"We are Preparing for Massive Civil War", Says DHS Informant

[saveliberty]

Government Secretly Prepares To Evacuate Chicago During upcoming NATO Summit! (April 26, 2012) - YouTube

It would take an act of God to get Chicago evacuated period. Oh, and it would NOT be done in secret ever.

 

[MikeK]

In a riveting interview on TruNews Radio, Wednesday, 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.

If this is true the designation "massive civil war" is bureaucratic euphemism for what actually is preparation for suppressive action against civil unrest.

The emerging Third Reich did the same thing in the mid-1930s. It was called Innere Sicherheit and it gave rise to the Gestapo.

Well look at what has been happening to the US over the past 10 years.

1. Patriot Act. (Allows for indefinite detention without notification of arrest or need for charges or trial) Of course there are other terrible parts of the Patriot Act as well.
2. Occupy Wall Street movement (were people actually do get beaten for exercising their 1st amendment rights. )
3. And now we have an EO that sets the stage for Marshall Law.

I don't think that BO is plotting to kill us all, but it sure does set the stage for some potentially bad things in the future.

I mean seriously why aren't Dems upset too. Just think, in the future another crazy might get into office and use all this stuff in bad ways.

"The man in the street does not recognize the devil even when the devil is holding him by the throat." [Johann von Goethe]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Government Secretly Prepares To Evacuate Chicago During upcoming NATO Summit! (April 26, 2012) - YouTube

It would take an act of God to get Chicago evacuated period. Oh, and it would NOT be done in secret ever.

Just the important people would be evacuated the rest are on their own.

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdv5EtZQ6jg]The Road Warrior (1981) - Movie Trailer - YouTube[/ame]

 

[frazzledgear]

AGAIN
It's not America's military duty to do anything with civilians that's up too the state Governors, to call out the state guard

AGAIN

Who said anything about policing???

What would you need a national civilian defense force equiped just as good as the military?

What is it you just can't grasp here Emma? He is asking you (many times now) -why would this country need a national CIVILIAN defense force equipped and armed like the military and with the same powers as the military? Where would they be needed packing that kind of whammy INSIDE this country instead of the military doing that job?

We ALL know the military cannot operate inside this country unless we are fighting a foreign enemy on our own soil. Ok -clearly you get that one. You do realize in the event we are fighting a foreign enemy on our soil -then there is no need for a civilian defense force that is eating up as much money as our professional military and where the money would best be spent. Ok? So the one scenario where the military could be operating inside this country we don't need a civilian defense force eating into their budget and diverting expensive weapons away from those best trained to use them. So in the event we fight a foreign enemy here, it is actually a massive waste of precious resources to divert them to less effective, less well trained civilians. (if you don't understand why a military makes a far more effective and cohesive warring instrument than a civilian force, this isn't the thread for that.) So let's move on now we all accept the only way the military can operate inside the country is in the event we fight a foreign enemy on our own soil. I think we can all agree that isn't the scenario Obama thought an armed and powerful civilian force was going to be needed since it would in fact divert resources from the most effective warriors. So fighting a foreign enemy on our soils is NOT why Obama wants an armed civilian force JUST AS POWERFUL as the military.

So we are talking about a scenario where the military is still banned but the armed and very powerful civilian force is not.

So what possible scenario do you envision where the military is still banned from exercising their powers (war) inside this country - but where a civilian defense force packing the same kind of power the military is not AND would be needed? THAT is what he is asking you -what could possibly be going on here where the military cannot operate inside the country but an armed and powerful civilian defense force could?

 

[ThinkCritically]

what could possibly be going on here where the military cannot operate inside the country but a armed and powerful civilian defense force could?

Let me guess. A massive protest against the government (like occupy wall street, but bigger) where things get out of control, and local police are not sufficient to squash the protesters.

 

[frazzledgear]

what could possibly be going on here where the military cannot operate inside the country but a armed and powerful civilian defense force could?

Let me guess. A massive protest against the government (like occupy wall street, but bigger) where things get out of control, and local police are not sufficient to squash the protesters.

Really? Any protests get that out of control where the feds decide they need to bring in what would in reality be an unconstitutional federally controlled paramilitary group exercising powers it does not have under ANY interpretation of the Constitution -then it isn't just a protest. And any such action by the federal government would immediately mean we have MAJOR problems.

