five Innovative Urban Gardening Programs in Los Angeles
This is bad news. Here is some good news: “Let’s Hear It for Urban Agriculture,” “Mayor’s Agriculture
Plan Soon to Bear Fruit,” and “Planners Recommend New Zoning, Lower Tax for Urban Farms.” These
are just a few of the headlines that pop up from a Google search for current news on urban agriculture.
The idea is not new, but it’s being resurrected in cities throughout the country (and, for that matter, the
world), in part because it’s one way of fighting childhood obesity, which, along with diabetes, is a
serious health concern for children of all ages. The number of urban gardens in the United States has
grown dramatically in such cities as Los Angeles, Detroit, Milwaukee, and San Francisco, where local
governments and residents agree that these gardens are an important way to give children and
residents access to healthy food like locally grown fresh produce. Below is a list of innovative
programs and initiatives emerging in the Los Angeles area.
Urban Farming Food Chain Project
http://www.urbanfarming.org/
A partnership between Green Living Technologies and Emslie Osler Architects, this organization
constructs “edible” food-producing wall panels and mounts them on buildings. The people who tend
these vertical gardens use them for their own purposes (meaning produce is not sold commercially),
but they currently have four locations in and around downtown Los Angeles.
Silver Lake Farms
http://www.silverlakefarms.com/
Launched in 2004, Silver Lake Farms just began a Community Supported Agriculture program offering
subscribers a weekly box of fresh produce, grown locally in Silver Lake. They also hold workshops on
how to start your own vegetable garden, and sponsor a volunteer program that connects urban
residents with local farms, community gardens, and homesteads to help out with some of the work.
Market Makeovers
http://www.marketmakeovers.org/
Responding to poor access to fresh fruits and vegetables in their communities, South Los Angeles’s
Healthy Eating, Active Communities initiative and Public Matters have teamed up to engage young
people and convert corner stores into sources of healthy foods via an online toolkit.
Urban Homestead, Pasadena
http://urbanhomestead.org/journal/
An advocacy group for self-sufficient city living via farming and homesteading, this family-owned
operation was started in the mid-1980s on a one tenth of an acre backyard plot. Most of the produce is
sold to local restaurants and caterers.
Urban Farming Advocates
http://urbanfarmingadvocates.org/
Formed in June 2009, Urban Farming Advocates is a group of individuals, small business owners, and
organizations seeking to legalize urban farming in the City of Los Angeles. Their goal is to revise
outdated ordinances that restrict people's freedom to use residential land for urban agriculture.
The United States used to practically feed the world. Then we went from a agricultural society to a manufacturing society and now to an entitlement society and really to a "pre-collapse society", so the bits and pieces we can see of people learning to take care of themselves, especially through these urban farming co-operatives, are not only good news but gives examples for urban survivalists.
The below is from an article titled Farmscape Brings Urban Agriculture to Los Angeles http://www.good.is/post/farmscape-brings-urban-agriculture-to-los-angeles/
In a dry and sunny city like Los Angeles, planting grass is one of the more useless ways to use your property. It takes a lot of water to grow and it's expensive—but beyond that, what's the point when the climate supports much more interesting flora, like succulents, and delicious ones, like fruits and vegetables?
A company called Farmscape is proving that there's enough of an appetite for farming on residential land to turn the proposition into a high-growth business. The less-than-four-year-old company has 12 full-time employees—including seven farmers who receive a living wage plus healthcare—and is looking to keep growing. "One of the things that people don’t talk about when they talk about the food system is who is working," says Rachel Bailin, Farmscape's marketing manager. It's often poorly paid and vulnerable migrant workers.
But the company is changing that by bringing farm labor out into the open, into the yards of city-dwellers and businesses. So far they've installed more than 300 urban farms throughout the L.A. area and maintain 150 of them weekly. Projects range from a rooftop garden on a downtown Los Angeles highrise to small plots for families. An exciting project in the works is a three-quarter acre-sized farm for a restaurant in the West San Fernando Valley. And the diversity of the projects is echoed by the diversity of their clients. "When we first started, we expected that our clients would be of a higher income level and would be two-parent working families," says Bailin.
