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.

Some Believe Martial Law is Coming

From UrbanMan: I was sent a link to the following video. While I know that the government, separetly by the various agencies and collectively under larger departments, are always planning for contingencies, I do have a hard time believing in a larger conspiracy concerning a plan to implement martial law. However, in the event of a large scale collapse, martial law and the deployment of large active duty and national guard to control key infrastructure and some population centers would most likely be implemented. Martial law may just have as large a detrimental effect as it would fulfilling the government's purpose of it.

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.

Preparing for the Collapse Links, 1 January 2013

Happy New Year All.
Continuing with requests to provide more linked articles to readers, the following are some of the better articles I have came across in the last week pertaining to preparing for and seeing the beginning of the collapse, and,  surviving the chaos and uncertainly of this coming collapse.


Looting the Treasury is the Last Act.
One of the last acts in a failed nation state is the looting of the treasury. Although politicans and their mentors have been looting the U.S. for decades,..nay, centuries, this report is not about the U.S. but on Afghanistan. At least someone sees the value of Gold.

Alternative Gardening.
An excellent article from Peak Prosperity on the Back to Eden Gardening method on using wood chips and a natural method of gardening. Having the ability to grow our own food is essential to long range survival plans. Hope you have a sufficient amount of non-hybrid seeds in your survival stocks.

Demand For Gold "CombiBars" Soaring.
Swiss refiner Valcambi which has created a CombiBar, a credit-card sized, 50 gram block of 99.9 gold, which is precut, and which can easily be broken into one gram pieces which can then be used as forms of payment in an emergency. And since one gram of gold has roughly the value of two ounces of silver, it is a far more practical lowest common denominator unit of exchange than the traditional one ounce minimums in broad circulation. impractical medium of exchange, as the traditional denominations are so large one would be unable to trade one ounce (and certainly one bar) for every day needs.

Nine States with Sinking Pensions.
Illinois is one of the states with an unfunded pension, just 45% of the state’s pension liabilities were funded in 2010. The state labor unions has fought and stalled the legislation to try to fix the underfudning. Standard & Poor’s cut the state’s credit rating in August from A+ to A, pointing to a “lack of action” in tackling the state pension system’s massive unfunded liability. Moody’s Investor Service downgraded the state earlier in the year and warned that further downgrades are possible if no action on pensions is taken. There are many states and many municipalities that are going bankrupt. What happens when there are millions of broke, hungry people who are not getting thier pension check that so are angry at the government?.....

Over the fiscal cliff: How hard a landing?
Set to start in 2013 unless Congress and Obama act to stop them are the following economy killing events: $536 billion in tax increases; $110 billion in spending cuts divided equally between the military and most other federal departments; most real experts believe that this will lead to a big recession, a bigger jump in unemployment and financial market turmoil.
It’s Not a “Fiscal Cliff” … It’s the Descent Into Lawlessness.
Lawless Looting and Redistribution of Wealth that we were warned about by financial gurus in 2008 may be upon us in 2013. As big banks go bankrupt; with bankrupt cities and coming states here in the U.S.; nations in Europe tanking from debtor status and the ones that are afloat using the nuclear options of austerity programs to try and stay solvent....the collapse storm is brewing and moving.

DHS Insider gives report on gun confiscation and martial law (plan) to investigator in face to face meeting.
This is a two part interview claimed to be authentic and posted on the Steve Quayle site. I find it hard to believe there is actually a plan for this, althought I do believe many politicians would make it happen if they could.

Oil prices rise as 'fiscal cliff' talks to resume.
Oil prices rise as Obama heads back to Washington from vacation. This, I fear, is the best prices we'll see for a long time to come, if forever. As the dollar devaluates, as the U.S. debt and fiscal policies slow or destroy any economic recovery, the prices will go up. We could possibly see $200 a barrel oil - $8 a gallon or more gasoline - before the weight of a giant depression collapses the country.

Investors Buying 50 Times More Physical Silver than Gold?
The geist of story is the surprise that the price of silver has remained at such a depressed level compared to gold. Historically, the price ratio between gold and silver has been 16:1, when both were currencies. Today the ratio is 55:1, so what are the numbers telling us? We believe this is one of those times when smart investors will be well rewarded with buying in silver.

Government Electronic Surveillance

According to an former NSA employee and now a whistleblower, "Everyone in US under virtual surveillance". Here is the article from an interview with William Binney, posted on rt.com. At the bottom of this post there is excerpts from a e-mail from Senator Rand Paul basically backing up what Mr Binney claims.

The FBI records the emails of nearly all US citizens, including members of congress, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. In an interview with RT, he warned that the government can use this information against anyone.