The GOVERNOR is in charge in such instances NOT THE FED. The only time the federal government can claim it has that power is in situations where state government no longer exists at all as the result of war or natural disaster. If it still exists, then it is not within the powers of the federal government to just decide to come in and take over. Even if the fed thinks it could do a better job of it. The federal government is banned from even ENTERING a state without the express permission of the governor who retains the authority to control and restrict what the feds can do even after they are allowed in. So no, the federal government would never call upon some unconstitutional armed paramilitary civilian force and cannot come in and just strip any governor or state government of its authority and powers. The governor, acting as Commander-in-chief of the state's National Guard, would be in charge of quelling any out of control protests in their state borders. NOT THE FEDS. If any state asks for federal help for ANYTHING -the state still runs the operation -federal government may NOT usurp the authority and power of a governor and just take over. This is because in any given state the fed is the LEAST likely to have a good grip of events on the ground over state and local authorities. So there is ZERO need for ANY armed civilian security force under the control of the federal government!

Governors have plenty of powers to deal with local protests and even if their own National Guard units are not sufficient, they are more likely to seek assistance from the governors of adjoining states before calling in the feds. Calling in the feds is perceived to be only slightly preferable to calling in France to help with the protests. Avoided at all costs, they don't like it, it bites them in the ass come election time because it is an admission they are not capable of doing the job they were elected to do.

Americans are no longer taught the proper role of all levels of government in the country, their specific powers AND restrictions - and encouraged to believe whatever the problem, bigger and more powerful federal government is not only going to be the best answer, it will be the only answer. (In truth it is rarely the only answer and rarer still that it would be the best answer.) Our system is one where the federal government is NOT the government of the people -it is the government of the STATES. It is why the STATES elect our President and is not chosen by a direct popular vote. It is why you can't vote for any Congressional representative but those from your own state. It is why we are called the United STATES of America and not The People's Republic of America. The federal government is not supposed to have any powers over the individual -that falls under state powers. That one is important and actually key to avoiding a totalitarian state. The founders never intended the federal government to have any power to control the life of the individual. Our system is in effect, 50 little nations unto themselves banded together under one flag for the purpose of very limited, specific reasons -primarily for the joint defense against a common enemy and interstate commerce to prevent states from gouging each other during the trade of goods and services. The founders intended federal government to be limited and decentralized -because it is a proven fact that it is government closest to the people that is most responsive to their needs. And that isn't the feds.

I think the left (correctly) figures in the event of a civil war, our military is for the most part unlikely going to be on their side -and want to even out their odds a bit with their own little Constitution dodging military with the VERY same identical powers and budget to kind of even their odds. Let's get real -because without a civil war, there is absolutely no point to the existence of an armed civilian paramilitary organization that is as powerful as the military with the same budget as our military. None. It was and still is something for which there is NO Constitutional authority or justification whatsoever.

 

[daws101]

what could possibly be going on here where the military cannot operate inside the country but a armed and powerful civilian defense force could?

Let me guess. A massive protest against the government (like occupy wall street, but bigger) where things get out of control, and local police are not sufficient to squash the protesters.

Really? Any protests get that out of control where the feds decide they need to bring in what would in reality be an unconstitutional federally controlled paramilitary group exercising powers it does not have under ANY interpretation of the Constitution -then it isn't just a protest. And any such action by the federal government would immediately mean we have MAJOR problems.

The GOVERNOR is in charge in such instances NOT THE FED. The only time the federal government can claim it has that power is in situations where state government no longer exists at all as the result of war or natural disaster. If it still exists, then it is not within the powers of the federal government to just decide to come in and take over. Even if the fed thinks it could do a better job of it. The federal government is banned from even ENTERING a state without the express permission of the governor who retains the authority to control and restrict what the feds can do even after they are allowed in. So no, the federal government would never call upon some unconstitutional armed paramilitary civilian force and cannot come in and just strip any governor or state government of its authority and powers. The governor, acting as Commander-in-chief of the state's National Guard, would be in charge of quelling any out of control protests in their state borders. NOT THE FEDS. If any state asks for federal help for ANYTHING -the state still runs the operation -federal government may NOT usurp the authority and power of a governor and just take over. This is because in any given state the fed is the LEAST likely to have a good grip of events on the ground over state and local authorities. So there is ZERO need for ANY armed civilian security force under the control of the federal government!

