Referred to as the “secret government” of the United States in a wide variance of historical circles, the Federal Emergency Management Agency isn’t recognized as a standard elected body, and, as such, actively conceals its involvement in the geopolitical arena from the realm of public disclosure. This government organization possesses a significantly higher degree of authority/ power than the President of the United States or Congress.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) can enact political sanctions independent of the current administrative mandate allowing it to suspend laws, displace entire populations, arrest/ detain citizens without a warrant and without trial or the benefit of council, seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, nullify the Constitution, etc. FEMA, purportedly the most powerful entity present within the Federal Government, wasn’t even created under Constitutional law by Congressional representatives. FEMA was a product of a Presidential Executive Order conceived in the Richard Nixon Administration, it was subsequently refined by President Jimmy Carter during his tenure and given a higher degree of significance in the Reagan and Bush eras.
FEMA’s actualization is based primarily on the following premise: preserving the continuity of governance in the event of thermonuclear conflagration. It also assumes the principal mantle of authority during the course of domestic-level exigencies, serving as the proprietary federal coordinating intercessor in the event of tectonic disturbances, floods, and climatological anomalies.
Its prodigious scope of influence manifesting at an exponential rate of increase during the military service tenures of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and General Richard Secord (Widely acknowledged by various reporting and investigational agencies as the architects of the Iran-Contra Affair as well as the looting of numerous savings and loan institutions within the United States). The Federal Emergency Management Agency has also been given sole authority over the State Defense Forces, a paramilitary accessory characterized as the civilian extension of the National Guard, that, in the event of civil unrest, would assume a proprietary role in security at the domestic level. The affirmation of the above statement provided through the inclusion of the following article of reference:
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Documenting the Establishment of a FEMA-Coordinated Civilian Military Contingent
The notion of a FEMA-coordinated auxiliary extension to the acknowledged branches of service in the United States was formally announced during one of President Barack Obama’s public speaking engagements, a fact evidenced in the following cinematic feature as well as the accompanying visual:
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Documenting the Establishment of a FEMA-Coordinated Civilian Military Contingent
The notion of a FEMA-coordinated auxiliary extension to the acknowledged branches of service in the United States was formally announced during one of President Barack Obama’s public speaking engagements, a fact evidenced in the following cinematic feature as well as the accompanying visual:
FEMA was authored into existence through a series of Executive Orders. A Presidential Executive Order, whether deemed Constitutionally viable or legislatively irrelevant, becomes irrevocable law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congressional authority as well the jurisdictional capability typically ascribed to other areas of governance is effectively nullified. Executive Order Number 12148 established numerous directives allowing for the merger of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the Department of Defense for purposes of civil defense planning and funding. The legal authority of the aforementioned provision was established through the enactment of the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, specifically U.S.C. (United States Code) Title 42 referencing Public Health and Welfare - Chapter 68, which focuses on Disaster Relief - Subchapter IV Section B that deals with the concept of emergency preparedness - §5195a, article 3 - Emergency Preparedness, which is elaborated on in depth in the context of written annotation from the following domain registry:
https://corpuslegalis.com/us/code/title42/definitions353
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
U.S.C. (United States Code) Title 42 - Public Health and Welfare
Chapter 68 - Disaster Relief
Subchapter IV - Section B
§5195a
Article 3 - Emergency Preparedness
(3) Emergency preparedness
The term “emergency preparedness” means all those activities and measures designed or undertaken to prepare for or minimize the effects of a hazard upon the civilian population, to deal with the immediate emergency conditions which would be created by the hazard, and to effectuate emergency repairs to, or the emergency restoration of, vital utilities and facilities destroyed or damaged by the hazard. Such term includes the following:
(A) Measures to be undertaken in preparation for anticipated hazards (including the establishment of appropriate organizations, operational plans, and supporting agreements, the recruitment and training of personnel, the conduct of research, the procurement and stockpiling of necessary materials and supplies, the provision of suitable warning systems, the construction or preparation of shelters, shelter areas, and control centers, and, when appropriate, the non-military evacuation of the civilian population).
(B) Measures to be undertaken during a hazard (including the enforcement of passive defense regulations prescribed by duly established military or civil authorities, the evacuation of personnel to shelter areas, the control of traffic and panic, and the control and use of lighting and civil communications).
(C) Measures to be undertaken following a hazard (including activities for fire fighting, rescue, emergency medical, health and sanitation services, monitoring for specific dangers of special weapons, unexploded bomb reconnaissance, essential debris clearance, emergency welfare measures, and immediately essential emergency repair or restoration of damaged vital facilities).
FEMA has a 6% budgetary allocation reserved for national emergencies, the vast remainder of its expenditure devoted to the construction of secret underground facilities*
*LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Purported Locations of Various Subterranean Military Installations Throughout the Continental United States - Inclusive of Appended Cartographical Reference and Federal Land Allotment Percentiles
Expanded Documentation Referencing the Existence of Numerous Subterranean Military Installations Throughout the Continental United States - 83 Page Dissertation
designed to insure a continuance of governance in the event of a major disaster—foreign or domestic in nature. Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council to act as the exclusive Federal arbiter, responsible for the enactment of legislative mandate pursuant to the consideration of emergency powers. These sanctions allow for an exponential increase in the governments domestic intelligence and surveillance capabilities, directing a vast majority of these activities toward the civilian population in the form of movement restriction and isolation. The National Guard would then be subject to federalization and used as instrumentation in the coordinated obstruction of all borders, in the monopolization and control of U.S. airspace and all ports of entry, etc. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has a significant scope of influence in every conceivable aspect of the nations legislative process. General Frank Salcedo, chief officer of FEMA’s Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he visualized FEMA’s role as a “new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis.” FEMA’s powers were consolidated by President James Earl "Jimmy" Carter to incorporate the following directives:
The National Security Act of 1947 - Legislative protocol facilitating the merger of the Department of War (Eventually christened as the Department of the Army) and the Department of the Navy into the National Military Establishment, a governmental intermediary commandeered by the Secretary of Defense. This legislative provision also established the Department of the Air Force, effectively separating the Army’s Air Force contingent into an independent services appendage. Initially each of the three service secretaries maintained a pseudo semblance of authority within the President’s cabinet, however the amendment of the prior stated directive on August 10, 1949 relegated the aforementioned party to a subordinate role, their personal level of accountability to be determined by the Secretary of Defense. Eventually the National Military Establishment came to be known as the Department of Defense, its inherent purpose recognized as the unification of each of the military branches into a federated amalgam. Apart from the military’s restructure, the act established the National Security Council, a compartmentalized coordination center specializing in the execution of national security policy by the executive branch, and the Central Intelligence Agency. The principal function of this council was to serve as a Presidential Advisory Committee charged with the task of ensuring the cooperation of the military and intelligence communities with the Federal Government. In the context of FEMA’s actualization, the National Security Act of 1947 permitted the strategic relocation of industry, service, and economic activity deemed essential to national function, as well as the rationalization of manpower requirements, resources, and production facilities necessary to administrative continuity within the government.
The 1950 Defense Production Act - Public Law 81-774, recognized as a government initiative enacted on September 8th of 1950 in response to the start of the Korean War. A vital component in the expansion of a civil defense and war mobilization effort executed in the context of the Cold War. Its regulative implementation, the Defense Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS), present within the contents of 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) §§700 to 700.93. The Act itself has been periodically amended and reauthorized on numerous occasions, its scope of influence unchanged. The prior stated measure inclusive of three distinctive provisions, each of them significantly increasing the jurisdictional authority of the Executive Branch. The first requiring corporate entities or businesses to sign contractual agreements with various intergovernmental affiliates of the military and intelligence community; it also establishes the mandatory fulfillment of orders deemed essential to national defense, with each of the aforementioned provisions subject to Executive discretion. The second statute granting the President exclusive authority to establish mechanisms (Examples include the implementation of regulations or formal directives as well as the manufacture of agencies) governing the allocation of material resources, services, and facilities in an effort to ensure the preservation of national security; the third stipulation affording further privilege to the Executive Branch with regard to the monopolization of the private economic sector to effectively coordinate military defense operations at the national level. The Defense Production Act also permits the requisition of individual property rights, the forcible coercion of industrial resources to expand production capacity, facilitate the imposition of wage and price restrictions, act as sole arbiter in lieu of labor disputes, manipulate consumer and real estate credit indices, establish contractual priorities and obligations, and commandeer raw materials for the sole purpose of preserving the national defense - each of these subject to Presidential approval. The President’s scope of authority governing the institution of contractual obligations under the supervisory discretion of the Department of Defense (DoD) is recognized as the single most utilized aspect of the specified provision.
Appropriations Act for the Support of the Army for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1917 - On August 29, 1916, Congressional Representatives passed the aforementioned legislative decree, a provisional measure containing the following stipulations, “The President, in time of war, is empowered, through the Secretary of War, to take possession and assume control of any system or systems of transportation, or any part thereof, and to utilize the same, to the exclusion as far as may be necessary of other than war traffic thereon, for the transfer or transportation of troops, war material and equipment, and for other such purposes connected with the emergency as may be needful if desirable.”