Binney, one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in the history of the National Security Agency, resigned in 2001. He claimed he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the Constitution, such as how the FBI engages in widespread and pervasive surveillance through powerful devices called 'Naris.'

This year, Binney received the Callaway award, an annual prize that recognizes those who champion constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.

RT: In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused on the details of their family drama, one may argue that the real scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen – thousands of his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence. It’s not like any of those men was planning an attack on America. Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a surveillance state?
William Binney: Yes, that’s what I’ve been basically saying for quite some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.

RT: And it’s not just about those, who could be planning, who could be a threat to national security, but also those, who could be just…
WB: It’s everybody. The Naris device, if it takes in the entire line, so it takes in all the data. In fact they advertised they can process the lines at session rates, which means 10-gigabit lines. I forgot the name of the device (it’s not the Naris) – the other one does it at 10 gigabits. That’s why they're building Bluffdale [database facility], because they have to have more storage, because they can’t figure out what’s important, so they are just storing everything there. So, emails are going to be stored there in the future, but right now stored in different places around the country. But it is being collected – and the FBI has access to it.

RT: You mean it’s being collected in bulk without even requesting providers?
WB: Yes.

RT: Then what about Google, you know, releasing this biannual transparency report and saying that the government’s demands for personal data is at an all-time high and for all of those requesting the US, Google says they complied with the government’s demands 90 percent of the time. But they are still saying that they are making the request, it’s not like it’s all being funneled into that storage. What do you say to that?
WB: I would assume that it’s just simply another source for the same data they are already collecting. My line is in declarations in a court about the 18-T facility in San Francisco, that documented the NSA room inside that AST&T facility, where they had Naris devices to collect data off the fiber optic lines inside the United States. So, that’s kind of a powerful device, that would collect everything it was being sent. It could collect on the order over of 100 billion 1,000-character emails a day. One device.

RT: You say they sift through billions of e-mails. I wonder how do they prioritize? How do they filter it? WB: I don’t think they are filtering it. They are just storing it. I think it’s just a matter of selecting when they want it. So, if they want to target you, they would take your attributes, go into that database and pull out all your data.

RT: Were you on the target list?
WB: Oh, sure! I believe I’ve been on it for quite a few years. So I keep telling them everything I think of them in my email. So that when they want to read it they’ll understand what I think of them.

RT: Do you think we all should leave messages for the NSA mail box?
WB: Sure!

RT: You blew the whistle on the agency when George W. Bush was the president. With President Obama in office, in your opinion, has anything changed at the agency, in the surveillance program? In what direction is this administration moving?
WB: The change is it’s getting worse. They are doing more. He is supporting the building of the Bluffdale facility, which is over two billion dollars they are spending on storage room for data. That means that they are collecting a lot more now and need more storage for it. That facility by my calculations that I submitted to the court for the Electronic Frontiers Foundation against NSA would hold on the order of 5 zettabytes of data. Just that current storage capacity is being advertised on the web that you can buy. And that’s not talking about what they have in the near future.

RT: What are they going to do with all of that? Ok, they are storing something. Why should anybody be concerned?
WB: If you ever get on the enemies list, like Petraeus did or… for whatever reason, than you can be drained into that surveillance.

RT: Do you think they would… General Petraeus, who was idolized by the same administration? Or General Allen?
WB: There are certainly some questions, that have to be asked, like why would they target it to begin with? What law were they breaking?

RT: In case of General Petraeus one would argue that there could have been security breaches. Something like that. But with General Allen – I don’t quite understand, because when they were looking into his private emails to this woman.
WB: That’s the whole point. I am not sure what the internal politics is… That’s part of the program. This government doesn’t want things in the public. It’s not a transparent government. Whatever the reason or the motivation was, I don’t really know, but I certainly think that there was something going on in the background that made them target those fellows. Otherwise why would they be doing it? There is no crime there.

RT: It seems that the public is divided between those, who think that the government surveillance program violates their civil liberties, and those who say, 'I’ve nothing to hide. So, why should I care?' What do you say to those who think that it shouldnt concern them.
WB: The problem is if they think they are not doing anything that’s wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does, the central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or not they target you. So, it’s not up to the individuals. Even if they think they aren't doing something wrong, if their position on something is against what the administration has, then they could easily become a target.

RT: Tell me about the most outrageous thing that you came across during your work at the NSA.
WB: The violations of the constitution and any number of laws that existed at the time. That was the part that I could not be associated with. That’s why I left. They were building social networks on who is communicating and with whom inside this country. So that the entire social network of everybody, of every US citizen was being compiled overtime. So, they are taking from one company alone roughly 320 million records a day. That’s probably accumulated probably close to 20 trillion over the years. The original program that we put together to handle this to be able to identify terrorists anywhere in the world and alert anyone that they were in jeopardy. We would have been able to do that by encrypting everybody’s communications except those who were targets. So, in essence you would protect their identities and the information about them until you could develop probable cause, and once you showed your probable cause, then you could do a decrypt and target them. And we could do that and isolate those people all alone. It wasn’t a problem at all. There was no difficulty in that.

