If you have followed this story for a period of years, it is actually humorous to reflect on how at one time, anyone who discussed a Bilderberg group and their meetings was immediately labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" and ridiculed by those who primarily received their news from the MSM. This scenario was similar to the labeling of those who discussed government research leading to the HAARP program. Both are now disclosed in the public record as fact and obviously no longer considered as "conspiracy theory". It's funny how these things change and one has to wonder just how many current news stories which are discussed in the "alternative media" are reflexly dismissed by the MSM and their followers as conspiracy for political reasons and censorship. Sadly, as pertaining to the Bilderberg story and the HAARP program story, I don't see any apologies being issued by the thought-police of the MSM/followers.
Meanwhile, news from what used to be America:
Despite President Obama going to great lengths to assuage the American people’s concerns with the increased militarization of federal agencies, a recently disclosed military directive suggests those fears could be legitimate.
Yesterday, The Washington Times disclosed a disturbing Department of Defense directive detailing which instances may be appropriate for the government to use lethal military force on dissenting civilians.
In a December 2010 directive entitled, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” (DSCA), the DoD discusses plans “regarding military support for civilian law enforcement,” which would go into effect if authorized by the President, Secretary of Defense, civil authorities or other qualifying entities.
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” Directive #3025.18 states.
Under the directive, additional authority is also granted to military commanders. From the directive:
“Federal military commanders are provided EMERGENCY AUTHORITY under this Directive. Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the President in accordance with applicable law.. In these circumstances, those Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances…”
Not surprisingly, the DoD order does little to quell the fears of Americans worried over various governmental agencies arming to the teeth, as well as those concerned with increasingly hostile rhetoric geared to demonize Tea Party supporters, liberty lovers, returning military veterans and law abiding gun owners.
Past military literature also outlines several groups the DoD expects to confront in said “unexpected civil disturbances.”
A DoD training manual disseminated last year, for instance, listed people who embrace “individual liberties,” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” likely to be members of “hate groups.”
“Nowadays,” the manual explained, “instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
The manual’s contents dovetails with previous government studies targeting similar groups, such as a study funded by the Department of Homeland Security which characterized Americans “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
Then there are the more tangible threats, such as local police departments acquiring armored vehicles designed for warfare, and outrageous bullet solicitations by federal agencies tasked with providing public services, like the US Postal Service, the Dept. of Education, the Social Security Administration and others.
Labeling the DHS purchases a “glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens,” Capt. Hestilow declared the DHS’s acquisitions “can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America.”
The fact the military has constructed a $96 million training facility in Virginia designed to resemble an American city could also constitute a tangible menace.
While the DoD directive provides some solace for citizens, in the form of prohibiting “armed” drones from being used for domestic DSCA purposes, the concession is overshadowed by the fact that mere years ago the government completely denied the existence of a drone program.
Of course, now it’s just common knowledge that surveillance drones are being used to monitor the borderand are in use by the EPA to monitor farmers and ranchers, in addition to the fact that they were considered for use in the Bundy Ranch standoff last month.
At best, the language contained within the latest DoD directive provides an end run around posse comitatus; at worst, it can be construed as an admission by the feds that they anticipate a future quarrel with at least some portion of the American people, wherein military commanders may be required to make the call to aid local authorities in “controlling the situation.”
Up until that point Gibson had not received so much as a postcard telling the company it might be doing something wrong. Thus began a five-year saga, extensively covered by the press, with reputation-destroying leaks and shady allegations that Gibson was illegally importing wood from endangered tree species. In the end, formal charges were never filed, but the disruption to Gibson’s business and the mounting legal fees and threat of imprisonment induced Juszkiewicz to settle for $250,000—with an additional $50,000 “donation” piled on to pay off an environmental activist group.
With no clear legal standards, a sealed warrant the company has not been allowed to see too this day, no formal charges filed, and the threat of a prison term hanging over any executive who does not take “due care” to abide by this absurdly vague law, Gibson settled. “You’re fighting a very well organized political machine in the unions,” Juszkiewicz concluded. “And the conservation guys have sort of gone along.” Hey, what’s not to like about $50,000?
“We are in terrible trouble as a nation under law,” he says. “When you have a system predicated on jurisdictional interests rather than on specific, identifiable, understandable, definable violations of law, there is a great opportunity for tyranny.” As a result, just about any businessperson, especially in highly regulated industries, can be construed by a prosecutor to have committed three or four arguable felonies a day. “If for some reason the authorities are eyeing you and they look closely enough at your daily activities, they can find something. That makes us all very vulnerable.”
Worse, 95 percent of federal cases never go to trial, because “Justice Department prosecutors have engineered the system to make it too risky to go to trial,” often railroading people who are innocent. “They have built a conviction machine, not a system of justice.”