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) - Title II of Public Law 95-223, 91 Statute 1626, enacted on October 28, 1977, is a U.S. Federal regulation granting the President complete jurisdictional autonomy in the regulation of commerce upon the declaration of a national emergency. In United States Code, the aforementioned provision is recognized as Title 50, §§1701-1707. The IEEPA affords the President exclusive authority to declare the existence of an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States” that originates “in whole or substantial part outside the United States.” The enactment of this particular measure further enhanced prior stated Executive privilege, emphasizing the confiscation of personal property/ monetary assets of foreign nationals deemed viable threats to the preservation of security at the domestic level.
Following numerous requests by the National Governor’s Association to effectively centralize federal emergency function, the Carter Administration established Executive Order 12127 in 1979, facilitating the intergovernmental merger of several agencies whose scope of affiliation with FEMA, was, at one point, negligible at best. The government entities specified in the aforementioned association are listed as follows: the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, the National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program, the Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration activities from the HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Authority. Civil defense responsibilities were also transferred to the newly established organization from the Defense Department’s Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.
Hurricane Andrew: An Unforeseen Contingency in the Realm of Public Disclosure
FEMA Mobile Command Center
FEMA and the Martial Law Directive
Former Chief of FEMA’s Civil Security Division, General Frank S. Salcedo, once made a formal proclamation regarding the interpretive assessment of the prior stated agency’s cumulative role in governance, an utterance emphasizing the following, “prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis.” The Constitution, on the other hand, states: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The operative question then, concerns the reconciliation of the General's statement with the First Amendment, in what serves as yet another instance substantiating previous contentions regarding the suspension of Constitutional edict following the passage of the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933. Perhaps the most egregious example of Federal regulation superseding preexistent jurisdictional boundaries is the actualization of Executive Order 12919, a legislative provision also known as the National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness Act, which was signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton on June 4, 1994. What follows in the context of the written statements below is the actual presentation of the aforementioned decree as it exists in the first stanza of its formal publication into the Federal Registry:
Part I of the aforementioned measure is inclusive of its original “Purpose, Policy, and Implementation”:
Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense industrial resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (“the Act”), except for the amendments to Title III of the Act in the Energy Security Act of 1980 and communication authorities under Executive Order No. 12472.
Section 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technology base capable of meeting national defense requirements, and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to all threats to the national security of the United States.
Section 103. General Functions. Federal departments and agencies responsible for defense acquisition (or for industrial resources needed to support defense acquisition) shall:
(a) Identify requirements for the full spectrum of national security emergencies, including military, industrial, and essential civilian demand;
(b) Assess continually the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of adequate industrial resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c) Be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate industrial resources and production capability, including services and critical technology for national defense requirements;
(d) Improve the efficiency and responsiveness, to defense requirements, of the domestic industrial base; and
(e) Foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.
Section 104. Implementation.
(a) The National Security Council is the principal forum for consideration and resolution of national security resource preparedness policy.
(b) The Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall:
(1) Serve as an advisor to the National Security Council on issues of national security resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
(2) Provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance and procedures approved by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs to the Federal departments and agencies under this order;
(3) Establish procedures, in consultation with Federal departments and agencies assigned functions under this order, to resolve in a timely and active manner conflicts and issues that may arise in implementing the authorities and functions delegated under this order; and
(4) Report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.
(c) The head of every Federal department and agency assigned functions under this order shall ensure that the performance of these functions is consistent with National Security Council policy and guidelines.
NOTE - The stipulated measures outlined in the contents of Section 104, specifically subcategory (b) - numerical index (3), reference the imposition of Martial Rule, with the Federal Emergency Management Agency assuming a proprietary role in the delegation and enforcement of authority.
The formative integration of Executive Order 11490, a legislative measure also known as the “Omnibus Emergency Preparedness Decree” - which was ratified into law on October 28th of 1969 by then President Richard Nixon, into the prior stated amalgam allows for the allocation of resources by Federal agencies in the interest of establishing a civilian labor force for the express purpose of disaster preparedness. Howard J. Ruff, economist and publisher of The Ruff Times issued the following statement regarding the passage of the aforementioned imposition, “Since the enactment of that Order, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would still stand for it.” Frederick Douglass, widely acknowledged by numerous scholars in the realm of political discourse as the first civil rights activist, was quoted as saying that the limits of a tyrant’s power are set by the willingness of the people to tolerate him. Diana Reynolds, scholar and program director of the Edward R. Murrow Center, summed up the dangers surrounding FEMA in its present incarnation and the general public’s reaction to the imposition of Martial Rule in the event of a national emergency (In this particular instance several references have been made with regard to the Federal Government’s supposed commitment to end the ‘War on Drugs’), offering the following perspective:
“It was James Madison’s worst nightmare that a righteous faction would someday be strong enough to sweep away the Constitutional restraints designed by the framers to prevent the tyranny of centralized power, excessive privilege, an arbitrary governmental authority over the individual. These restraints, the balancing and checking of powers among branches and layers of government, and the civil guarantees, would be the first casualties in a drug-induced national security state with Reagan’s Civil Emergency Preparedness unleashed. Nevertheless, there would be those who would welcome the NSC (National Security Council) into the drug fray, believing that increasing state police powers to emergency levels is the only way left to fight America’s enemy within. In the short run, a national security state would probably be a relief to those whose personal security and quality of life has been diminished by drugs or drug related crime. And, as the general public watches the progression of institutional chaos and social decay, they too may be willing to pay the ultimate price, one drug free America for 200 years of democracy.”
The Concept of Extrajudicial Authority in Conjunction With the Implementation of National Emergency Preparedness Directives
A national contingency program involving the implementation of martial law, the forcible relocation of urban population centers, and the arrest and detainment of various civilian factions. According to scholar and program director of the Edward R. Murrow Center, Diana Reynolds: The Rex 84 Alpha Explan (Readiness Exercise 1984, Alpha Exercise Plan - a continuity of government provision), indicates that FEMA, in association with 34 other federally subsidized departments and agencies, conducted a civil readiness exercise from April 5-April 13, 1984. It was conducted in simultaneity with a Joint Chiefs exercise known as Night Train 84 - a worldwide military command post exercise (inclusive of the Continental United States Forces or CONUS) based on the likelihood of exigencies occurring both abroad and within the domestic periphery.
The following cinematic references offer a greater degree of insight into that exact nature of this subject:
The following cinematic references offer a greater degree of insight into that exact nature of this subject:
The enactment of the Readiness Exercise 1984/ REX-84 initiative was based on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of undocumented immigrants traversed the US/ Mexican border, they would be subject to immediate arrest and detainment by various law enforcement agencies under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Operation Garden Plot
Military defense protocol inclusive of the United States Army as well as the National Guard, actively coordinated by representatives of USNORTHCOM (United States Northern Command) to provide Federal assistance in the event of civil uprising. The events surrounding the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, where U.S. Army and Marine forces were used in conjunction with the California State National Guard, is a primary example. In Los Angeles an Executive Order was made to permit the use of a Federal army to uphold state laws pursuant to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which places restrictions on the domestic use of the military for law enforcement purposes. In 2007, however, the passage of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, specifically Public Law 109-364, Title X - General Provisions, Subtitle H - Other Matters, Section 1076. Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies - amended several stipulations within the context of Posse Comitatus as well as the Insurrection Act (A formative measure that also placed restrictions on the Federal Government’s ability to effect military deployment at the domestic level) to allow the Federal Government to unilaterally take control of state divisions of the National Guard and position the military anywhere in the country during a ‘public emergency.’
This is a legislative provision that reads as follows:
Public Law 109-364
TITLE X -- GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle H - Other Matters
Section 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized. -- (1) In general. --Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
‘‘(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.--(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
‘‘(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintain public order; and (ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
‘‘(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
‘‘(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that-- ‘‘(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
[[Page 120 STAT. 2405 (Statute 2405)]]
‘‘(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
‘‘(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. ‘‘(b) Notice to Congress. --The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.’’. (2) Proclamation to disperse.--Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting “or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws” after “insurgents”. (3) Heading amendment.--The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER”.
Operation Cable Splicer
Recognized as a subordinate clause of specificity within the written contents of the Readiness Exercise 1984/ REX-84 directive, Operation Cable Splicer is synonymous with the takeover of state and local magistrates by the Federal Government and their military constituencies.
DoD (Department of Defense) Directive 3025.12 - MACDIS (Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances)
The contents of this particular measure, specifically in the delegation of its policy, are listed as they appear in the Federal registry:
4. POLICY
4.1 National Policy
4.1.1 The President is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States to employ the Armed Forces of the United States to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence under various conditions and circumstances. Planning and preparedness by the Federal Government and the Department of Defense for civil disturbances are important due to the potential severity of the consequences of such events for the Nation and the population.
4.1.2 Military resources may be employed in support of civilian law enforcement operations in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories and possessions only in the parameters of the Constitution and laws of the United States and the authority of the President and the Secretary of Defense, including delegations of that authority through this Directive or other means.
4.1.3 The primary responsibility for protecting life and property and maintaining law and order in the civilian community is vested in the State and local governments. Supplementary responsibility is vested by statute in specific Agencies of the Federal Government other than the Department of Defense. The President has additional powers and responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States to ensure that law and order are maintained.