Governors have plenty of powers to deal with local protests and even if their own National Guard units are not sufficient, they are more likely to seek assistance from the governors of adjoining states before calling in the feds. Calling in the feds is perceived to be only slightly preferable to calling in France to help with the protests. Avoided at all costs, they don't like it, it bites them in the ass come election time because it is an admission they are not capable of doing the job they were elected to do.

Americans are no longer taught the proper role of all levels of government in the country, their specific powers AND restrictions - and encouraged to believe whatever the problem, bigger and more powerful federal government is not only going to be the best answer, it will be the only answer. (In truth it is rarely the only answer and rarer still that it would be the best answer.) Our system is one where the federal government is NOT the government of the people -it is the government of the STATES. It is why the STATES elect our President and is not chosen by a direct popular vote. It is why you can't vote for any Congressional representative but those from your own state. It is why we are called the United STATES of America and not The People's Republic of America. The federal government is not supposed to have any powers over the individual -that falls under state powers. That one is important and actually key to avoiding a totalitarian state. The founders never intended the federal government to have any power to control the life of the individual. Our system is in effect, 50 little nations unto themselves banded together under one flag for the purpose of very limited, specific reasons -primarily for the joint defense against a common enemy and interstate commerce to prevent states from gouging each other during the trade of goods and services. The founders intended federal government to be limited and decentralized -because it is a proven fact that it is government closest to the people that is most responsive to their needs. And that isn't the feds.

I think the left (correctly) figures in the event of a civil war, our military is for the most part unlikely going to be on their side -and want to even out their odds a bit with their own little Constitution dodging military with the VERY same identical powers and budget to kind of even their odds. Let's get real -because without a civil war, there is absolutely no point to the existence of an armed civilian paramilitary organization that is as powerful as the military with the same budget as our military. None. It was and still is something for which there is NO Constitutional authority or justification whatsoever.

I love to read the ramblings of the next civil war fantasist's as if it was 1861 all over again.
first of all the military would not pick a side.
why? they would most likely be busy guarding the borders.
has it ever occurred to any of you that a civil war would be just the ticket for an invasion
from any country or group INCLUDING AMERICANS that has an ax to grind against the U.S.
who would keep the power grid working or water, sewage gas etc..
how many of you Monday morning warriors even has the most basic survival skills?
medical training?
are you willing to shoot your neighbors their kids , or your own family members and friends for your cause ?
what will you do when the food runs out ?
or the gas?
or a hard winter or drought.
what will you do if an epidemic breaks out?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let me guess. A massive protest against the government (like occupy wall street, but bigger) where things get out of control, and local police are not sufficient to squash the protesters.

Really? Any protests get that out of control where the feds decide they need to bring in what would in reality be an unconstitutional federally controlled paramilitary group exercising powers it does not have under ANY interpretation of the Constitution -then it isn't just a protest. And any such action by the federal government would immediately mean we have MAJOR problems.

The GOVERNOR is in charge in such instances NOT THE FED. The only time the federal government can claim it has that power is in situations where state government no longer exists at all as the result of war or natural disaster. If it still exists, then it is not within the powers of the federal government to just decide to come in and take over. Even if the fed thinks it could do a better job of it. The federal government is banned from even ENTERING a state without the express permission of the governor who retains the authority to control and restrict what the feds can do even after they are allowed in. So no, the federal government would never call upon some unconstitutional armed paramilitary civilian force and cannot come in and just strip any governor or state government of its authority and powers. The governor, acting as Commander-in-chief of the state's National Guard, would be in charge of quelling any out of control protests in their state borders. NOT THE FEDS. If any state asks for federal help for ANYTHING -the state still runs the operation -federal government may NOT usurp the authority and power of a governor and just take over. This is because in any given state the fed is the LEAST likely to have a good grip of events on the ground over state and local authorities. So there is ZERO need for ANY armed civilian security force under the control of the federal government!

Governors have plenty of powers to deal with local protests and even if their own National Guard units are not sufficient, they are more likely to seek assistance from the governors of adjoining states before calling in the feds. Calling in the feds is perceived to be only slightly preferable to calling in France to help with the protests. Avoided at all costs, they don't like it, it bites them in the ass come election time because it is an admission they are not capable of doing the job they were elected to do.

