Indefinite Detention Of Innocent Americans - Is Martial Law Coming?

Some of you have written me taking me to task for not being suspicious enough of the Government. I would rather think I am just cautious, trying to get the facts before making a decision. However, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) concerns me as it does authorize a warrantless, indefinite detention of Americans by the Military.

This article, titled: Supreme Court Just Approved Indefinite Detention Of Innocent Americans - The defense of liberty has come down to States, County Sheriffs, and We The People, is from Western Journalism.com and begs to be read. Giving the military police powers, and the powers outside the Constitution are very troubling.

America’s founders, largely distrustful of centralized power, created several checks and balances into the U.S. Constitution to help ensure that one person, or one group of people, would not be able to unilaterally exert his or their will over the American citizenry. First, the federal government itself was divided into three separate and distinct branches–each holding the capability (and responsibility) to check the power of the other. Second, the Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution for the protection of individual liberties. Third, the “free and independent states” of the nation retained their sovereignty and independence after the central government was created (by the states), with the Tenth Amendment specifically recognizing their authority and jurisdiction over matters not directly delegated to the federal government.

It was also assumed that the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion would help the citizenry be sufficiently informed and inspired to keep the would-be despots at bay. And, of course, “We the People” are recognized as being the ultimate guardians of liberty by the recognition that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration) The “consent of the governed” was given teeth by the constitutional recognition of the people’s right to wield the power of the voting booth, the jury box, and, as a last resort, the cartridge box.

What has become increasingly obvious to a large segment of the American populace is the complete unwillingness of the national media to hold the federal government accountable. Neither do America’s pulpits provide the moral leadership necessary to maintain good government. The freedom of the press and religion accomplish precious little today in the safeguarding of liberty. And it is also absolutely clear that the three branches of government in Washington, D.C. adamantly refuse to use the constitutional obligations placed upon them to hold the federal government in check.

The latter was made crystal clear by a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the report:

“A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to ‘detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,’ according to critics.

“The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

“The firm of William J. Olson, P.C., which filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of the request for review.

‘The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,’ the legal team said in a statement to WND. ‘The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people–and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.’”

The report continues: “The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to ‘represent an enduring security threat to the United States.’ “Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.

“A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: ‘The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.’

“The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.”

Amici Curiae of the brief included U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Senator Dick Black, Gun Owners of America, the Downsize DC Foundation, the Western Center for Journalism, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, the Tenth Amendment Center, the Policy Analysis Center, the Constitution Party National Committee, Professor Jerome Aumente, and yours truly, among others.

The WND report goes on to say: “The 2012 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with ‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson.

“Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives. [Disgustingly, Montana's only U.S. House member, Republican Steve Daines, who purports himself to be a staunch conservative, voted for the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA, as did Montana's two Democrat Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester. How did your congressman and senators vote? In my opinion, this is a monumentally-important vote; and a vote granting this unconstitutional power to the military and federal police agencies is inexcusable and demonstrates how both Democrats and Republicans will unite together to dismantle the constitutional protections of the American people in the name of "national security."]

“Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.

“It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

“‘It’s clearly unconstitutional,’ Hedges said of the bill. ‘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.’

“Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.” Remember that it was Republican President George W. Bush and a Republican U.S. House and Senate that shackled the American people with the USA Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security–along with the rest of the gargantuan police state apparatus under which the people of the United States are now being forced to live. And it is Democrat President Barack Obama and a Democrat U.S. Senate–along with a Republican U.S. House–that continues to expand the reach of this police state. One thing that both Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals agree on is the construction and implementation of a police state. Under the rubric of “national security” or “law and order,” the Bill of Rights is being systematically and deliberately expunged by both sides of the political aisle.

And now we know the judicial branch of government in Washington, D.C. also refuses to hold the executive and legislative branches of government in check–as if we needed more evidence. Both Republican-appointed and Democrat-appointed justices refused to say a word condemning this draconian abuse of power within the NDAA. By so doing, the Supreme Court showed itself unwilling to stand in between the liberties of the American people and an ever-burgeoning police state.

In fact, when it comes to holding the government in DC in check, when does the Supreme Court ever intervene? Hardly ever! If it is a dispute between the states and the federal government, or between individuals and the federal government, SCOTUS almost always rules in favor of DC.