4.8 Domestic Terrorist Incidents
4.8.1. Responsibility for managing the Federal response to acts of terrorism in the United States rests with the Attorney General of the United States.
4.8.1.1. The Attorney General coordinates all Federal Government activities during a major terrorist incident and advises the President as to whether and when to commit Military Forces in response to such a situation.
4.8.1.2. In the DoJ (Department of Justice), the lead Agency for the operational response to a terrorist incident is the FBI. The initial tactical response to such incidents is made by the FBI Special Agent in Charge at the scene, under the supervision of the Director of the FBI, who has overall responsibility for ongoing operations to contain and resolve the incident.
4.8.2. All military preparations and operations, including the employment of Military Forces at the scene, for any terrorist incident in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and possessions, shall be the primary responsibility of the DoD Executive Agent under this Directive.
4.8.2.1. In discharging those functions, the DoD Executive Agent shall observe such law enforcement policies as the Attorney General may determine.
4.8.2.2. When a terrorist incident develops, having a potential for military involvement, the DoD Executive Agent may dispatch military observers to the incident site, on mutual agreement between Department of Defense and the FBI, to appraise the situation before any decision is made to commit Federal Military Forces. Any dispatch of U.S. counterterrorism forces as observers shall be specifically authorized by the Secretary of Defense through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
4.8.3. When U.S. counterterrorism forces are authorized to assist with the resolution of a domestic terrorist incident, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall issue the appropriate order for the Secretary of Defense. That order shall designate the command relationships for the deploying forces.
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Department of Defense Directive 3025.12 - Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances
Legislative Extensions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Army Regulation 210-35 Civilian Inmate Labor Program
The Civilian Inmate Labor Program is an operant extension of Army Regulation 210-35, a United States Army directive. First drafted into law in 1997, this provision was revised significantly in January of 2005 to include the following policy: the establishment of labor programs and detainment/ prison encampments on Army installations.
The labor would, in turn, be provided by persons acting under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The articles of reference following this brief written account detail these findings:
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Army Regulation 210-35 Civilian Inmate Labor Program - DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTATION
The Civilian Inmate Labor Program: Written Analysis
Military Commissions Act of 2006-H.R. (House Resolution) 6166
An act of Congress signed into law by then President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The stated purpose of this provision reads as follows: “To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.” It was drafted following the Supreme Court’s adjudication of the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld proceedings, which ruled that the use of Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT), as established by the United States Department of Defense, were procedurally flawed and unconstitutional, deeming them incapable of affording defendants the protections ascribed to them as dictated by the Geneva Convention. It prohibited detainees who had been classified as enemy combatants, or who were awaiting the scheduling of judicial hearings on the nature of their status, from invoking the use of ‘Habeas Corpus’ as a means of redress with the federal courts with regard to their lengths of incarceration. With this measures enactment all pending Habeas Corpus proceedings at the Federal District Court level were suspended indefinitely. The articles of reference below provide a detailed summary of this particular directive:
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - 109th Congress 2nd Session | S. 3930 - GOVERNMENT MANDATE
Military Commissions Act of 2006: Written Analysis
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 also incorporated the use of a U.S. Army Military Police training manual entitled ‘Civil Disturbance Operations: Subcourse Number MP 1005 Edition C’, a 115 page pamphlet that outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms, and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest. The 2006 document, used for a self-learning course at the U.S. Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan, Alabama, makes it clear that the operations described in the manual apply to both “CONUS and OCONUS” - both inside and outside the Continental United States. The text ascribed to this particular manual is found at the following web destination:
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
CIVIL DISTURBANCE OPERATIONS - Subcourse Number MP 1005 Edition C
Executive Order 13528 | Establishment of the Council of Governors
A legislative proposal that was drafted into the contents of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 by acting President George W. Bush, its date of enactment being January 28th of 2008. The actual creation of this intergovernmental appendage occurring on January 11, 2010, pursuant to the stipulations present within the contents of Executive Order 13528, a formal directive signed into law by President Barack Obama. In accordance with this issued proclamation the Council’s creation shall consist of 10 governors, with no more than 5 pledging allegiance to the same political party, plus the acting governor of Puerto Rico. The ten appointed governors are selected by the acting President, with two of that number designated as Co-Chairs. The Co-Chairs must possess oppositional party affiliation, with the addition of an Executive Director being coordinated by the Secretary of Defense. The importance of this provision being the actualization of 10 disparate sectors of intergovernmental jurisdiction, a national compartmentalization bearing a striking resemblance to FEMA’s 10 acknowledged regions of influence. LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Army Regulation 210-35 Civilian Inmate Labor Program - DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTATION
The Civilian Inmate Labor Program: Written Analysis
Military Commissions Act of 2006-H.R. (House Resolution) 6166
An act of Congress signed into law by then President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The stated purpose of this provision reads as follows: “To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.” It was drafted following the Supreme Court’s adjudication of the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld proceedings, which ruled that the use of Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT), as established by the United States Department of Defense, were procedurally flawed and unconstitutional, deeming them incapable of affording defendants the protections ascribed to them as dictated by the Geneva Convention. It prohibited detainees who had been classified as enemy combatants, or who were awaiting the scheduling of judicial hearings on the nature of their status, from invoking the use of ‘Habeas Corpus’ as a means of redress with the federal courts with regard to their lengths of incarceration. With this measures enactment all pending Habeas Corpus proceedings at the Federal District Court level were suspended indefinitely. The articles of reference below provide a detailed summary of this particular directive:
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - 109th Congress 2nd Session | S. 3930 - GOVERNMENT MANDATE
Military Commissions Act of 2006: Written Analysis
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 also incorporated the use of a U.S. Army Military Police training manual entitled ‘Civil Disturbance Operations: Subcourse Number MP 1005 Edition C’, a 115 page pamphlet that outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms, and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest. The 2006 document, used for a self-learning course at the U.S. Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan, Alabama, makes it clear that the operations described in the manual apply to both “CONUS and OCONUS” - both inside and outside the Continental United States. The text ascribed to this particular manual is found at the following web destination:
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
CIVIL DISTURBANCE OPERATIONS - Subcourse Number MP 1005 Edition C
Executive Order 13528 | Establishment of the Council of Governors
NDAA | National Defense Authorization Act of 2012
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 was a formative measure passed by the House of Representatives on December 14th of 2011, its passage in the Republican and Democratic-based Senatorial Committees occurring the following day. This particular legislation was ratified into law on December 31st of 2011 by President Barack Obama. The controversial aspects of this law pertain, in large part, to the following written appendage:
National Defense Authorization Act of 2012
H.R. (House Resolution) 1540 - 265 (265 is noted as the page listing)
Title X - General Provisions
Subtitle D - Counterterrorism
Section 1021- Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
Section 1022 - Military Custody for Foreign al-Qaeda Terrorists.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 greatly expanded the jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Federal Government to actively incorporate the use of law and regulation in its ‘War on Terror’ initiative. Numerous individuals - including some of the law’s sponsors - assert that this particular incarnation of the NDAA allows, for the first time in more than 200 years, military interventionism in the realm of domestic policing.
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Public Law 112-81 - Dec. 31, 2011 | NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
Other Legislative Extensions or Amended Legislative Directives Associated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
McCarran Internal Security Act
Clinger-Cohen Act
CONPLAN (Contingency Plan) 3502
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) - Public Law 107-40National Defense Authorization Act of 2012
H.R. (House Resolution) 1540 - 265 (265 is noted as the page listing)
Title X - General Provisions
Subtitle D - Counterterrorism
Section 1021- Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
Section 1022 - Military Custody for Foreign al-Qaeda Terrorists.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 greatly expanded the jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Federal Government to actively incorporate the use of law and regulation in its ‘War on Terror’ initiative. Numerous individuals - including some of the law’s sponsors - assert that this particular incarnation of the NDAA allows, for the first time in more than 200 years, military interventionism in the realm of domestic policing.
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Public Law 112-81 - Dec. 31, 2011 | NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
Other Legislative Extensions or Amended Legislative Directives Associated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
McCarran Internal Security Act
Clinger-Cohen Act
CONPLAN (Contingency Plan) 3502
Patriot Act
NSPD 51 (National Security Presidential Directive 51)/ HSPD 20 (Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20)
Defense Production Reauthorization Act of 2009
National Defense Resources Preparedness Directive/ Executive Order 13603
National Emergency Act of 2012 | U.S.C. 50 1601
Following the ratification of the prior stated directives, FEMA’s scope of accountability was confined to the National Security Council and the Executive Branch of governance, with any formal invocation of its jurisdictional authority immune to all aspects of Congressional oversight for a period of six months.
NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLANNING
National Contingency Plans, oftentimes characterized as drill exercises or forecast scenarios, typically incorporate the use of language alluding to the incidence of disaster - establishing a plethora of Federal regulations well in advance of these types of events. The visuals accompanying this topic of discussion are inclusive of actual government memoranda, documentation written as a means to convey casualty estimates, long-term psychological effects, large-scale populational displacement, infrastructural damage assessments, etc. for each of the aforementioned incidences.