RT: It sounds very difficult and very complicated. Easier to take everything in and…
WB: No. It’s easier to use the graphing techniques, if you will, for the relationships for the world to filter out data, so that you don’t have to handle all that data. And it doesn’t burden you with a lot more information to look at, than you really need to solve the problem.

RT: Do you think that the agency doesn’t have the filters now?
WB: No.

RT: You have received the Callaway award for civic courage. Congratulations! On the website and in the press release it says: “It is awarded to those, who stand out for constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.” Under the code of spy ethics – I don’t know if there is such a thing – your former colleagues, they probably look upon you as a traitor. How do you look back at them?
WB: That’s pretty easy. They are violating the foundation of this entire country. Why this entire government was formed? It’s founded with the Constitution and the rights were given to the people in the country under that Constitution. They are in violation of that. And under executive order 13526, section 1.7 – you can not classify information to just cover up a crime, which this is, and that was signed by President Obama. Also President Bush signed it earlier as an executive order, a very similar one. If any of this comes into Supreme Court and they rule it unconstitutional, then the entire house of cards of the government falls.

RT: What are the chances of that? What are the odds?
WB: The government is doing the best they can to try to keep it out of court. And, of course, we are trying to do the best we can to get into court. So, we decided it deserves a ruling from the Supreme Court. Ultimately the court is supposed to protect the Constitution. All these people in the government take an oath to defend the Constitution. And they are not living up to the oath of office.






From Senator Rand Paul (R-TN)

Would you want government agents listening to your phone calls? Looking at your email? Spying on your online activity? Chances are they have, and you didn't even know it.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was originally designed to protect American citizens from having government wiretap their phones and eavesdrop on their conversations. But in 2001, the Bush Administration amended FISA through the Patriot Act to allow warrantless wiretapping.

In 2008, the Obama administration further loosened these restrictions. Today, we have a federal government that can go through citizens' private communications-telephone, email, Facebook-you name it.

We know that the federal government has looked at over 28 million electronic records since the FISA Amendment Act. We know it has gone through 1.6 million texts.

When I was given a classified briefing this summer to investigate the extent to which the federal government is spying on citizens, I was required by law not to disclose the discussion. But in determining how many times this has occurred, I can give you a fictitious number-gazillions.

This is not hyperbole. I can assure you, it is quite accurate in describing the number of times government has snooped though American citizens private information. We now have a federal government that is unrestrained by law.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is looking to ram through FISA reauthorization before Christmas. He has made it clear he certainly expects it to be done by year's end.

Senator Rand Paul, a Great Patriot on my book, goes on to talk about a bill, called the "Fourth Amendment Protection Act", that he plans on introducing and he continues on askling for help, funding and calling your legislators.

Government Preparing for Martial Law

UrbanMan: I get a few e-mails from time to time asking my opinion on scenarios that could bring about martial law: if it is possible that our Muslims enemies could generate attacks on the homeland in sufficient density to force martial law;......domestic terrorism such as attacks and bomb threats that some may think the government is behind in some sort of conspiracy in order to generate an excuse for, or a popular calling for martial law; and/or, if an economic collapse or hyper-inflation is sufficient to create wide spread food shortages and riots, would the government implement martial law.

While not a conspiracy theorist by nature, nor believing that the government in all it's capacity would have the resources to control this country by force, it is a bit concerning that in the space of one year the government passing the NDAA and the lesser known NDRP, and is considering a new law authorizing warrantless electronic searches. SO,.....while I remain to been convinced of a larger government plan, I do know that the economy will get worse, affected by natural conditions such as disasters and droughts;....that the dollar will inflate causing much more of our income to go towards essentials such as food and further stimulating a downward slide in the economy as less moeny will be able to expand businesses.

I remain oriented towards planning and preparing for bad times, no matter what the cause. But I do contiue researching and analyzing the potential causes and course of events that would make our preparations a worthwhile endeavor. Below is an article written by Tony Adkins of the Conservative Daily:

A warning from the Conservative Daily

In December of 2011 on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), declaring the entire United States a “battlefield” and giving the U.S. government the right to detain an American citizen indefinitely and even assassinate them, if they are suspected of terrorism—without due process.

Then, in March of 2012, Obama signed the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order (NDRP) that effectively declares peacetime martial law, giving the President authority over food and water, production, fuel, transportation, livestock and more if the government decides it is an emergency.