Once in a while, one or the other branch of government (including the judicial branch) in DC will be willing to protect constitutional liberties from another branch of government in DC; but such instances are the exception, not the rule.

And since the liberties of the American people have few friends in the national media or in the country’s pulpits, the protection of our freedoms has quickly come down to the states, the local media (yes, some local media is still friendly to freedom), county sheriffs, and the people ourselves.

Currently, there is a huge momentum building among State legislatures to begin pushing back against the overreach of Washington, D.C. For example, the State of Texas is squaring off against the BLM over tens of thousands of acres along the Red River border of Texas and Oklahoma; and the State of Utah has already passed legislation claiming more than 30 million acres currently controlled by the federal government. Here is an excerpt from a Breitbart.com report:

“Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R), earlier this year, signed the Transfer of Public Lands Act. This new state law calls upon the federal government to turn over control of more than 30 million acres to the State.”

Plus, more and more county sheriffs are beginning to stand against federal encroachments.

And, of course, just recently, it was “We the People” standing against a brutish, totalitarian-style federal assault against the Bundy family in Bunkerville, Nevada. And among the brave souls at Bunkerville were State and local officials and even county sheriffs. And I was there, too.

As the three branches of government in Washington, D.C. become less and less accountable to the checks and balances assigned them by the Constitution, it is going to require that the states, county sheriffs, and people ourselves become more and more engaged in pushing back against federal overreach and abuse of power.

Government Stocks up on Ammo - For the Coming Collapse?

This article is by Alfred Adask, titled - "Going Postal?: Gov't Co Stocks up on Ammo"

Going postal just took on a whole new meaning. Apparently, Postal Employees are no longer content to shoot each other and are therefore preparing to shoot the public.

We know this because the USPS has joined the list of federal agencies that are stocking up on ammunition and firearms.

For example, the Social Security Administration put in a request for 174,000 rounds of .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point bullets. Do they fear that the retirees are about to grab their walkers and storm the SSA buildings?

The Department of Agriculture requested 320,000 rounds. Do they fear farmers and ranchers-or an attack by cows and pigs?

The Department of Homeland Security has requested 450 million rounds. That's enough bullets to shoot every American about 1.5 times.

The FBI has sought 100 million hollow-point rounds.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also requested 46,000 rounds. Why does a weather service need ammunition?

To date, some two billion rounds of ammunition have been purchased or ordered by a variety of domestic federal agencies. If only one agency purchased ammunition, we might write it off as an aberration. But when seemingly inexplicable purchases are made by a significant number of agencies, we can assume we are witnessing evidence of a general governmental policy. It's not just the FBI, DHS or even the USPS that wants to stockpile ammo-it's the government, itself.

As a result of this stockpiling, many wonder what government has planned for the American people. Confusion and conspiracy theories abound.

UrbanMan comments: I was recently talking to a commercial firearms representative, froma company everyone would recognize, who has been known to me for 10 years. He said he was stocking ammunition at his back country retreat in the east, because he fears what is coming. He said the Government purchases were primarily because of the limited bulk ammunition makers having contrtainsts on raw materials and production scheduleing, so often the large purchases are due to price breaks and delivery scheduling, but again he said words to the effect "that having said that I still belive this country will collapse,......it can't be helped given the totality of the unsurmountable problems we now have, which is my reason for stocking ammunition, food and being situated where I will be after the first indication of the collapse happening."

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said:

"We're seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time. To be honest, I don't understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but [purchasing all this ammunition] doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The amount of ammunition they're buying up far exceeds their needs. It far exceeds what they'll use-they'll never use it all."

Well, let's hope Gottlieb is right. Let's hope the government will never use all of those bullets within The United States of America. But Gottlieb can't be right when he says that purchasing all this ammunition "doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

In fact, major purchases of ammunition by a wide variety of domestic governmental agencies costs money. The government is largely broke. It won't spend more money if it doesn't have to. It seems extremely unlikely that government would spend so much money on ammo without a compelling reason to do so.

The government is generally distrusted and viewed with contempt. It's on shaky political ground. The political implication of domestic governmental agencies stockpiling all that ammunition is that government is preparing for a major armed conflict within the USA. Thus, those purchases must cause a further loss of public confidence in the government. It seems extremely unlikely that government would risk the political fallout of purchasing so much ammo without a compelling reason to do so.