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
National Contingency Directives - Forecast Scenarios
DISCLAIMER: While the above documentation was formulated as a set of National Contingency Plans for the 2006 fiscal year, the casualty estimates, infrastructural damage assessments, and populational displacement figures continue to function as the acknowledged legal standard.
Original Documentation © Harry V. Martin with research assistance from David Caul 1995.
Paraphrased Documentation and Additional Research © Michael Reign 2013.
DISCLAIMER: While the above documentation was formulated as a set of National Contingency Plans for the 2006 fiscal year, the casualty estimates, infrastructural damage assessments, and populational displacement figures continue to function as the acknowledged legal standard.
Original Documentation © Harry V. Martin with research assistance from David Caul 1995.
Paraphrased Documentation and Additional Research © Michael Reign 2013.
FEMA/ DHS-Coordinated Fusion Centers
Fusion Centers are information distribution and data transference facilities, jointly created between the years of 2003 and 2007 under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as the Office of Justice Programs in the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ). Designed to promote the integration of collected data stores at the Federal level, specifically the dissemination of intelligence at the intergovernmental tier of organization, oftentimes between the following agencies: Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Justice, Military Service Branches, state and local law enforcement. In the event of Martial Law declaration these Fusion Centers will assume the principal mantle of authority in the administration of regulation and procedural decree within each designated area of detainment.
The above statistics, obtained by Public Intelligence, are an acquired dataset that identifies the cartographical locations of 72 DHS-recognized fusion centers operating within the national periphery. The documentation, which is inclusive of physical addresses, telephone listings, and methods of email correspondence for each of the specified localities, was compiled and distributed throughout the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN), an intergovernmental portal of information for “data collection, sharing, and collaboration between Federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, private sector, and international partners that are actively engaged in the homeland security mission.”
Figure 1. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE ASSESSMENT | Fusion Center Establishment Directive/ Contingency Planning Strategies
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Fusion Center Cartographical Locations, Contact Information
FEMA’s Connection to the Oil Industry
On February 3rd of 2006, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for the construction of temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), the Halliburton subsidiary oftentimes criticized for the levying of extraneous/ unnecessary cost obligations to the Pentagon during the Iraq War.
In accordance with these contractual stipulations, KBR would effect the manufacture of these detainment facilities for the Department of Homeland Security - in the event of a massive and unexpected influx of immigrants. These holding areas designed to house people in the event of a natural disaster, or for new programs requiring additional storage capacity, company executives said. KBR, which announced the contract last month, had a similar contract with immigration agencies from 2000 to last year.
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Halliburton Corporate Subsidiary Given Exclusive Contractual Rights by the Federal Government to Effect the Construction of Temporary Immigration Detention Centers
ITEM/ PRODUCT SOLICITATIONSLINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Halliburton Corporate Subsidiary Given Exclusive Contractual Rights by the Federal Government to Effect the Construction of Temporary Immigration Detention Centers
On January 10, 2014 FEMA solicited the services of contractors who could actively provide medical/ biohazard disposal capabilities and 40-yard waste containers to 1,000 tent hospitals across the United States; all required on 24-48 hour notice. The entirety of that stipulated request can be obtained at the following link. This itemized solicitation precedes a prior series of requests issued by the medical supply industry. The listing pertains to earlier inquisitions concerning the purchase of 31,000,000 doses of pediatric influenza vaccine from the auspices of the CDC, a listing available here. The Federal Emergency Management Agency also solicited the purchase of the following: 100,000 different articles of clothing, inclusive of winter and summer apparel (shirts, pants), Tarps, and pre-fabricated housing units.
Tactical Marker Identification/ Quadrant Sign Codes
The presence of coded insignia on the obverse regions of road signage is used, in part, to overcome language barriers among allied peacekeeping forces. These tactical markers function as directional guideposts leading to old military installations, ski resorts, educational facilities, churches, hospitals, and undeveloped areas that have been equipped to serve as temporary community centers in the event of mass civil disturbance or the declaration of national emergency.
What follows is a written interpretation of the programs application in the domestic setting:
1. Signs are oftentimes bisected, typically in the guise of left and right justified sectionals
2. Markers positioned to the right of the sign’s obverse are indicative of direction, pointing to the right
3. Markers positioned to the left of the sign’s obverse are indicative of direction, pointing to the left
4. Markers turned on “end” are emblematic of upward arrow notations, indicating the presence of sites designated as helicopter-based airlifts
5. Markers positioned at the apex of the sign’s obverse are indicative of forward progression, the directional equivalent of a straight line
6. The presence of a double-ended arrow is indicative of an airlift facility in close proximity to the signs placement
7. Three arrow notations denote the presence of detainment facilities
8. Two arrow notations are directional guideposts specifying the geographical location of operational sites
9. The presence of coding on these stickers is also used to point to drugstores or pharmaceutical intermediaries possessing passport photo service capability. Under Martial Law these facilities may be used as makeshift medicinal dispensaries, inoculation/ vaccination centers, and ID checkpoints.
Tactical Markers are used to encode the following information:
Directions to the closest military installations
Directions to the closest triage or quarantine facilities
Directions to facilities boasting Internet access capability for purposes of identification, criminal background assessment, and intergovernmental agency communications
Directions to detainment facilities
What follows is a written interpretation of the programs application in the domestic setting:
1. Signs are oftentimes bisected, typically in the guise of left and right justified sectionals
2. Markers positioned to the right of the sign’s obverse are indicative of direction, pointing to the right
3. Markers positioned to the left of the sign’s obverse are indicative of direction, pointing to the left
4. Markers turned on “end” are emblematic of upward arrow notations, indicating the presence of sites designated as helicopter-based airlifts
5. Markers positioned at the apex of the sign’s obverse are indicative of forward progression, the directional equivalent of a straight line
6. The presence of a double-ended arrow is indicative of an airlift facility in close proximity to the signs placement
7. Three arrow notations denote the presence of detainment facilities
8. Two arrow notations are directional guideposts specifying the geographical location of operational sites
9. The presence of coding on these stickers is also used to point to drugstores or pharmaceutical intermediaries possessing passport photo service capability. Under Martial Law these facilities may be used as makeshift medicinal dispensaries, inoculation/ vaccination centers, and ID checkpoints.
Tactical Markers are used to encode the following information:
Directions to the closest military installations
Directions to the closest triage or quarantine facilities
Directions to facilities boasting Internet access capability for purposes of identification, criminal background assessment, and intergovernmental agency communications
Directions to detainment facilities
FEMA Prisoner Transport Boxcars
There were numerous reports in circulation throughout the previous year that purportedly confirmed the existence of portable detention centers operating under the current rail system of transportation. The manufacture of these shackle-laden boxcars described in various statements made by Phil Schneider, a noted expert in the field of Ufology who claimed to have had contact on numerous occasions with representatives from an extraterrestrial civilization. What follows is the written context of these statements in their entirety:
“Recently, I knew someone who lived near where I live in Portland, Oregon. He worked at Gunderson Steel Fabrication, where they make railroad cars. Now, I knew this fellow for the better part of 30 years, and he was kind of a quiet type. He came in to see me one day, excited, and he told me ‘they're building prisoner cars.’ He was nervous. Gunderson, he said, had a contract with the Federal Government to build 107,200 full length railroad cars, each with 143 pairs of shackles. There are 11 sub-contractors in this giant project. Supposedly, Gunderson got over 2 billion dollars for the contract. Bethlehem Steel and other steel outfits are involved. He showed me one of the cars in the rail yards in North Portland. He was right. If you multiply 107,200 times 143 times 11, you come up with about 15,000,000. This is probably the number of people who disagree with the Federal Government. No more can you vote any of these people out of office. Our present structure of government is ‘technocratic,’ not democratic, and it is a form of feudalism. It has nothing to do with the republic of the United States... I believe we can do better. I also believe that the Federal Government is running the gambit of enslaving the people of the United States. I am not a very good speaker, but I’ll keep shooting my mouth off until somebody puts a bullet in me, because it’s worth it to talk to a group like this about these atrocities.”
It is important to note that within a years time of this proclamation, Phil Schneider was allegedly assassinated.
Figures 2 and 3. Purported photographic stills showcasing the interior of FEMA-manufactured portable prisoner transport containment units.
According to several eyewitness accounts by military service personnel stationed throughout the Pacific Northwest, these boxcars were to be modeled after Nazi Germany’s infamous holocaust trains - crudely constructed passenger carriages powered by freight steam locomotives that were used to transport Jewish and Polish refugees, as well as political dissidents, to various extermination camps throughout the nation’s periphery.
These reports remain the subject of speculation by a vast majority of the population, and are oftentimes dismissed by the political science community as alarmist rhetoric. That being said, Phil Schneider’s contention that Gunderson Steel Fabrication was initially responsible for the production of these types of mass transit devices is chronicled through that company’s eventual merger with The Greenbrier Companies firm, a fact substantiated by the following admission:
We manufacture virtually all types of railcars for the North American market, with the exception of coal cars. We are the market leader in intermodal railcar production. Our customers include all Class I and many shortline railroads, shippers and leasing companies—partners who depend on us for innovative design, quality production and on-time delivery.