Since September 11, 2001, the government has found every way to make exceptions to our Fourth Amendment protections and claim legal right to search and seizure of our private property—all in the name of safety, of course. But haven’t the terrorists “won” when America ceases to be America? They want to kill our freedoms and they want us to live in fear. They don’t have to do much, because our own government is moving their agenda along by killing our

The average, law-abiding American may not see the small yet consistent changes in our Bill of Rights protections, but we are the ones who need to pay attention to these attacks on our freedom and stop them before government takes total control. At one point or another, the long arm of the government will reach into every American home and by then, it will be too late to change our path.

Journalist Chris Hedges brought suit against the constitutionality of the NDAA, resulting in federal judge Katherine Forrest’s ruling that it was, in fact, unconstitutional (the Obama administration continues to insist it is within the realm of the law). In an interview he said of the NDAA, “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing. It’s an extremely frightening step backwards for American democracy. And I think that for those of us who care about civil liberties, the right of dissent and freedom, we have to stand up.”

We want to catch the radical Islamists and others who want to kill us, but we do not accept the government eliminating our Bill of Rights protections and having full, unchecked authority while doing it. We cannot give up our freedoms as the government tries to “fix” problems that have already happened.

Our job is to remain watchful of our rights and make sure our government doesn’t take the focus off the real terrorists and begin labeling anyone who simply has a dissenting opinion, the enemy.

This is a concern because the Department of Homeland Security funded a study, which hardly mentions Islam at all, yet labels terrorists as including:

Americans who are suspicious of centralized federal authority; Americans who believe their way of life is under attack; People opposed to abortion; Americans who are reverent of individual liberty

Our warnings on this issue are not meant as “doom and gloom” conspiracy theories or crazy rants with no basis in fact—they are just that, warnings, because we see too much power and control being concentrated in the hands of the government and this regulation crept into the hands of one man in the Oval Office is what has us so concerned.

Many have warned of possible martial law in the U.S., even those outside of it. Igor Panarin, dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry School for future diplomats, lectured in 2009 that the U.S. would begin to collapse in 2010 and compared America to Nazi Germany. He said mass immigration; economic decline, moral degradation and the collapse of the dollar will send America reeling into another civil war.

Regardless of whether you believe comments coming out of Russia, given our current circumstances, that scenario is not out of the question.

Absolute power given to any person, regardless of their worldview, is dangerous. Lord John Dalberg-Acton warned, “Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

Actions being taken by President Obama are not entirely new. The NDRP is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950, which gave the government the power to dispense “national resources” in the event of an emergency. Unlawful detainment of U.S. citizens occurred during the Civil War and under Roosevelt during World War II. What Obama is now doing is “editing” these Acts and Executive Orders to further the framework for a complete takeover by the executive branch, should he declare America is in an emergency.

And since Obama has been President, everything has been an emergency. The stimulus, Obamacare, Internet regulation and war in Libya, to name just a few, have all been pushed because “we can’t wait.” Now, government departments are stockpiling ammunition, checkpoints and riot gear. The U.S. is on the verge of an economic collapse. The United Nations continues to poke its nose into our business and our President is complicit in their meddling.

That is why the current versions of the NDAA and NDRP are so troubling. The NDAA is a broadly vague bill that is needs to be reviewed in its entirety. It is the same Act that allows the government to run propaganda on American people. Its language in direct opposition to what the United States of America stands for. And this is how America dies, slowly, little by little, with signing statements and amendments and executive orders that the American people hardly notice and of course the media giants rarely report.

Why is Congress silent on this? We sent them to Washington to represent our interests and defend our rights under the Constitution. On their watch, we are experiencing the unraveling of hundreds of years of guaranteed and protected freedoms.

Tell them to govern by the Constitution and reject all attempts at destroying it, or we will kick them out of office and vote someone in who will. Fax them now and demand they support S. 2175 and H.R. 5936, which will repeal the mandatory military detention requirement and ban indefinite detention and military commissions from the United States.

Involved citizens like you who keep up with what is really going on in Washington are the last line of defense against tyranny. It is not okay for our government to lock up American citizens without charges or due process. If they will not defend our Constitution, we will.

Congressman Ron Paul says, “The Bill of Rights…is a key check on government power against any person.” Are we willing to let that check be eliminated? Sincerely, Tony Adkins, Conservative-Daily.

Computer Security for Pre and Post Collapse

With the significant amount of preppers that believe in the probability that the coming collapse will be either generated by the Government or will result in a heavy handed Government exerting martial law across the land, I offer this article on computer security.