Purchasing all that ammunition may seem incomprehensible to most Americans. However, given the financial and political costs associated with stockpiling two billion rounds of ammunition, it's apparent that those purchases must "make a whole lot of sense" to somebody in a very high position of power.

Gottlieb may be right to say that purchasing all of that ammunition doesn't make sense under current, publicly-perceived economic and political conditions.

But maybe government isn't looking at current conditions. Maybe government is instead looking forward towards a moment when future conditions may become conducive to widespread social disorder and even public violence against government.

To understand those possible future conditions, let's consider reasons why government might stockpile two billion rounds of ammo. I can imagine three:

• To subsidize the ammunition industry;

• To reduce the supply of bullets so the public can't buy them;

• To stock up on bullets to be used to attack or defend against the American people.

Clearly, the anti-gun-rights Obama administration is not intending to subsidize the ammunition industry.

Reducing the public's supply of ammunition presupposes that the government expects an armed conflict with the public and wants the people disarmed. Stocking billions of bullets implies that the government expects an armed conflict with the public and wants to ensure that gov-co has enough ammo to deal with potentially millions of armed dissidents. I.e., gov-co doesn't need billions of bullets to deal with a few "lone gunmen".

Gov-co needs billions to deal with, at least, tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, potentially several million armed Americans who are furious with, and firing at, overnment. Billions of bullets implicitly anticipates a widespread public revolt.

Whatever the exact explanation for stockpiling two billion rounds of ammunition may be, it seems certain that the government views the probability of a widespread and violent confrontation with the American people as growing.

OK-why might such confrontation take place?

Because Congressmen are corrupt?
Because Obama is black?
Because taxes are too high?
Because liberty is being lost? Or,
Because the economy has collapsed, people are starving and therefore rioting against government?

Answer?

As Bill Clinton once said, "It's the economy, stupid."

Americans don't much care about corruption, the President's race (or even place of birth), taxes or liberty. They care about their money, standard of living and the economy. If there's going to be a violent confrontation between government and the people, that confrontation will be based on some sort of sudden and significant economic decline or even collapse.

Government's purchase of two billion bullets for the apparent purpose of shooting the public, indicates that government fears a near-term decline in the US economy that's sufficiently sudden and deep to cause lots of people to shoot.

Therefore, I don't view government's purchase of two billion bullets as a political anomaly or irrational act. I see it as a reliable economic indicator that tells us that government believes there's a growing probability that an economic collapse may soon occur that's sufficient to trigger widespread violence.

We can have a scholarly (or heated) debate on the economic significance of the unemployment rate, the inflation rate, and the price of gold. When that debate is over, we can go home, order a pizza and watch some TV.

But it's hard to engage in a scholarly debate on the economic significance of domestic government agencies buying two billion bullets. Two billion bullets tells us that it's not time for pizza-it's time to stockpile whatever you can afford that you think you'll need if the economy tanks: food, water, guns, ammo, silver and gold. You needn't believe me. But you should certainly consider the economic and political implications of multiple government agencies seeking to purchase over two billion rounds of ammo. Those purchases cause predictions of economic collapse to rise from the level of mere conspiracy theories to the level of a government-validated, growing probability.

EMP Threat From North Korea and Others

This is a good article written by Dr. Peter Vincent, and was published on Family Security Matters. It seems I may have read something similar in 2013, and this article is dated 2014, in any case it is still valid today,...maybe even more so given North Korea's, and not to mention Iran's, continuation of their nuclear weapons programs.

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and Director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, both Congressional Advisory Boards, and served on the Congressional EMP Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA. He is author of Apocalypse Unknown: The Struggle To Protect America From An Electromagnetic Pulse Catastrophe and Electric Armageddon, both available from CreateSpace.com and Amazon.com

Presentation by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

The Atlantic and Conservation Institute

New York City ~ April 10, 2014

North Korea's third illegal nuclear test on February 12, 2013, was followed by increased international sanctions, that prompted escalating threats from North Korea to make nuclear missile strikes against U.S. allies, South Korea and Japan, and the mainland United States. President Obama denied that North Korea could deliver on these threats, claiming that North Korea does not yet have nuclear armed missiles--despite assessments to the contrary by DIA, CIA, and NATO.