The following link showcases the structural variances of these transportational conduits:
http://www.gbrx.com/Manufacturing_Home.php
Anna Janek, writer and author for Project NSearch, has also made numerous claims regarding the existence of these devices, a significant degree of these assertions referencing the following:
The development and manufacture of tens of thousands of boxcars fully equipped with shackles as a means of detainment, the production of these mass transit devices purportedly conducted in China, their subsequent delivery to the United States shrouded in secrecy, all under the direction of the Obama Administration. Included in every one of these railroad cars, according to Janek, is a guillotine, for the execution of prisoners through decapitation.
Janek also offers numerous postulations regarding the witness testimony of numerous individuals, most notably Lee Harrington, a local metalworker, to whom she attributes the following statement:
Metal worker Lee Harrington also described 20,000 Chinese prisoner boxcars with shackles and modern guillotines, in the form of 40 foot railroad containers, coming into America via the West Coast. They were ordered by the American government through a Senator who visited China and ordered these items. Workers unloading them became suspicious and began to investigate and discovered these horrors from China. Such 40 foot cargo containers from China are now piled up along the West Coast, especially around Long Beach Naval Shipyard. These cargo units have since been relocated to an undisclosed location, presumably somewhere along the coast of the continental United States.
While the mention of these forms of transportation is oftentimes dismissed as sensationalist nonsense by an overwhelming majority of telecommunications firms across the globe, consider the following press releases, articles of reference detailing the use of railcars as a method of transport, specifically the U.S. military’s utilization of a mobilized detainment apparatus within the national periphery of Afghanistan.
These reports remain the subject of speculation by a vast majority of the population, and are oftentimes dismissed by the political science community as alarmist rhetoric. That being said, Phil Schneider’s contention that Gunderson Steel Fabrication was initially responsible for the production of these types of mass transit devices is chronicled through that company’s eventual merger with The Greenbrier Companies firm, a fact substantiated by the following admission:
We manufacture virtually all types of railcars for the North American market, with the exception of coal cars. We are the market leader in intermodal railcar production. Our customers include all Class I and many shortline railroads, shippers and leasing companies—partners who depend on us for innovative design, quality production and on-time delivery.
The following link showcases the structural variances of these transportational conduits:
http://www.gbrx.com/Manufacturing_Home.php
Anna Janek, writer and author for Project NSearch, has also made numerous claims regarding the existence of these devices, a significant degree of these assertions referencing the following:
The development and manufacture of tens of thousands of boxcars fully equipped with shackles as a means of detainment, the production of these mass transit devices purportedly conducted in China, their subsequent delivery to the United States shrouded in secrecy, all under the direction of the Obama Administration. Included in every one of these railroad cars, according to Janek, is a guillotine, for the execution of prisoners through decapitation.
Janek also offers numerous postulations regarding the witness testimony of numerous individuals, most notably Lee Harrington, a local metalworker, to whom she attributes the following statement:
Metal worker Lee Harrington also described 20,000 Chinese prisoner boxcars with shackles and modern guillotines, in the form of 40 foot railroad containers, coming into America via the West Coast. They were ordered by the American government through a Senator who visited China and ordered these items. Workers unloading them became suspicious and began to investigate and discovered these horrors from China. Such 40 foot cargo containers from China are now piled up along the West Coast, especially around Long Beach Naval Shipyard. These cargo units have since been relocated to an undisclosed location, presumably somewhere along the coast of the continental United States.
While the mention of these forms of transportation is oftentimes dismissed as sensationalist nonsense by an overwhelming majority of telecommunications firms across the globe, consider the following press releases, articles of reference detailing the use of railcars as a method of transport, specifically the U.S. military’s utilization of a mobilized detainment apparatus within the national periphery of Afghanistan.
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death - Documenting the U.S. Military’s Use of Carriage Transport Internment Facilities
More Evidence Substantiating U.S. War Crime Atrocities Committed in Afghanistan: Taliban Prisoners of War (POWs) Suffocated Inside Large Cargo Containers
Guillotine Purchases by the Federal Government in the Event of Martial Law
Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death - Documenting the U.S. Military’s Use of Carriage Transport Internment Facilities
More Evidence Substantiating U.S. War Crime Atrocities Committed in Afghanistan: Taliban Prisoners of War (POWs) Suffocated Inside Large Cargo Containers
Guillotine Purchases by the Federal Government in the Event of Martial Law
The notion of using guillotines as a method of dispatch is well chronicled in the state of Georgia, as legislation passed in that state’s House of Representatives was formally enacted into law during the 1995/ 1996 sessions, its ratification under HB (House Bill) 1274 is documented in the following written appendage:
SECTION 1.
SECTION 1.
1- 8 The General Assembly finds that while prisoners condemned to
1- 9 death may wish to donate one or more of their organs for
1-10 transplant, any such desire is thwarted by the fact that
1-11 electrocution makes all such organs unsuitable for
1-12 transplant. The intent of the General Assembly in enacting
1-13 this legislation is to provide for a method of execution
1-14 which is compatible with the donation of organs by a
1-15 condemned prisoner.
SECTION 2.
1-16 Article 2 of Chapter 10 of Title 17 of the Official Code of
1-17 Georgia Annotated, relating to the death penalty generally,
1-18 is amended by striking in its entirety Code Section
1-19 17-10-38, relating to death sentences generally, and
1-20 inserting in lieu thereof the following:
1-21 “17-10-38. (Index)
1-22 (a) All persons who have been convicted of a capital
1-23 offense and have had imposed upon them a sentence of death
1-24 shall, at the election of the condemned, suffer such
1-25 punishment either by electrocution or by guillotine. If
1-26 the condemned fails to make an election by the thirtieth
1-27 day preceding the date scheduled for execution, punishment
1-28 shall be by electrocution.
1-29 (b) In all cases in which the defendant is sentenced to be
1-30 electrocuted executed, it shall be the duty of the trial
1-31 judge in passing sentence to direct that the defendant be
-1- (Index)
LC 21 3643
2- 1 delivered to the Department of Corrections for
2- 2 electrocution execution at a state correctional
2- 3 institution designated by the department.”
SECTION 3.
2- 4 Said article is further amended by striking in its entirety
2- 5 Code Section 17-10-44, relating to death chamber apparatus
2- 6 and related matters, and inserting in lieu thereof the
2- 7 following:
2- 8 “17-10-44. (Index)
2- 9 The Department of Corrections shall provide a death
2-10 chamber and all necessary apparatus, machinery, and
2-11 appliances for inflicting the penalty of death by
2-12 electrocution or by guillotine.”
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Georgia House of Representatives - 1995/ 1996 Sessions - HB (House Bill) 1274 - Death Penalty | Guillotine Provisions CODE SECTIONS - 17-10-38/ 17-10-44
There are also unconfirmed rumors regarding prior purchases made by the Federal Government of at least 30,000 of these types of devices, with an estimated 15,000 being stored in Georgia, and the remaining 15,000 sequestered in Montana. The now deceased Ted Gunderson, formerly employed as an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reportedly informed a gathering of militia members and other patriotic assemblies of the government’s intent with regard to the storage of this equipment. Gunderson believed that the use of such instrumentation would herald the execution of political dissidents in America, following the formal enactment of martial law directive. He also made mention of a time when the government would establish a system of surveillance capable of monitoring the activities of all citizens in the United States, a statement proven accurate by Edward Snowden regarding the National Security Agency’s blatant abuses of power.
FEMA Detainment Facilities
1-16 Article 2 of Chapter 10 of Title 17 of the Official Code of
1-17 Georgia Annotated, relating to the death penalty generally,
1-18 is amended by striking in its entirety Code Section
1-19 17-10-38, relating to death sentences generally, and
1-20 inserting in lieu thereof the following:
1-21 “17-10-38. (Index)
1-22 (a) All persons who have been convicted of a capital
1-23 offense and have had imposed upon them a sentence of death
1-24 shall, at the election of the condemned, suffer such
1-25 punishment either by electrocution or by guillotine. If
1-26 the condemned fails to make an election by the thirtieth
1-27 day preceding the date scheduled for execution, punishment
1-28 shall be by electrocution.
1-29 (b) In all cases in which the defendant is sentenced to be
1-30 electrocuted executed, it shall be the duty of the trial
1-31 judge in passing sentence to direct that the defendant be
-1- (Index)
LC 21 3643
2- 1 delivered to the Department of Corrections for
2- 2 electrocution execution at a state correctional
2- 3 institution designated by the department.”
SECTION 3.
2- 4 Said article is further amended by striking in its entirety
2- 5 Code Section 17-10-44, relating to death chamber apparatus
2- 6 and related matters, and inserting in lieu thereof the
2- 7 following:
2- 8 “17-10-44. (Index)
2- 9 The Department of Corrections shall provide a death
2-10 chamber and all necessary apparatus, machinery, and
2-11 appliances for inflicting the penalty of death by
2-12 electrocution or by guillotine.”