While the Government has phenomenal capabilities when it comes to electronic tracking and eavesdropping, this capability is spread across many different agencies, so it is not a central location manned by 25,000 intelligence analysts per shift. It is really a bunch of diverse agencies and even separate offices within these agencies who don’t like to share information because it degrades the other’s power and status. So when people try to convince me of large government conspiracies, I always think and sometimes speak out and say,…”Really? This is the same government that is bankrupting social security?...the same government that purchases $3,200 office chairs and $5,000 hammers?.......the same government that wear clown suits to work, shoots funny videos and posts them to You Tube? “

Some of this article came from a Yahoo! article on computer security when shopping, but the same principles apply. See bottom of article on the Poor Man's e-mail communications.

Browsing the web anonymously? Think your online activities are private? Think again. Not only are your surfing sessions tracked by websites, search engines and social networks, but often your Internet service provider (ISP), web browser, government and potentially hundreds of online tracking companies. Whether it's to collect valuable marketing data or prevent terrorist activity, movie piracy or kiddie porn, everything you think you're doing privately in the comfort of your home is anything but private.

But just because you want to spend time online anonymously doesn't mean you're a cybercriminal or have something to hide. Not only do regular folks want privacy, but remaining anonymous can also protect yourself from malicious types out to steal your identity for financial gain — from spammers and scammers alike. And so there are a few things you can do to reduce the odds every click is tracked, archived and shared. The following are a few suggestions on where to start.

Software
How does Facebook know to show you ads for your local gym, supermarket or college? This is because your computer's unique Internet Protocol (IP) address, assigned by your ISP, reveals your geographical whereabouts. Even if your computer generates a different IP address every time you boot up or log online, this number (e.g. 220.165.119.12) can still tell of your general location.

And so there are many different solutions that can hide your Internet connection, allowing you to remain anonymous while online. Some are websites, such as free "online proxy servers" that conceal your identity — simply point the web address (URL) to the proxy server and surf right from their website (check out proxy.org for a list of great options).

Others prefer Virtual Private Network (VPN) software that encrypts your online sessions. The browser-independent Hotspot Shield from AnchorFree, for example — available for Windows, Macs, iPhone and Android — channels all web activities through a personal VPN and secures all Internet communications by turning all HTTP traffic into the safer HTTPS (which is what your bank uses for a safe connection).

Free to use but with more features packed into the "elite" version ($29.95), Hotspot Shield is ideal for email and instant messaging, too, and reduces the likelihood of identity theft because you're not leaving a digital footprint -- including cyber-snoopers and rogue connections at Wi-Fi hotspots, hotels, airports, and so on.

Similarly, Tor is free software that defends you against Internet surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy. Short for "The Onion Router" — which gets its name for its "layered" approach to the encryption process -- Tor provides online anonymity as the software routes Internet traffic through a worldwide volunteer network of servers to conceal your location or online usage patterns.

Use USB sticks.  
In some cases, software to encrypt your connection is kept on a USB drive — therefore you can remain safe and secure even when using a public PC.

SurfEasy ($59.99) is a tiny USB key that fits into a credit card-shaped case to be kept in your wallet. When you plug it into a PC or Mac -- be it your own computer or a communal one -- it instantly launches its own password-protected browser and you're good to go -- no proxy or network settings to configure. Your browsing session is handled through SurfEasy's fast and secure private proxy network.

Your IP address will be masked throughout the session. A fr

ee alternative is called Tails, which can be downloaded and installed onto a USB stick to run independently of the computer's original operating system. Like SurfEasy, it lets you browse the web anonymously -- on virtually any computer — as all connections are channelled through the aforementioned Tor network.

Browser tweaks Anonymous proxy software is a great way to mask your IP address online, but there is still plenty of information about your web surfing habits stored on your computer — which could also be viewed over a network, say, at the office, by your IT department. At least it's somewhat easy to control your privacy settings directly in your web browser — unless your business forbids non-administrators from making changes to your browser settings, that is.

You can disable cookies — tiny text files stored on your computer with information about where you've been online, passwords and other info — and you should also delete your browser history to cover your tracks. All major web browsers — such as Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome or Safari -- allow you to delete your surfing history: simply go to the Options or Settings in your favorite browser and you'll see how to do this.

You might want to turn off auto-complete or someone on your computer could type in a few letters in a search engine or web address (URL) bar and any recent places you visited could fill in automatically. And don't click to allow sites to "remember my password" or someone could gain access to your private or financial information.

The easiest thing to do, however, is to see if your web browser has settings for surfing incognito — most of the major browsers do today. By enabling these privacy settings, your browser won't save any history (and download history), search queries, cookies or passwords. On a related note, Twitter recently announced a "Do Not Track" feature that prohibits the service from collecting info about its millions of users. Nice.