Three months earlier, on December 12, 2012, North Korea successfully orbited a satellite, the KSM-3, thereby demonstrating the capability to deliver a small nuclear warhead to intercontinental ranges--against any nation on Earth. The Congressional Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack assessed that Russia, China, and North Korea (with help from Russia) have probably developed nuclear weapons of special design that produce a low explosive yield and high gamma ray output in order to generate an extraordinarily powerful EMP field. The Russians term these "Super-EMP" weapons. Independently, South Korean military intelligence and a Chinese military commentator in open sources credit North Korea with having Super-EMP warheads.

The design characteristics of a Super-EMP warhead are such that it would likely be small enough for delivery by North Korea's Unha-3 space launch vehicle or its Taepodong-2 ICBM.

North Korea during its December 12, 2012 launch of the KSM-3 satellite apparently practiced making against the U.S. a surprise nuclear EMP attack. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union developed a secret weapon--the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS)--disguised as a peaceful space launch vehicle, that could orbit a nuclear warhead like a satellite, to make a surprise EMP attack.

The FOBS would launch southward, away from the U.S., and orbit a nuclear warhead on a satellite trajectory over the South Pole, attacking the U.S. from the south. During the Cold War and today, U.S. Ballistic Missile Early Warning Radars and anti-missile interceptors are all looking north. U.S. National Missile Defenses are blind to the south and not prepared for an attack from that direction.

The first warning of a FOBS attack would be the nuclear EMP burst which could paralyze military communications and forces and would have catastrophic consequences for the electric grid and other civilian critical infrastructures. The Congressional EMP Commission assesses that a nuclear EMP attack that causes a protracted nationwide blackout lasting a year or more could kill up to 9 of 10 Americans from starvation, disease, and societal collapse.

The trajectory of North Korea's KSM-3 satellite had the characteristics for delivery by FOBS of a surprise nuclear EMP attack against the United States. The satellite was launched to the south, away from the U.S., transited the South Pole, and approached the U.S. from its southern blindside--at the optimum altitude for placing an EMP field over all 48 contiguous United States.

President Obama, despite public dismissal of the North Korean nuclear missile threats, nonetheless conducted B-2 bomber demonstrations over the demilitarized zone and strengthened National Missile Defenses (but not in the south).

Amidst the nuclear crisis with North Korea, on April 10, 2013, the KSM-3 satellite was near the geographic center of the U.S., at optimum altitude (if KSM-3 was a nuclear weapon) for placing an EMP field over most of the continental United States.

On April 16, 2013, the KSM-3 satellite was over the Washington, D.C.-New York City corridor--the optimum location and altitude for placing a peak EMP field over the area most likely to blackout the Eastern Grid. The Eastern Grid generates 75 percent of U.S. electricity and is indispensable to national survival. The peak EMP field would also have maximized damage to Washington and New York, the nation's political and economic centers.

Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, on April 16, 2013, on the same day North Korea's KSM-3 was over Washington and New York, saboteurs unknown attacked the critically important Metcalf transformer substation outside San Jose, that services a 470 megawatt power plant and the Silicon Valley. Had the attack on Metcalf destroyed the transformers, cascading failures might well have blacked out much of the Western Grid. U.S. military operations in the Pacific, and against North Korea in a major war, depend upon West coast power projection capabilities.

Power projection to the Pacific and Asia cannot be sustained if the Western Grid is in blackout.

Three months after Metcalf and the KSM-3 orbit over Washington-New York City, a North Korean freighter that transited the Gulf of Mexico was intercepted trying to enter the Panama Canal carrying, hidden in its hold under bags of sugar, two nuclear-capable SA-2 missiles on their launchers. The missiles had no nuclear warheads. But North Korea's demonstrated capability to move nuclear capable missiles into the Gulf of Mexico is eerily similar to the EMP Commission's nightmare scenario of a rogue state launching a nuclear EMP attack from a freighter operating off the U.S. coast.

An EMP attack launched from a freighter near the U.S. coast could achieve surprise, minimize the possibility of interception, and be executed anonymously to escape retaliation. Deterrence and retaliation depends upon knowing who executed the attack.