Instead, Farmscape has been delighted to build gardens for preschool teachers, single mothers, and institutions and businesses that want employee gardens as perks. Bailin says the challenges of farming in Los Angeles are manifold. "You have to account for spaces that haven't had life or biodiversity for decades and then you kind of have to bring it back." The company uses raised beds to avoid contaminated soil and drip irrigation systems to provide water. And their newest challenge? Running for office.
The company has thrown its hat into the ring for the office of mayor of Los Angeles in the 2013 election, running on the platform of bringing back farms into the city. Bailin says it's an ironic way of questioning the bounds of "corporate personhood," extended to a corporation's right to free speech by the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United in 2010. "We’re testing the limit of what it is. If corporations are already deciding our politics by giving a bunch of money and lobbying, why not see if we can take out the middleman that would be the politician and make corporations the politician?" It's a joke, of course, and the company will presumably never make it onto the ballot, but it's a clever way to get the word out about the company while making a statement. And perhaps this corporate candidate wouldn't be so bad anyway.
Urban Farming Sources
Another article:
http://www.good.is/post/five-innovative-urban-gardening-programs-in-los-angeles/
Five Innovative Urban Gardening Programs in Los Angeles
This is bad news. Here is some good news: “Let’s Hear It for Urban Agriculture,” “Mayor’s Agriculture
Plan Soon to Bear Fruit,” and “Planners Recommend New Zoning, Lower Tax for Urban Farms.” These
are just a few of the headlines that pop up from a Google search for current news on urban agriculture.
The idea is not new, but it’s being resurrected in cities throughout the country (and, for that matter, the
world), in part because it’s one way of fighting childhood obesity, which, along with diabetes, is a
serious health concern for children of all ages. The number of urban gardens in the United States has
grown dramatically in such cities as Los Angeles, Detroit, Milwaukee, and San Francisco, where local
governments and residents agree that these gardens are an important way to give children and
residents access to healthy food like locally grown fresh produce. Below is a list of innovative
programs and initiatives emerging in the Los Angeles area.
Urban Farming Food Chain Project
http://www.urbanfarming.org/
A partnership between Green Living Technologies and Emslie Osler Architects, this organization
constructs “edible” food-producing wall panels and mounts them on buildings. The people who tend
these vertical gardens use them for their own purposes (meaning produce is not sold commercially),
but they currently have four locations in and around downtown Los Angeles.
Silver Lake Farms
http://www.silverlakefarms.com/
Launched in 2004, Silver Lake Farms just began a Community Supported Agriculture program offering
subscribers a weekly box of fresh produce, grown locally in Silver Lake. They also hold workshops on
how to start your own vegetable garden, and sponsor a volunteer program that connects urban
residents with local farms, community gardens, and homesteads to help out with some of the work.
Market Makeovers
http://www.marketmakeovers.org/
Responding to poor access to fresh fruits and vegetables in their communities, South Los Angeles’s
Healthy Eating, Active Communities initiative and Public Matters have teamed up to engage young
people and convert corner stores into sources of healthy foods via an online toolkit.
Urban Homestead, Pasadena
http://urbanhomestead.org/journal/
An advocacy group for self-sufficient city living via farming and homesteading, this family-owned
operation was started in the mid-1980s on a one tenth of an acre backyard plot. Most of the produce is
sold to local restaurants and caterers.
Urban Farming Advocates
http://urbanfarmingadvocates.org/
Formed in June 2009, Urban Farming Advocates is a group of individuals, small business owners, and
organizations seeking to legalize urban farming in the City of Los Angeles. Their goal is to revise
outdated ordinances that restrict people's freedom to use residential land for urban agriculture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