Americans are no longer taught the proper role of all levels of government in the country, their specific powers AND restrictions - and encouraged to believe whatever the problem, bigger and more powerful federal government is not only going to be the best answer, it will be the only answer. (In truth it is rarely the only answer and rarer still that it would be the best answer.) Our system is one where the federal government is NOT the government of the people -it is the government of the STATES. It is why the STATES elect our President and is not chosen by a direct popular vote. It is why you can't vote for any Congressional representative but those from your own state. It is why we are called the United STATES of America and not The People's Republic of America. The federal government is not supposed to have any powers over the individual -that falls under state powers. That one is important and actually key to avoiding a totalitarian state. The founders never intended the federal government to have any power to control the life of the individual. Our system is in effect, 50 little nations unto themselves banded together under one flag for the purpose of very limited, specific reasons -primarily for the joint defense against a common enemy and interstate commerce to prevent states from gouging each other during the trade of goods and services. The founders intended federal government to be limited and decentralized -because it is a proven fact that it is government closest to the people that is most responsive to their needs. And that isn't the feds.

I think the left (correctly) figures in the event of a civil war, our military is for the most part unlikely going to be on their side -and want to even out their odds a bit with their own little Constitution dodging military with the VERY same identical powers and budget to kind of even their odds. Let's get real -because without a civil war, there is absolutely no point to the existence of an armed civilian paramilitary organization that is as powerful as the military with the same budget as our military. None. It was and still is something for which there is NO Constitutional authority or justification whatsoever.

I love to read the ramblings of the next civil war fantasist's as if it was 1861 all over again.
first of all the military would not pick a side.
why? they would most likely be busy guarding the borders.
has it ever occurred to any of you that a civil war would be just the ticket for an invasion
from any country or group INCLUDING AMERICANS that has an ax to grind against the U.S.
who would keep the power grid working or water, sewage gas etc..
how many of you Monday morning warriors even has the most basic survival skills?
medical training?
are you willing to shoot your neighbors their kids , or your own family members and friends for your cause ?
what will you do when the food runs out ?
or the gas?
or a hard winter or drought.
what will you do if an epidemic breaks out?

Blame the government when it happens people are fed up with the government and it's over reach of authority

 

[daws101]

Really? Any protests get that out of control where the feds decide they need to bring in what would in reality be an unconstitutional federally controlled paramilitary group exercising powers it does not have under ANY interpretation of the Constitution -then it isn't just a protest. And any such action by the federal government would immediately mean we have MAJOR problems.

The GOVERNOR is in charge in such instances NOT THE FED. The only time the federal government can claim it has that power is in situations where state government no longer exists at all as the result of war or natural disaster. If it still exists, then it is not within the powers of the federal government to just decide to come in and take over. Even if the fed thinks it could do a better job of it. The federal government is banned from even ENTERING a state without the express permission of the governor who retains the authority to control and restrict what the feds can do even after they are allowed in. So no, the federal government would never call upon some unconstitutional armed paramilitary civilian force and cannot come in and just strip any governor or state government of its authority and powers. The governor, acting as Commander-in-chief of the state's National Guard, would be in charge of quelling any out of control protests in their state borders. NOT THE FEDS. If any state asks for federal help for ANYTHING -the state still runs the operation -federal government may NOT usurp the authority and power of a governor and just take over. This is because in any given state the fed is the LEAST likely to have a good grip of events on the ground over state and local authorities. So there is ZERO need for ANY armed civilian security force under the control of the federal government!

Governors have plenty of powers to deal with local protests and even if their own National Guard units are not sufficient, they are more likely to seek assistance from the governors of adjoining states before calling in the feds. Calling in the feds is perceived to be only slightly preferable to calling in France to help with the protests. Avoided at all costs, they don't like it, it bites them in the ass come election time because it is an admission they are not capable of doing the job they were elected to do.

Americans are no longer taught the proper role of all levels of government in the country, their specific powers AND restrictions - and encouraged to believe whatever the problem, bigger and more powerful federal government is not only going to be the best answer, it will be the only answer. (In truth it is rarely the only answer and rarer still that it would be the best answer.) Our system is one where the federal government is NOT the government of the people -it is the government of the STATES. It is why the STATES elect our President and is not chosen by a direct popular vote. It is why you can't vote for any Congressional representative but those from your own state. It is why we are called the United STATES of America and not The People's Republic of America. The federal government is not supposed to have any powers over the individual -that falls under state powers. That one is important and actually key to avoiding a totalitarian state. The founders never intended the federal government to have any power to control the life of the individual. Our system is in effect, 50 little nations unto themselves banded together under one flag for the purpose of very limited, specific reasons -primarily for the joint defense against a common enemy and interstate commerce to prevent states from gouging each other during the trade of goods and services. The founders intended federal government to be limited and decentralized -because it is a proven fact that it is government closest to the people that is most responsive to their needs. And that isn't the feds.