And Microsoft, in June 2012, said its upcoming Internet Explorer 10 browser -- expected to launch alongside Windows 8 later this year -- will not collect data about the online activity of its users by default. 'Do not track' tools and plug-ins Google raised a few eyebrows earlier in 2012 with its revamped privacy policy, which was updated to allow for the sharing of information between its various services such as Google Search, Gmail and YouTube. Therefore, if you search for recipes in Google Search you might be presented with cooking-related videos on YouTube. Handy? Sure. Invasion of privacy? Debatable. You could choose not to log into your Google account when using these services (er, or not use them at all) or you might want to install one of the free browser plug-ins that tell Google and other advertisers to back off.

One called Do Not Track Plus from Abine blocks marketers, search providers and social networks from tracking your online activity — and it's compatible with all major web browsers. After it's installed, a small icon will appear to the right of the browser's address bar to tell you if a website wants to send data from your visit to other companies. Speaking of requiring a login name and password on a variety of sites, some web-based services like Anonymizer can automatically generate temporary email addresses with unique usernames and passwords for any site you wish to access (excluding your bank or shopping sites, of course, or you can't access your account).

Similarly, another solution called BugMeNot lets users post free usernames and passwords for shared access to popular websites like video sharing sites and newspapers.

Poor Man’s secure E-mail
One of the easiest things to protect communications from two or more different people or groups that are geographically separated is to use the same e-mail account. This would require giving the account e-mail and password either face to face or through hard copy correspondence,….yes, the U.S. postal service is good for something.

Each party can access the e-mail account and left a message for the other saved in the drafts folder so the message does not have to be sent out over the internet. The subject line and to address should be benign and fake respectively. Using simple encryption, such as a book code, for the text of the e-mail text can enhance message security from all but the most sophisticated agencies.

Federal Government Planning on Warrantless Surveillance of Your E-mails

UrbanMan's comments: I have always thought that the Federal Government's Law Enforcement Agencies needed the ability to quickly gain approvals for electronic surveillance so they could timely react to threats. I thought that the separations of authority for the various federal agencies would provide some safe guards. I thought the warrant requirements of the Patriot Act would serve to provide Americans with another safeguard on Government intrusions into our freedoms and constitutional rights. Then a report on Yahoo titled "Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants" concerning a Senate bill being proposed by Senator Leahy (D-CT) and reported as being quietly re-written to give not only more surveillance capability but warrantless capability.

I have been middle of the road between people who think the Government is going further and further into a Geroge Orwell envisioned government and the people who think the Government is there to help us. It is the obvious over reach of this bill that not only concerns me about our rights and privacy, but also pushes me to plan to survive in a decayed infrastructure and also in a total collapse, because this is just crazy and a possible sign of things to come.

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

Revised bill highlights

> Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

> Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.

> Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.

> Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

> Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to "reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.

Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said requiring warrantless access to Americans' data "undercuts" the purpose of Leahy's original proposal. "We believe a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents," he said.

An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justice should concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.

Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:

There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations.

The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission.

Leahy's modified bill retains some pro-privacy components, such as requiring police to secure a warrant in many cases. But the dramatic shift, especially the regulatory agency loophole and exemption for emergency account access, likely means it will be near-impossible for tech companies to support in its new form.

A bitter setback

This is a bitter setback for Internet companies and a liberal-conservative-libertarian coalition, which had hoped to convince Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect documents stored in the cloud. Leahy glued those changes onto an unrelated privacy-related bill supported by Netflix.

At the moment, Internet users enjoy more privacy rights if they store data on their hard drives or under their mattresses, a legal hiccup that the companies fear could slow the shift to cloud-based services unless the law is changed to be more privacy-protective.

Members of the so-called Digital Due Process coalition include Apple, Amazon.com, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, eBay, Google, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, TechFreedom, and Twitter. (CNET was the first to report on the coalition's creation.)

Leahy, a former prosecutor, has a mixed record on privacy. He criticized the FBI's efforts to require Internet providers to build in backdoors for law enforcement access, and introduced a bill in the 1990s protecting Americans' right to use whatever encryption products they wanted.

But he also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies, as well as the reviled Protect IP Act. An article in The New Republic concluded Leahy's work on the Patriot Act "appears to have made the bill less protective of civil liberties." Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) a year earlier.

One obvious option for the Digital Due Process coalition is the simplest: if Leahy's committee proves to be an insurmountable roadblock in the Senate, try the courts instead.

Judges already have been wrestling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment to an always-on, always-connected society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant for GPS tracking of vehicles. Some courts have ruled that warrantless tracking of Americans' cell phones, another coalition concern, is unconstitutional.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies already must obtain warrants for e-mail in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, thanks to a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.

Two Threats to Survival Preppers

I have talked to over a dozen people since Obama was re-elected about what that means to Survival Preppers. It seems many are now concerned that without the need or chance to be re-elected second Obama administration can implement not only economic regulations that will hurt preppers but the Government is in position to implement changes to our second amendment freedoms as well as our very liberty.