The nuclear crisis of 2013 may have been an elaborate training exercise by North Korea for an all-out Cyber Warfare Operation against the United States. The Congressional EMP Commission found, and as explained in May 2013 congressional testimony of former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, in the military doctrines of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, Cyber Warfare is not limited to computer viruses and hacking--but includes sabotage, like the Metcalf attack, and nuclear EMP attack. The objective is to destroy the enemy by collapsing the civilian critical infrastructures--communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water--and especially the electric grid, which sustains all the infrastructures, and modern civilization.

All the elements of a total Cyber Warfare Operation were present. Every day the electric grid and other critical infrastructures experience hundreds of attacks and probes by computer viruses and hacking. The Metcalf attack on April 16 may have been practice for a much larger and more ambitious sabotage campaign against the electric grid, as Jon Wellinghoff, former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and many experts believe. The April 16 orbit of KSM-3 over Washington and New York, in the perfect position for an EMP attack on the Eastern Grid, is an astounding coincidence, if it is a coincidence. Three months later, the presence in the Gulf of Mexico of a North Korean freighter carrying nuclear capable SA-2 missiles completes the picture, and checks all the boxes for an all-out Cyber Warfare Operation.

What is to be done?

Former Director of Central Intelligence Woolsey and I have written in the Wall Street Journal that it is too risky to tolerate North Korean launches of their Unha-3 space launch vehicle or their Taepondong-2 ICBM--we should blow them up on the pad in a surgical strike.

During President George W. Bush's Administration, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Ashton Carter, until recently President Obama's Deputy Secretary of Defense, both advocated such a policy. They urged President Bush to surgically destroy North Korean long-range missiles under development--because it would be too dangerous to allow North Korea the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon against the United States.

Now that North Korea has Super-EMP weapons, and the capability to deliver them, preventing their launch of weapons or "satellites" over the United States is even more imperative.

More important than ever, vital to national survival, is protecting the electric grid from EMP and the other elements of an all-out Cyber Warfare Operation. Bills enjoying strong bipartisan support are before Congress designed to protect the grid--the GRID Act, the SHIELD Act, and the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act. But these have been stalled, blocked from a vote, by lobbying from the electric power industry, especially the North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

State initiatives to protect the grid from EMP and other threats have been more successful and appear to be a promising way to achieve progress. Maine and Virginia have already passed initiatives to study protecting their State grids. Florida, New York, New Mexico, Utah, Oklahoma and Indiana have movements afoot to introduce grid protection initiatives, instead of waiting for Washington to act.

Finally, Ambassador Henry Cooper, former Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, has excellent ideas about how we can quickly bolster National Missile Defense with Aegis cruisers and Aegis ashore interceptors to patch the holes in our defenses--especially to the south. Ambassador Cooper is our nation's foremost expert on missile defense. During the Cold War he was deeply involved in efforts to protect our military forces from EMP.

And then we have this article from World Net Daily, titled: "State warns on EMP: There's no help coming". We're glad there is some level of government recognizing the EMP threat. Just too bad it's not the Federal Government.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed legislation to require the state’s Department of Emergency and Military Affairs to prepare materials outlining what citizens need to know to deal with either a natural or man-made electromagnetic pulse event that could knock out the vulnerable electrical grid system over a wide geographical region.

The legislation, SB 1476, was introduced by Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa. It includes the type and quantity of food, water and medical supplies that each person should stockpile in case an EMP occurs over the U.S.

The legislation, however, doesn’t require actual hardening of the grid within the state.

“In our lifetimes the emergencies we’ve seen have been local emergencies, and really all we have to do is be prepared enough to hang on until help arrives,” Farnsworth said at the time he introduced it last February. “With an EMP, there’s no help coming.”

Under the legislation that now is law, the Arizona Division of Emergency Management is to post on its website recommendations such as the type and amount of supplies residents should stockpile to be prepared for an EMP event.

Farnsworth’s more immediate concern was the prospect of an EMP triggered by the detonation of a high-altitude nuclear weapon. The EMP would have the effect of knocking out the vulnerable grid system and any unprotected electronics. “My hope is that by bringing this out, we’ll start discussions and come to the realization that as a government we can’t feed all these people, but as responsible citizens we need to do our part and make individual preparations,” he said at the time he introduced the legislation. A co-sponsor of the legislation, Don Shooter, R-Yuma, had criticized the federal government for not taking a similar public education program. Read the documentation that’s sparking the worry about the EMP threat, in “A Nation Forsaken.”