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Georgia House of Representatives - 1995/ 1996 Sessions - HB (House Bill) 1274 - Death Penalty | Guillotine Provisions CODE SECTIONS - 17-10-38/ 17-10-44
There are also unconfirmed rumors regarding prior purchases made by the Federal Government of at least 30,000 of these types of devices, with an estimated 15,000 being stored in Georgia, and the remaining 15,000 sequestered in Montana. The now deceased Ted Gunderson, formerly employed as an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reportedly informed a gathering of militia members and other patriotic assemblies of the government’s intent with regard to the storage of this equipment. Gunderson believed that the use of such instrumentation would herald the execution of political dissidents in America, following the formal enactment of martial law directive. He also made mention of a time when the government would establish a system of surveillance capable of monitoring the activities of all citizens in the United States, a statement proven accurate by Edward Snowden regarding the National Security Agency’s blatant abuses of power.
FEMA Detainment Facilities
Written context ascribed to the enactment of the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, also known as H.R. (House Resolution) 645, provides the necessary funding to effect the construction of supposed ‘disaster contingency operations facilities’ on military installations throughout the continental United States. It is believed by numerous constituencies outside the acknowledged intelligence community that an estimated 600-800 detention centers situated in 10 regionalized districts throughout the United States are now fully operational, the grounds of each facility patrolled on a consistent basis by an elevated military presence. Purportedly, the functional capacity of these internment camps is to be determined exclusively by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in advance of the President’s declaration of Martial Law. What follows is an itemized listing detailing the geographical locations, grouped in accordance with their state of regency, of each of the aforementioned containment areas:
Alabama
Aliceville - Used as a former German POW (prisoner of war) encampment in the midst of the Second World War, designed to accommodate 15,000
Fort McClellan (Anniston district) - Its geographical location in close proximity to an Army Depot on the opposite side of the Anniston district
Fort McClellan (Anniston district) - Its geographical location in close proximity to an Army Depot on the opposite side of the Anniston district
Maxwell Air Force Base (Montgomery district) - A civilian prison camp formally established under the auspices of Operation Garden Plot (Also known as the Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan - 18 U.S.C. 1385 Posse Comitatus Act - the aforementioned directive exists as a strategically coordinated response conducted by the US Army and the National Guard under the auspices of NORTHCOM [U.S. Northern Command] in the event of a metropolitan disturbance)
Opelika - Recognized as a military installation located in close proximity to the city’s boundaries, purportedly decommissioned in September of 1945
Talladega - Federally subsidized detainment facility, recognized as a “satellite” appendage
Alaska
Elmendorf Air Force Base - Geographical region northeast of Anchorage, at the structural periphery of the complex. Operation Garden Plot facility
Fort Wainright - East in proximity to Fairbanks
Fort Wainright - East in proximity to Fairbanks
Wilderness, specifically the forest expanse east of Anchorage. A geographical region accessible by air or rail, with no visible roads to, or from, its place of origin - estimated holding capacity of 500,000
Arizona
Florence - WWII Detention Facility, purportedly renovated and fully operational, estimated holding capacity of 3,500
Fort Huachuca - 20 miles from the territorial boundaries ascribed to Mexico, 30 miles from Nogales, Rex 84 complex
Phoenix - Federal Bureau of Prisons - Satellite facility
Pinal County - Specifically along the perimeter of the Gila River, designated Japanese POW internment facility during the Second World War
Sedona - Possible staging area supervised and coordinated by the United Nations
According to David Vose of World News Media, a massive FEMA internment facility is currently under construction in Southern portions of Arizona, this prodigious enclosure purportedly housing numerous guillotine-like appurtenances. The link that follows elaborates on these findings in greater detail:
According to David Vose of World News Media, a massive FEMA internment facility is currently under construction in Southern portions of Arizona, this prodigious enclosure purportedly housing numerous guillotine-like appurtenances. The link that follows elaborates on these findings in greater detail:
Arkansas
Berryville - FEMA center located East of Eureka Springs, off of Highway 62
Eaker Air Force Installation - Blytheville, Arkansas - Abandoned military airbase designated as an internment camp
.jpg)
U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal - Jefferson County, Arkansas - Munitions factory, possible detention center
California
Fort Irwin - Military training facility, base is part of a broader initiative known as IMCOM (Installation Management Command)
Fort Ord - Formerly classified as military designated operations area, specifically in the use of explosive ordnance. These operations were purportedly discontinued in 1994, its acknowledged role as an infantry training facility since rescinded
McClellan Air Force Base - Military staging area, estimated holding capacity of 30,000 to 35,000
Norton Air Force Base - Decommissioned military airbase, since converted into a small scale international airport in San Bernardino
Terminal Island - Long Beach, California, located in close proximity to naval shipyards operated exclusively by ChiCom shipping interests. Federal prison facility, possible extradition area
Tule Lake - Former WWII Japanese Internment Camp
Twentynine Palms Marine Base - Military operations center, explosive ordnance training exercises and drills conduction zone
Vandenberg Air Force Base - Former Launch Facility for rocket-based propulsion technologies and IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) testing center
Colorado
Numerous undisclosed locations throughout the state’s territorial periphery, previous documentation concerning the existence of internment facilities in Fort Carson, areas of Granada - Prowers County, and Trinidad remain the subject of speculation
Connecticut, Delaware
Information regarding the nature and exact location of detainment facilities in Connecticut and Delaware can neither be adequately substantiated nor refuted, the following cinematic excerpt offers insight into the possible existence of an internment center in Connecticut. Various unconfirmed reports place the location of this particular structure in close proximity to New Haven, specifically in West Rock.
Numerous undisclosed locations throughout the state’s territorial periphery, previous documentation concerning the existence of internment facilities in Fort Carson, areas of Granada - Prowers County, and Trinidad remain the subject of speculation
Connecticut, Delaware
Information regarding the nature and exact location of detainment facilities in Connecticut and Delaware can neither be adequately substantiated nor refuted, the following cinematic excerpt offers insight into the possible existence of an internment center in Connecticut. Various unconfirmed reports place the location of this particular structure in close proximity to New Haven, specifically in West Rock.
Florida
Avon Park - Air Force gunnery installation, equipped with an on-base “correctional facility” that once served as a WWII detention center
Everglades - Correctional institution
Krome Processing Center - DoJ (Department of Justice) coordinated detention center, immigrant processing facility - possible REX 84 staging area
Pensacola - Federal Penitentiary
Georgia
Information regarding the nature and exact location of detainment facilities in the state of Georgia can neither be adequately substantiated nor refuted, unconfirmed reports place the location of these facilities in close proximity to the following regions: Abbeville, Camilla - specifically Mitchell County, Fort Benning, Fort Gillem, Fort Gordon, Fort McPherson, Fort Stewart, Hawkinsville - specifically Wilcox County, McRae - specifically Telfair County, Morgan, Oglethorpe, and Unadilla
Hawaii
Speculation regarding the existence of detainment facilities in this geographical region is rampant, with visual confirmation of these particular structures remaining a subject of contention - the above visual described as the aerial depiction of a possible detainment facility
Idaho
The mention of possible locations for various internment camps throughout the state’s periphery remains unconfirmed, as evidence of visual confirmation remains suspect
Illinois
Pekin - A Federal satellite prison camp located along the Illinois River, just south of Peoria. It supplements the federal penitentiary in Marion, which is equipped to handle additional population outside on the grounds
Thomson - A supermax (The ‘supermax’ appellation acts as an abbreviated point of reference concerning the existence of a super maximum security prison) facility recently purchased by the Federal Government for $165 million, christened as “Gitmo North,” a Guantanamo Bay satellite encampment. The following articles of reference affirm these contentions:
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Thomson Prison in Illinois to be Purchased by Federal Government for $165 Million
Governor Pat Quinn and Senator Dick Durbin Announce the Sale of Thomson Correctional Center to the Federal Government
Indiana
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Thomson Prison in Illinois to be Purchased by Federal Government for $165 Million
Governor Pat Quinn and Senator Dick Durbin Announce the Sale of Thomson Correctional Center to the Federal Government
Indiana
Camp Atterbury - Storage facility recently converted to small-scale detention center, boasting two additional structural compounds designed to accommodate the needs of minimum security detainees. Its location purportedly west of Interstate 65, in close proximity to Edinburgh, south of Indianapolis
Crown Point - Possible FEMA-coordinated detention center. Former medical facility, one wing of the structure purportedly being utilized in compliance with a county-based work-release program for first time offenders
Fort Benjamin Harrison - Located in the northeast quadrant of Indianapolis, this base has been decommissioned from “active” use with portions of the facility purportedly being utilized as holding areas for detainees. Helicopter landing areas still exist for prisoners to be brought in by air, land, and rail
Fort Wayne - Structural facility located in the northeastern periphery of Indiana, purportedly being designated as a FEMA-coordinated detention center - accessible by air, road, and rail
Kingsbury - Purportedly closed military installation, adjacent to a state fish and wildlife preserve. Part of the structure is believed to have been converted into a makeshift industrial park, with a vast majority of the southern portion left unattended. Its southern periphery bordered by a rail delivery system with the grounds of the facility staffed and patrolled by UN (United Nations) forces. A local law enforcement officer, who was camped close to the area in question, was reportedly verbally accosted, physically assaulted, and advised by that facility’s unit commander that it would be in his best interest to avoid travel in close proximity to the surrounding area
Iowa
The availability of information confirming the existence of these types of facilities remains suspect
Kansas
Iowa
The availability of information confirming the existence of these types of facilities remains suspect
Kansas
El Dorado - Federal prison facility converted into forced-labor camp, UNICOR compliant detention center
Leavenworth - U.S. Marshal Supervised Holding Area, Federal penitentiary
Kentucky
Ashland - UNICOR compliant internment camp, operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice
Leavenworth - U.S. Marshal Supervised Holding Area, Federal penitentiary
Kentucky
Ashland - UNICOR compliant internment camp, operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice
Fort Knox - Detention center, possibly located near Salt River, in a restricted area of the structure
Manchester - UNICOR compliant prison labor facility
Lexington - A purported FEMA-coordinated detention center, its location adjacent to a National Guard armory installation
Manchester - UNICOR compliant prison labor facility
Lexington - A purported FEMA-coordinated detention center, its location adjacent to a National Guard armory installation
Louisville - Located near a local naval ordnance station, detainment facility
Louisiana
Fort Polk - Joint Readiness Training Center, Military installation, UN-coordinating facility
Livingston - FEMA-coordinated staging area, the following cinematic presentation affirming the existence of this structure:
Livingston - FEMA-coordinated staging area, the following cinematic presentation affirming the existence of this structure:
Maine
Unconfirmed reports of a facility on the outskirts of Houlton persist despite the insistence of skeptics decrying the viability of such assertions
Maryland
Fort Detrick - Biochemical Weapons Storage Facility, Project BioShield compliant institution pursuant to the ‘War on Terror’ initiative
Massachusetts
Camp Edwards - In Sandwich, Massachusetts, designated ‘inactive’, these facilities are purportedly being designed to accommodate the occupancy needs of residents in the event of natural disaster
Federal Medical Center - Located in Devens, Town of Harvard, Worcester County, Massachusetts, the FMC (Federal Medical Center) is a federal prison facility operating under administrative designation. This categorization allows for the detainment and eventual incarceration of inmates from a wide variance of security classifications. Designed to accommodate 1,000, this particular institution serves as a makeshift infirmary, with the availability of specialized care centers within its immediate periphery purportedly crafted to satisfy the needs of psychologically unstable individuals. The active coordination of staffing requirements and operational procedure is determined by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. The structural perimeter of the FMC in Devens is also inclusive of a minimum-security satellite extension, a prison camp housing 130.