Some of these people I have talked to cannot articulate what they are concerned about other than gun control. They have some vision of impending economic doom,.... and as middle of the road as I am, I can't say that they are completly mistaken.

I think besides the chance of an economic collapse being greater with a continuation of the the fiscal policies of the last four years, the real two possible threats to preppers are the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

The NDAA authorizes the military to: 1) detainment of persons captured within the United States of America without charge or trial, 2) prosecute said persons through military tribunals for persons captured within the United States 3) the transfer of persons captured within the United States of America to foreign nations (foreign jurisdictions).

Of course this is in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. But the Government's point is to trust them, they will be very select in using the provisions of the NDAA on American citizens. In fact Senator Carl Levin stated on the floor of the Senate that the NDAA did not pertain to citizens of the U.S. But not we now know that the Office of the President of the United States, requested that such restriction be removed from the 2012 NDAA.

What is more troubling is that the NDAA passed the Senate. An amendment from Senator Udall to forbid the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, was was rejected by a vote of 38–60, along party lines.

What this means is that most of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights that U.S. citizens have enjoyed for a couple hundred years now can be taken away by the U.S Government, presumably the Justice Department, using military assets which are free of restrictions of statutory authority that Federal Law Enforcement agencies have. Potential loses of these rights:

The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment);
The right to be free from charge for an infamous or capitol crime until presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury (5th Amendment;
The right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law (5th Amendment);
The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of our peers in the State or District where the alleged crime shall have been committed (6th Amendment);
The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and to confront witnesses (6th Amendment);
The right to Legal Counsel (6th Amendment; and even the right to be free from excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishment with comes from the 8th Amendment;

The threat here is possible and becomes real if the Government continues to lump survival preppers into anti-government threats groups like the right wing militas and anarchists, like they have with various "intelligence reports" from Department of Homeland Security.

UN Arms Treaty,..and It Will Happen

I previously wrote about this back in August - that post is here.

If you think that a conservative House of Representatives would not allow this happen, you are both right and wroing. If it was in the power of the House it would not happen, but the House is not a player in approval/disapproval of this treaty.  Let me write that again"  It does not matter what Congress wants or does not want - this power is in the President's hands.

If two thirds of the U.N. main body (general membership - not the security council) votes for this treaty, then this treaty becomes defacto law for at least four years unless rejected by the President or the Senate. If this treaty goes into effect it will have the effect of a Constitutional Amendment. Let me say that again,....If this treaty goes into effect it will have the effect of a Constitutional Amendment superceding the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court precedence is that International Treaties, that the U.S. is a signature to, trumps U.S. Law. And again, the U.S. will be de facto signatures unless either the President or the Senate reject it.

And speaking of the Senate,....figure the odds on a newly re-elected Barack Obama rejecting this Treaty. Figure the odds on Senator Harry Reid even allowing a vote on this in the Senate. And what is scary is that only a reported 51 Senators, prior to the last election, were against the original treaty. The new Senate will have even more Senators supporting this treaty. The treaty would require nations to register guns and their owners.

Certain types of guns will be outlawed. And the subsequent U.S. Government performance in the treaty provisions will most assuredly require no notice inspections of those people considered to own "arsenals".

The threat here is probably that the UN Arms Treaty will effect gun onwers and since Survival preppers are indivudually responsible for their own security, the ability to own guns and buy ammuniton will certainly be adversely effected by the UN Arms Treaty.

This threat is probable and becomes real if the Government decides to enact compliance with the teay by going after the Survival community because we are open, easy and law abdiing targets,...read "easy targets" to score some initial victories in removing the "excessive guns threats". And since Preppers are preparing to survive a sceanrio where there is not government, we could be seen as "anarchists planning for no government".

Very scary times my friends.

For more information, I suggest going to the excellent Town Hall article on the UN Arms Treaty

Martial Law - The Movie

A patriot known to me and living up in the colder climates of this country sent me a note about the development of a movie depicting martial law in this country.

As the producer advertises on the website, the movie Gray State fictionalizes the possibility of war, geological disaster and economic collapse all conspire to allow the government to exert tyrannical control of the population complete with arrests, disappearances of protestors, branding and RFID chip implantation, military districts and martial law, and ultimately organized resistance.

This is currently a project film looking for funding. The producers also advertise they want to stay away from major funding so they do not lose control over the direction of the film nor the script.

Promising to be a movie about a takeover of liberty by the government after the dollar plunges to zero, the grocery store shelves are empty and everyone is a terrorist subject as neighbor is pitted against neighbor - this movie also promises to be a movie of mass awakening and a warning against complacency and in an implied manner, a warning against a lack of awareness and unpreparedness.