“It’s too expensive for the government to prepare on a national scale,” Shooter said. “This time around, it’s people who can do the most to prepare. It’s even possible to EMP-proof your electronics. It just takes time.” Shooter said the threat of an EMP event may be small, but “if it ever does happen, most people won’t be prepared. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and warn them now. God puts a watchman on the tower for times like these.”

State Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, was one of 17 lawmakers who voted against the original legislation, criticizing the focus on a catastrophe that he said was a very remote possibility. “Really, we already have a major catastrophe in the state and that’s called our schools falling apart, our roads falling apart and we should be fixing those things,” he said. “Not living in some fantasy world worrying about some unquantified attack or some disaster that’s not gonna happen.”

Survival gear expert Tim Ralston of Scottsdale, Ariz., however, said that there are simple things that can be done to give people “peace of mind.” “The food, the water, everything has to do with electricity. And an EMP in an instant would shut that all off,” he said. Ralston said that less than 15 percent of the Arizona population is prepared for an electrical disruption of 30 days or more. “I think it’s fantastic,” Ralston said of the new law. “I think any time we can take a proactive step to help people become more self-reliant it will help that transition.”

Arizona has taken a lead in moving on the EMP issue.

In February 2013, Congressman Trent Franks introduced the SHIELD Act in the House of Representatives and established in the U.S. House of Representatives the EMP Caucus. The Shield Act stands for Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage. It calls on industry and government to develop, promulgate and implement standards and processes that are necessary to address the electric grid’s current vulnerabilities and shortcomings that would be affected by an EMP.

Franks has been trying to get the SHIELD Act into law since 2011. In the last session of Congress, it passed the House but failed in the Senate. His efforts stem from findings of the congressional EMP commission which spelled out in considerable detail the cascading impact of an EMP on the electrical grid system and its catastrophic impact on life-sustaining critical infrastructures that depend on it.

Experts agree that if there were an EMP event, the U.S. could see some 90 percent of its population affected. Experts believe food, water, energy and other supply systems could be unoperational, possibly for periods extending to years.

Arizona is but the latest state to take action due to the failure of the federal government to address the EMP issue. Last June, Maine passed and the governor signed legislation ordering its grid to be hardened against an EMP. The law not only requires preparation against a natural or man-made EMP, but it encourages other states to take a similar initiative.

Other states, including New York, Texas, North Carolina and Missouri, also are considering EMP legislation.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has failed to look at EMP as a major threat in its 15 planning scenarios, even though DHS officials have testified before Congress that they are very aware of the consequences of an EMP event, whether natural or man-made.

Under Attack: Depth of Federal Arms Race Should Surprise, Shock Citizenry

This is an article by Rob Nikolewski on WatchDog.org published on 3 April 2014. There is no doubt that Federal, and even State and Local Law Enforcement agencies are getting better and more powerful armament, surveillance systems and training....this is often referred to "Militarization of the Police".   The threat, certainly in some cases, warrants an upgrade in equipment, tactics and overall capabilities, however, when coupled with an expansion of original powers or authorities, this can not only spell an out of control agency, but spins the population up as these examples of over reach of powers are highly publicized.   I just don't see the militarization of the police as a conspiratorial plan to implement population controls measures,...however the over reach of authority has me concerned.   

THE LONG ARM OF THE LAW GETTING LONGER

The number of law enforcement agents, such as these from the Environmental Protection Agency, have grown in recent years. In late February, four federal agents carrying side arms with a drug-sniffing dog descended on the Taos Ski Valley in what was called a “saturation patrol.” Authorities were working on tips of possible drug selling and impaired driving in the ski resort’s parking lot and surrounding area.

But the agents weren’t from the FBI, ATF or even the Drug Enforcement Administration. Rather, the agents represented the U.S. Forest Service.

“It’s one of the untold stories about government,” said former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who lives in Taos, is an avid skier and has been a leading critic of the operation that turned up only a few minor infractions. “People don’t grasp the size and the scope of these entities and their law enforcement arms.”

It may come as a surprise to many U.S. taxpayers, but a slew of federal agencies — some whose responsibilities seem to have little to do with combating crime — carry active law enforcement operations.