Michigan
Camp Grayling - Combat Readiness Training Facility, Michigan Air National Guard - location purportedly being used as a UN (United Nations) staging area as evidenced in the following cinematic feature, a lengthy exposition produced by Bobby Powell, publisher and editor-in-chief of The Truth is Viral Media:
The notion of MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle purchases by the Federal Government isn’t confined solely to Camp Grayling, as these types of devices are being actively distributed throughout the continental periphery of the United States. These military constructs, the production and manufacture of which is supervised by Navistar Defense LLC (LLC is recognized as the acronymic equivalent of Limited Liability Company), are inclusive of the MaxxPro developmental series. The mathematical schematics ascribed to these vehicles are documented as follows:
MaxxPro® MRAP specifications:
Length: 254” (21.2 feet)
Width: 102” (8.5 feet)
Height: 120” (10 feet)
Wheel base: 153” (12.8 feet)
Curb weight: 37,850 lbs. (18.9 tons)
Engine: MaxxForce® 9.3
The MaxxPro MRAP is built to withstand ballistic arms fire, mine blasts, IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices), and other emerging threats. Its V-shaped hull helps deflect blasts out and away from the crew and its armoring can be customized to meet any mission requirement.
OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS
Witness testimony affirming the presence of these vehicles all across the streets of America foretells of the imminence of domestic exigency, military contingencies whose actualization is yet to be finalized. The questions everyone should be asking with regard to these developments are as follows:
Regardless of the exact quantity of these deliveries, what is the inherent necessity behind the use of these types of devices in a domestic setting?
There are an innumerable host of rail-like appurtenances decorating the windowed periphery of these constructs, believed to be gun ports, the operant question surrounding their inclusivity one of purpose. What possible reasoning can be offered for their adornment?
What are the intentions of these intergovernmental agencies who actively seek to incorporate the use of such technologies in a domestic setting?
Minnesota
Camp Ripley - National Guard Training Center, Armory
Mississippi
OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS
Witness testimony affirming the presence of these vehicles all across the streets of America foretells of the imminence of domestic exigency, military contingencies whose actualization is yet to be finalized. The questions everyone should be asking with regard to these developments are as follows:
Regardless of the exact quantity of these deliveries, what is the inherent necessity behind the use of these types of devices in a domestic setting?
There are an innumerable host of rail-like appurtenances decorating the windowed periphery of these constructs, believed to be gun ports, the operant question surrounding their inclusivity one of purpose. What possible reasoning can be offered for their adornment?
What are the intentions of these intergovernmental agencies who actively seek to incorporate the use of such technologies in a domestic setting?
Minnesota
Camp Ripley - National Guard Training Center, Armory
Mississippi
Jackson - Privately-run detention center, unknown holding capacity
Missouri
Several unconfirmed witness accounts place the location of internment facilities near Warsaw
Montana
Malmstrom Air Force Base - Various UN (United Nations)-coordinated aircraft specialty units purportedly stationed along the perimeter of the facility
Nebraska
Visual confirmation of established detainment facilities within state periphery remains unavailable at present
Nevada
Carson City - Decommissioned State Penitentiary
Elko - Largely isolated area due primarily to desertification, possible military operations staging area. In May of 2012 the city of Elko played host to U.S.-Canadian Military Joint Exercise incorporating the use of various types of service vehicles, the following cinematic feature belies these facts:
Missouri
Several unconfirmed witness accounts place the location of internment facilities near Warsaw
Montana
Malmstrom Air Force Base - Various UN (United Nations)-coordinated aircraft specialty units purportedly stationed along the perimeter of the facility
Nebraska
Visual confirmation of established detainment facilities within state periphery remains unavailable at present
Nevada
Carson City - Decommissioned State Penitentiary
Elko - Largely isolated area due primarily to desertification, possible military operations staging area. In May of 2012 the city of Elko played host to U.S.-Canadian Military Joint Exercise incorporating the use of various types of service vehicles, the following cinematic feature belies these facts:
New Hampshire/ Vermont
Information affirming the existence of internment facilities within the borders of these states remains unsubstantiated at present
New Jersey
Information affirming the existence of internment facilities within the borders of these states remains unsubstantiated at present
New Jersey
Fort Dix - Possible extradition area
New Mexico
White Sands Missile Range - Decommissioned military staging area currently being used as a storage facility for United Nations vehicles and equipment. Numerous eye witness accounts validating these assertions have been corroborated with the transport of materials bearing UN insignias along the White Sands rail spur in Oro Grande, approximately thirty miles from the Texas, New Mexico border.
New York
Albany - FEMA-coordinated detainment facility
Otisville - Department of Corrections facility
North Carolina
Numerous accounts chronicling the establishment of internment facilities in various military installations throughout the states periphery remain a subject of contention
North Dakota
Speculative assessments asserting the presence of a UN air support divisions team remain unconfirmed at present
Ohio
Lima - Purported location of two distinctive FEMA-coordinated detention centers, with one situated in close proximity to Interstate 75, near an old stone quarry
Oklahoma
El Reno - Renovated Federal Corrections Institution, current occupancy believed to be 12,000
McAlester - Corrections facility located near a local Army munitions depot
Oregon
Oregon
Sheridan - Satellite Federal prison facility, possible FEMA-coordinated detention center
Umatilla - State penitentiary, its christening as the ‘Two Rivers Correctional Institute’ indicative of its geographical location
Pennsylvania
Camp Hill - State prison, its geographical location evincing commonality with a nearby Army weapons depot
New Cumberland Army Depot - Government subsidized weapons storage facility
New Cumberland Army Depot - Government subsidized weapons storage facility
Schuylkill Haven - Federal prison camp, north of Reading
South Carolina
Greenville - Juvenile Assessment Center, undisclosed holding capacity
South Dakota
Yankton - Federal prison camp
Tennessee
South Carolina
Greenville - Juvenile Assessment Center, undisclosed holding capacity
South Dakota
Yankton - Federal prison camp
Tennessee
Nashville - Possible holding area
Texas
Texas
Austin - Robert Mueller Municipal Airport - Formerly recognized as a State National Guard Training Center, subsequently replaced by the Austin Bergstrom International Airport, later closed in 1999. The 711-acre (288 hectare) area that once housed the airport sat dormant for more than half a decade until the city finally approved a planned urban development center. The new Mueller Community broke ground in 2007, and is expected to take at least ten years to be fully developed
Bastrop - Federal Corrections Institution
Bastrop - Federal Corrections Institution
Beaumont - FEMA-coordinated staging area, purported disaster assessment facility
Durango - Stockyard Ruins, dilapidated and abandoned structure purportedly being used as a haven for local gang-based affiliates
El Paso - Federal Prison, UNICOR compliant labor facility
Taylor - T. Don Hutto Residential Center, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement detainment facility
Utah
Numerous postulations governing the construction of various internment facilities throughout the states periphery have yet to yield any concrete visual affirmation
Virginia
Utah
Numerous postulations governing the construction of various internment facilities throughout the states periphery have yet to yield any concrete visual affirmation
Virginia
Fort A.P. Hill - Military operations staging area, now recognized as the 8th largest city in the state, possible FEMA-supervised disaster assessment and coordination center
Washington
Okanogan County - Borders Canada supposedly, its existence remains unconfirmed at present, although at one time the county commissioner did make an interesting series of comments about a suspected FEMA camp in his area of jurisdiction
Washington
Okanogan County - Borders Canada supposedly, its existence remains unconfirmed at present, although at one time the county commissioner did make an interesting series of comments about a suspected FEMA camp in his area of jurisdiction
Seattle/ Tacoma - SeaTac Detention Center - fully operational Federal transfer facility
Continuity of Government
Created at the height of the Cold War during the 1960s, the Continuity of Government (COG) initiative was designed to act as a facilitator in the enactment of Martial Law in the event of thermonuclear conflagration; in essence, bridging the gap of authority between the Federal government and its political constituencies within each of the respected branches.
