Are the drug gang members getting DHS uniforms as they cross the border into the USA (yet)?
And you think we're not in "the last days?"
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
A huge duh for this one, for those who haven’t figured out how USG/Obama are fullfilling their goal to create a homeland force as powerful as the US military, to control USA. All those MRAP Armored Cars and SWAT teams _are_ it; militarized police, Federally funded and overseen.
In making the case for shutting down the de facto national police agency, analyst Charles Kenny offers the following six reasons: one, the agency lacks leadership; two, terrorism is far less of a threat than it is made out to be; three, the FBI has actually stopped more alleged terrorist attacks than DHS; four, the agency wastes exorbitant amounts of money with little to show for it; five, “An overweight DHS gets a free pass to infringe civil liberties without a shred of economic justification”; and six, the agency is just plain bloated.
It's difficult to stop a police state once incentives and personnel are in place. But, God Willing, there's still time to stop this one...
Yes, as it was always intended to be since the day it was conceived.
This was one of several areas I was totally opposed to bush for doing. there was absolutely no good that was going to come from it and I am vindicated.
And people wonder why the rapid rise in fatalities among LEOs. I certainly don’t condone violence against those sworn to protect us against the worst element of society, but I do understand a citizenry that increasingly refuses to accept police thuggery as the lesser of two evils.
The Standing army is the large U.S. Army standing sense world War 2.
The Department of Homeland Security would be more accurately described as an occupying army. They do not simply stand ready to assault our rights, they actively do so.
Yup. Been preaching this for years now and it is amazing how ignorant so many Americans are. As long a the Feds fed and give them money to play with we never recover. Remember Romney's 47 percent?
By the way, miss Romney yet? Come on hard noses, pass along some more of your horse stuff.
No it’s nothing of the sort. It is a massive welfare program populated by useful idiots that can produce some of the most mind blowing cluster f***so you have ever seen.
This article was written by an ignoramus.
They’ll run like the Iraqis when they are faced with millions of patriotic citizens armed to the teeth.
DHS, not so much.
Well I think Bam thinks they are his Civilian National Defense Force. But look how well the BLM performed agains’t some combat vets at the Bundy Ranch. They are not military and all the tactical gear in the world won’t make them military.
Wait tell you run into one of these ass hats on personal level. Had a talk with one a year and half ago and it was a hoot. They don’t like being told go away and leave you alone and you won’t tell them a thing. Kind of looked like that puffer fish you see on N.G. show. Turned red in the face and threated all kinds of bad stuff would happen to me. I just walked away laughing and that was the last I seen of that fool.
To kill a snake you take off its head!
We were warned of the formation of a National Police Force back in 1970.
Those who warned us were considered right wing “nuts”.
They were right after all.
Take a walk through any DHS office. Then ask yourself this: If I were a general, would I want to lead these fat, 70 IQ slobs onto a battlefield?
Pentagon Preparing for Mass Civil Unrest
The Pentagon is pictured December 26, 2011
A US Department of Defense (DoD) research programme is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US military agencies. The multi-million dollar programme is designed to develop immediate and long-term “warfighter-relevant insights” for senior officials and decision makers in “the defense policy community,” and to inform policy implemented by “combatant commands.”
Launched in 2008 – the year of the global banking crisis – the DoD ‘Minerva Research Initiative’ partners with universities “to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US.”
Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model “of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions.” The project will determine the “critical mass (tipping point)” of social contagions by studying their “digital traces” in the cases of “the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey.”
Twitter posts and conversations will be examined “to identify individuals mobilised in a social contagion and when they become mobilised.”
Another project awarded this year to the University of Washington “seeks to uncover the conditions under which political movements aimed at large-scale political and economic change originate,” along with their “characteristics and consequences.” The project, managed by the US Army Research Office, focuses on “large-scale movements involving more than 1,000 participants in enduring activity,” and will cover 58 countries in total.
Last year, the DoD’s Minerva Initiative funded a project to determine ‘Who Does Not Become a Terrorist, and Why?’ which, however, conflates peaceful activists with “supporters of political violence” who are different from terrorists only in that they do not embark on “armed militancy” themselves. The project explicitly sets out to study non-violent activists:
“In every context we find many individuals who share the demographic, family, cultural, and/or socioeconomic background of those who decided to engage in terrorism, and yet refrained themselves from taking up armed militancy, even though they were sympathetic to the end goals of armed groups. The field of terrorism studies has not, until recently, attempted to look at this control group. This project is not about terrorists, but about supporters of political violence.”
The project’s 14 case studies each “involve extensive interviews with ten or more activists and militants in parties and NGOs who, though sympathetic to radical causes, have chosen a path of non-violence.”
I contacted the project’s principal investigator, Prof Maria Rasmussen of the US Naval Postgraduate School, asking why non-violent activists working for NGOs should be equated to supporters of political violence – and which “parties and NGOs” were being investigated – but received no response.
Similarly, Minerva programme staff refused to answer a series of similar questions I put to them, including asking how “radical causes” promoted by peaceful NGOs constituted a potential national security threat of interest to the DoD.
Among my questions, I asked:
“Does the US Department of Defense see protest movements and social activism in different parts of the world as a threat to US national security? If so, why? Does the US Department of Defense consider political movements aiming for large scale political and economic change as a national security matter? If so, why? Activism, protest, ‘political movements’ and of course NGOs are a vital element of a healthy civil society and democracy - why is it that the DoD is funding research to investigate such issues?”