Here’s a partial list:

•The U.S. Department of Education
•The Bureau of Land Management (200 uniformed law enforcement rangers and 70 special agents)
•The U.S. Department of the Interior
•The U.S. Postal Inspection Service (with an armed uniformed division of 1.000)
•The National Park Service (made up of NPS protection park rangers and U.S. Park Police officers that operate independently)
•The Environmental Protection Agency (200 special agents)
•The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (224 special agents)
•The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
That’s right, NOAA — the folks who forecast the weather, monitor the atmosphere and keep tabs on the oceans and waterways — has its own law enforcement division. It has a budget of $65 million and consists of 191 employees, including 96 special agents and 28 enforcement officers who carry weapons.

“There’s no question there’s been a proliferation of police units at the federal level,” said Tim Lynch, director of the Project On Criminal Justice for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C. “To me, it’s been a never-ending expansion, a natural progression, if you will, of these administrative agencies always asking for bigger budgets and a little bit more power.”

It’s been estimated the U.S. has some 25,000 sworn law enforcement officers in departments not traditionally associated with fighting crime. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and in a tabulation compiled by the Wall Street Journal in 2011, 3,812 criminal investigators are working in areas other than the U.S. departments of Treasury, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security.

Lynch says it’s hard to tell how much money federal agencies spend on their respective law enforcement divisions.

“We need a fuller accounting of exactly how many police units have proliferated in the federal government and how much it’s costing taxpayers,” said Lynch, who said he would like to see members of Congress ask agency officials direct questions about budget and staffing.

The Wall Street Journal reported that, in 2008, agents armed with assault rifles from NOAA, along with officers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, raided a businesswoman’s offices in Miami looking into charges that she was violating the Endangered Species Act by trading in coral.

“I felt like I was being busted for drugs, instead of coral,” Morgan Mok said afterward. “It was crazy.” Mok said she obtained the coral legally and eventually paid a $500 fine and served a year’s probation for failing to complete the proper paperwork.

Why is a law enforcement arm necessary at NOAA?

“NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement protects marine wildlife and habitat by enforcing domestic laws and international treaty requirements designed to ensure these global resources are available for future generations,” NOAA spokesman David Miller said in an email to New Mexico Watchdog, pointing out that the division has existed since 1970. “Our special agents and enforcement officers ensure compliance with the nation’s marine resource laws and take enforcement action when these laws are violated.”

As for the U.S. Forest Service, Special Agent Robin Poague defended the use of the agency’s law enforcement officers — called LEOs — in the Taos operation that resulted in harsh criticism from many residents.

“Rangers were armed when the Forest Service started 100 years ago,” Poague said. “We have a long history of law enforcement.”

Portions of the Taos Ski Valley sit on federal land. If there were suspicions of drug activity leading to the operation in February, why not use the DEA instead?

“U.S. Forest Service land is our primary responsibility, it’s not the DEA’s,” Poague told New Mexico Watchdog by telephone from his office in Albuquerque.

A Forest Service recruitment video says the agency employs about 700 law enforcement personnel. Poague said the service’s law enforcement division was created in 1994. But many other federal agencies established their own after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In the aftermath of the attacks, the FBI shifted its attention to tackling terrorism, and Congress gave permanent powers to inspectors general in more than two dozen agencies. By last count, 25 agencies with law enforcement divisions fall under their respective offices of inspectors general. With their growth has come criticism that officers are becoming overly militarized. “The whole notion of police operations these days, that they’re dressed to kill, that they’re up against an enemy, is wrong,” Johnson said. “Citizens are not the enemy.”

In 2010, the Department of Education defended its purchase of 27 12-gauge shotguns to replace old firearms used by its Office of Inspector General, the law enforcement arm of the department. DoE said the guns were necessary to help combat “waste, fraud, abuse, and other criminal activity involving Federal education funds, programs and operations.”

A year later, DoE Office of Inspector General special agents raided a California home at 6 a.m. to apprehend a man the department said was involved in criminal activity. DoE officials did not say why the raid was conducted, releasing a statement that said, “the office conducts raids on issues such as bribery, fraud, and embezzlement of federal student aid funds.” “In these cases, it causes you to think, is this agency really necessary, is this unit really necessary,” Lynch said.