Watch the movie trailer below. One of the quotes that comes across the screen is "When society falls, those who panic - Die First".

Federal Government Stockpiling Ammunition?

There are several articles coming across the net about government agencies stockpiling ammunition. This is generating some concern from the citizenery especially with right wing beliefs that the current Adminstration may attempt some election shenagians or events that would allow the current office holders to remain in power.

And another popular right wing belief is that the government knows it is sinking rapidly and is preparing for population and riot controls.

Recent revelations about Department of Homeland Security purchasing 450 million rounds of .40 S&W Jacketed Hollow Point ammunition and the Social Security Administration buying 174,000 .40 S&W rounds have gotten alot of tonges wagging and fingers typing across the blogosphere.

450 million rounds of .40 caliber, purchased by DHS, over a several year (maximum of five) period of time equates to less than 1,400 rounds per year, per DHS law enforcement officer or agent. With annual qualification and training requiring less than 300 rounds per individual, there is some room to believe that 450 million is an excessive number of rounds. Factor in ammunition requirements for the various tactical teams and specialized units then you come pretty close to validating the requirement.

Then there is the Social Security Administration buying 174,000 thousands rounds for it's approximately 300 enforcement agents with arrest powers. That around 580 rounds per agent, hardly an excessive amount in my opinion. Another angle is why does the Social Security Administration need armed agents and why are they carrying hollow point ammunition, banned by the Geneva Convention and the Land Of Warfare? Social Security agents also investigates crimes.  Well, hollowpoint ammunition is easily justified and has been in current use by law enforcemnt agents for the past,..what? 30 years or so? Hollow point ammunition is actualy safer, providing you hit what you mean to as it has a less chance of over penetrsation and posing a danger outside of the intended target.

174,000 rounds for 300 agents is pretty minimal for training and duty carry equating to 580 rounds per man per year. That would roughly be used as 240 rounds for qualifications; 45 rounds or so for duty carry; and, 290 for training.

While as American Citizens we have a duty to remain vigilant against government encroachment of their powers and the subsequent reduction of our freedoms,....the ammunition purchases circulating around the web are not something we need to be overly concerned about.

I am more concerned the planned hiring of, what?, 16,000 additional IRS agents.  I am more concenred about the price and availability of food.....the probability of food shortages and masses of dis-advantaged people rioting in the streets over hyper-inflation and the collapse of the dollar.   I am more concenred about my own survival stocks and that includes ammunition for my family's own security.   So should you.   

Rehearsals for Martial Law?

There is alot of talk across the internet and no doubt between people face to face about the possibility of a economic collapse and subsequent deployment of the military control or quell the projected anarchy resulting from tens ir not hundreds of millions of people rioting.

There was a story from last week about the Army, actually the Army Reserves, conducting training in residential streets and highways in St. Louis, Missouri using armored vehicles. This was certainly out of the ordinary as the Military has large facilities for treaining at urban environments and even paid role players to serve as the population.

So what scenarios could the military be training for? Is there a realism edge to be gained from working with live American citizens in real suburbs and urban areas? Or is this a rehearsal for some sort of collapse plan where the military conucts security and control operations?

This is troubling to me.  Unless we are invaded by a foreign power, the military has no role, other than a collective supporting role, in domestic issues.    

Glenn Beck has his own ideas on what the military strategy could be. Beck had a interview with retired Special Forces Lt. Gen Boykin and one of the unique considerations was Boykin saying it is worrisome "about these public trainings is the conditioning they have on the public to a military presence."

See the Interview below:

Survival Solutions from Solutions from Science

Solutions from Science, a long time provider of robust solar power generators such as the Power Source 1800 now offers many other items for the survivalist planning on the collapse.
 
Survival Foods, Seeds, Solar Power Solutions, Books, DVD's, Clothing, Crisis Cookers, and other Emergency supplies are available. The book store is pretty impressive and contains all the "how to" books a prepper would need, including one I found on harvesting and saving non-hybrid seeds.
 
One of their most interesting books is entitled "Christian Liberty or Martial Law" which unfortunately maybe be the only choices left to us as life as we know if is rapidly disintegrating right before our eyes. Anyway, check out and book mark this site and check back from time to time.
 
 


This notion of Martial Law is not some far out, whack job theory. With close to 50 million people, about one sixth of our population on some sort of government subsistence, and that number is growing every day, it is only a matter of time until the need for subsistence out grows the Government's ability to provide that subsistence. We will most likely see food riots in huge numbers, making the Occupy Wall Street movement look like family picnics. The government's only control measure will be martial law. I hope like hell this doesn't happen, but the forecast looks good.