I think the left (correctly) figures in the event of a civil war, our military is for the most part unlikely going to be on their side -and want to even out their odds a bit with their own little Constitution dodging military with the VERY same identical powers and budget to kind of even their odds. Let's get real -because without a civil war, there is absolutely no point to the existence of an armed civilian paramilitary organization that is as powerful as the military with the same budget as our military. None. It was and still is something for which there is NO Constitutional authority or justification whatsoever.

I love to read the ramblings of the next civil war fantasist's as if it was 1861 all over again.
first of all the military would not pick a side.
why? they would most likely be busy guarding the borders.
has it ever occurred to any of you that a civil war would be just the ticket for an invasion
from any country or group INCLUDING AMERICANS that has an ax to grind against the U.S.
who would keep the power grid working or water, sewage gas etc..
how many of you Monday morning warriors even has the most basic survival skills?
medical training?
are you willing to shoot your neighbors their kids , or your own family members and friends for your cause ?
what will you do when the food runs out ?
or the gas?
or a hard winter or drought.
what will you do if an epidemic breaks out?

Blame the government when it happens people are fed up with the government and it's over reach of authority

miss the point much?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love to read the ramblings of the next civil war fantasist's as if it was 1861 all over again.
first of all the military would not pick a side.
why? they would most likely be busy guarding the borders.
has it ever occurred to any of you that a civil war would be just the ticket for an invasion
from any country or group INCLUDING AMERICANS that has an ax to grind against the U.S.
who would keep the power grid working or water, sewage gas etc..
how many of you Monday morning warriors even has the most basic survival skills?
medical training?
are you willing to shoot your neighbors their kids , or your own family members and friends for your cause ?
what will you do when the food runs out ?
or the gas?
or a hard winter or drought.
what will you do if an epidemic breaks out?

Blame the government when it happens people are fed up with the government and it's over reach of authority

miss the point much?

Did you miss the point yes you did. People are not going to continue sitting on their ass when things are bad and a government that is over reaching it's authority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In a riveting interview on TruNews Radio, Wednesday, 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. Continued

Comment: And the Police State keeps growing.

Doug? Laughter rings out in the universe. Stay tuned.

 

[daws101]

Blame the government when it happens people are fed up with the government and it's over reach of authority

miss the point much?

Did you miss the point yes you did. People are not going to continue sitting on their ass when things are bad and a government that is over reaching it's authority.

no didn't miss you're rationalizing.
what people?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

miss the point much?

Did you miss the point yes you did. People are not going to continue sitting on their ass when things are bad and a government that is over reaching it's authority.

no didn't miss you're rationalizing.
what people?

The American people

 

[daws101]

Did you miss the point yes you did. People are not going to continue sitting on their ass when things are bad and a government that is over reaching it's authority.

no didn't miss you're rationalizing.
what people?

The American people

kinda ambiguous wouldn't you say?
isn't the government made up of American people?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc (I am whistling for him now to appear) thinks the four people with whom he associates functions as We the People, when We the People in fact will crush without any government help the militia nuts should they arise.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

no didn't miss you're rationalizing.
what people?

The American people

kinda ambiguous wouldn't you say?
isn't the government made up of American people?

So you think the people are to stupid to fight the government? What makes you think that? People will only be stepped on for so long and they start stepping on the oppressor

 

[daws101]

The American people

kinda ambiguous wouldn't you say?
isn't the government made up of American people?

So you think the people are to stupid to fight the government? What makes you think that? People will only be stepped on for so long and they start stepping on the oppressor

did you rehearse that ?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

kinda ambiguous wouldn't you say?
isn't the government made up of American people?

So you think the people are to stupid to fight the government? What makes you think that? People will only be stepped on for so long and they start stepping on the oppressor

did you rehearse that ?

Are you so overwhelmingly stupid?

 

[daws101]

So you think the people are to stupid to fight the government? What makes you think that? People will only be stepped on for so long and they start stepping on the oppressor

did you rehearse that ?

Are you so overwhelmingly stupid?

not at all, those lines are so hackneyed, and used to death, it gave me the impression you were trying out for a role in a chuck Norris movie!