In an email to New Mexico Watchdog, a spokeswoman for the DoE Office of Inspector General — the department’s law enforcement arm — reported it has a staff of 260 members, 90 of which are criminal investigators. Its budget is $57.7 million for fiscal 2014.

Defenders of the agencies say armed law enforcement provides a deterrent and that agents need to be armed to protect themselves against potentially dangerous criminals. In fact, just last month a Forest Service ranger in North Carolina was shot and killed by a murder suspect, who also killed a police dog. On Jan. 1, 2012, a National Park ranger was shot and killed at Mount Rainier, in Washington state.

Reader Comments, posted on the original article:

I remember back when Paul Harvey said that we are going the way that the USSR used to be , and they are passing us going the way we used to be . The government is arming up to put down the citizenry when a major collapse comes about , I can't even know what it will be , but with what we see happening now has happen in other nations , and has had millions killed in the process our nation has been rather safe over the years and also no nation has lasted as long as ours , but there is coming a time when our own government will be against us , Nikita Khreschev beat his shoe on the podium at the UN in the 1950's and told us that the communists would take over our country from the inside , it appears that it is happening now , as Boobama was a registered communist in the 1990's , most of his Czars are communist in nature , most of the progressives in the Senate and House from both parties are communists , it is here and now and one day , the 3% or more will have to take up arms and fight the hoards of armed federal thugs that will kill us if we do not kill them first , it is not a question of if it will happen but when it will happen . Those of you who think I am full of crap just watch and stay out of the way , because when it starts you can count me in . Used to be a deputy have worked with Feds didn't like them then like them less now ., so I know where I am coming from . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

The government is worried. They know military members and veterans and the American citizens are fed up with them. You can add up all these agencies members who carry weapons and it pales in comparison to the well armed American citizens who are now the largest heavily armed group in the world. Over 300 million private arms sales just since Obama took office that doesn't include the millions of firearms already in ownership prior to that time. Firearms and ammunition is still flying off the shelves. Manufacturers are working a backlog 24/7 trying to keep up with demand. The American public is sensing the approaching storm and are preparing in masse. This trend should be raising the hair on the necks of those who are without. America it seems, has become a volatile powder keg vulnerable to any spark.

You are right. we do have a very powerful military. However even after 12 years of B52 strikes, Spooky Gunships, millions of rounds of artillery and hundreds of millions rounds of small arms and tens of thousands of American soldiers wounded and killed, a handful of guys living in mud huts many with WWII era rifles are still giving them a run for their money. This is not an attack on our military, we have the best, the most honorable and dedicated and courageous guys in the world, it is a statement of commitment about the dedication of the guys fighting them. If only a handful, say one percent, of American firearm owners decided to fight for their rights under the constitution, that would be a standing force of one million defenders.

You can "haha" the thought of an armed confrontation in this country if you like, but I won't, because it would be a horrific event, a terrible ugly disaster for our nation. And for those not keeping up with this kind of constitutional discussion over the last few years regarding sending American troops against our own citizens, a large percentage of American soldiers, from privates to generals have already come out in saying they will not participate in attacks on American citizens.

I don't understand the big resistance many folks have to the idea of defending the constitution. The constitution does not just protect gun owners and constitutional patriots, it protects flag burners and radical left wing writers and all the folks who want to rip it up. You guys better think for a moment about how you would fare under a far right wing government, without the protection of the constitution.

Whether you can see it or not, the continuous militarization of federal agencies is not something you should want to see. Think of it in the terms from above. Would you be happy with federal forces SWAT busting your doors down under a right wing government after you attended a left wing book signing event? Because that is the position you would put yourself in with this kind of power wielded by whatever party the wind blows into power.

I believe this will all come to a head soon. The only reason these armed groups exist is the federal or feral government can afford them. Obama has spent us into a massive depression and when our economy collapses we will most likely lose our position as the worlds reserve currency. When that happens the Federal Reserve Bank loses it privilege to print currency. The feral government will be broke and cannot print money. Obama has spent everything he could and taxed businesses to the point of no recovery so business can't rescue the government. Any payments that are received will all go to interest on the national debt. All the black nylon and Kevlar want-to be soldiers will be without funding and disappear.