A written proposal currently being circulated throughout the state government of Washington’s legislative periphery will significantly expand the scope of influence of Continuity of Government-specific mandate through constitutional amendment at the local level. What follows is the written transcript from the article in question, a published report authored into existence by Mikael Thalen of Storyleak:
The document, entitled “Modernizing State’s Continuity of Operation Planning,” asks State Representatives to pass legislation concerning the government’s ability to implement COG. Spearheaded by the Washington Military Department and the State Auditor’s Office, the document also details the move to add Continuity of Operations planning to state law.
The document also goes on to call for erasing the government’s requirement of bringing the legislative body together no later than 30 days after a disaster or attack, giving the governor the power to keep COG operations ongoing for undetermined lengths.
“Amend the provisions for the governor calling the Legislature into session from ‘as soon as practicable or no later than the 30th day after the attack’ to ‘as soon as practicable’,” the document reads.
Under revised amendments, each state agency, commission and board will be directed to begin developing and practicing a yearly continuity of operations plan.
LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:
Document Reveals the State of Washington’s Move to Vastly Expand Continuity of Government Authority at the Domestic Level
West Virginia
Beckley – Alderson – Lewisburg - Former WWII detention camps that are now converted into active federal prison complexes capable of holding several times their current populations. Alderson is currently the site of a women’s reformatory
Morgantown - Correctional institution located in Preston County
Wisconsin
Fort McCoy - ‘War on Terror’ compliant facility, military operations staging area, possible REX 84 detention center
Wyoming
Numerous reports of visual confirmation of internment facilities located throughout the states periphery, as evidenced by the above composite
NOTE - The fact that a sizable portion of the facilities mentioned throughout the contents of this lengthy exposition possess a certain degree of geographical uncertainty doesn’t necessarily guarantee their nonexistence; therefore it’s imperative on the part of prospective viewing audiences not to dwell in the realm of blanket assumption. Equally important is the fact, that, while the visual confirmation of these types of structures remains the subject of speculation, the legislative measures providing for the establishment of these types of facilities have already been enacted into law.
Canada
There are widespread reports concerning the existence of possible internment facilities throughout the country, especially in military installations north of the 50th Parallel
Overseas Locations
Cuba - Guantanamo Bay - Currently being used as a point of extradition, suspected terrorist processing and incarceration center
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
CBS Mainstream Media Affiliates Admit to the Existence of FEMA-Coordinated Operations Centers Throughout the Continental United States
Geographical Distribution of Possible FEMA-Coordinated Detainment Facilities
GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) Coordinates to Purported FEMA-Supervised Detention Centers
Additional Registry of GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) Coordinates to Purported FEMA Internment Camps - 19 Page Dossier
Statewide Listing of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-Operated Detainment Facilities
Itemized Registry of Confirmed Geographical Locations and Staging Areas for Various Military Installations Throughout the Continental United States - 70 Page Compendium
The Role of Organized Athletics and Mass Incarceration
The National Football League (NFL), an institution of organized athletics that has long since supplanted Major League Baseball (MLB) as America’s pastime, has, in recent years, actively embraced the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) mantra of surveillance through its compliance with the ‘see something, say something' security campaign.
A fact that was evidenced during the course of a demonstration involving the strategic relocation of civilians by various DHS affiliates as well as local law enforcement officials in the surrounding area of Giants Stadium on March 24th of 2011.*
*NOTE – The brief supposition outlined in the above stanza was originally inclusive of a brief videographic excerpt documenting the tactically coordinated repositioning of both active residents and visitors by an armed phalanx of security personnel conducting crowd control and dispersal operations in close proximity to Giants Stadium, cinematic reference material that has since been removed by YouTube as part of an ongoing campaign of information suppression and censorship.
The imposition of stricter guidelines in some of these facilities allowing for the segregation of prospective attendees based solely on their gender, as women are forbidden from using the same entrance as men or children in Kansas City’s Arrowhead Stadium - as evidenced in the following visual:
Policy regulation with regard to the enactment of stadium security measures has undergone significant modification, adopting the Transportation and Security Administration’s (TSA) invasive philosophy of preemptive screening. A subject of contention confirmed in the preceding illustration:
The NFL’s Politicized Role Concerning the Prospect of Firearm Regulation and Eventual Confiscation
Bob Costas, a syndicated sportscaster for the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) since the early 80s, shamelessly exploited the tragic murder-suicide of Jovan Belcher - formerly acknowledged as an active member of the Kansas City Chiefs franchise, specifically its linebacking corps - to advance the gun confiscation agenda during the course of one of many of the NFL's sanctioned athletic contests.
Bob Costas, a syndicated sportscaster for the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) since the early 80s, shamelessly exploited the tragic murder-suicide of Jovan Belcher - formerly acknowledged as an active member of the Kansas City Chiefs franchise, specifically its linebacking corps - to advance the gun confiscation agenda during the course of one of many of the NFL's sanctioned athletic contests.
The erosion of one’s ability to purchase firearms as a means of self defense is re-affirmed through the active prohibition of advertisements emphasizing gun ownership or operation. The linked excerpt following the contents of this brief statement providing further insight:
2013 NFL Season
CONCLUSION
Organized athletics in America has metastasized into the scholastic extension of the Entertainment Industry, actively promoting the globalist agenda through the prohibition of various subjects deemed contradictory to its corporate image and commercial status.
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
UNITED STATES ARMY TECHNIQUES PUBLICATION 3-39.33: CIVIL DISTURBANCES
A document released by the U.S. Army details preparations for “full scale riots” within the continental United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with unruly crowds of demonstrators.
The appearance of the document amidst growing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, with the National Guard now being called in to deal with the disorder, is perhaps, an ominous harbinger portending of future events.
The 132-page document in question, titled U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances, was formally constructed in April 2014 and recently obtained by Public Intelligence. The context of which appears in the following:
ATP 3-39.33 provides discussion and techniques about civil disturbances and crowd control operations that occur in the continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS). United States (U.S.) forces deploy in support of unified action, overseas contingency operations, and humanitarian assistance worldwide. During these operations, U.S. forces are often faced with unruly and violent crowds who have the intent of disrupting peace and the ability of U.S. forces to maintain peace. Worldwide instability coupled with U.S. military participation in unified-action, peacekeeping, and related operations require that U.S. forces have access to the most current doctrine and techniques that are necessary to quell riots and restore public order.
CIVIL UNREST
1.1. Demonstrations, public disorder, and riots happen for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons are economic hardships, social injustices, ethnic differences (leading to oppression), objections to world organizations or certain governments, political grievances, terrorist acts, other man-made disasters, and natural disasters. Civil unrest is when a civil society or a segment of its population is in a disturbed or uneasy state or in turmoil. During a state of civil unrest, an event can be triggered by a single cause or a combination of causes. For example, operations that occurred in the Balkans that involved civil unrest were the result of ethnic hatred, a lack of civil authority, food shortages, a revolution, and religious-based fighting factions.
1.2. Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots. Gathering in protest may be a recognized right of any person or group, regardless of where U.S. forces may be operating. In the United States, this fundamental right is protected under the Constitution of the United States, while other countries have various laws that protect the rights of their citizens rights. During unified action, U.S. forces should never violate basic civil or human rights. Most protesters are law-abiding citizens who intend to keep their protests nonviolent, but some protest planners insist that the event involve violence. Often in the media, protesters can gain sympathy for their cause by prompting authorities to take physical action against them. Violence can be the result of demonstrators beginning to conduct unlawful or criminal acts and authorities (who are responsible for the safety and welfare of all) enforcing the laws of the municipality, state, or nation. The level of violence is determined by the willingness of demonstrators to display and voice their opinions in support of their cause and the actions and reactions of the control force on scene.
1.3. Commanders must be aware of the possibility that some individuals or groups within an organized demonstration may intend to cause disruption, incite violence, destroy property, and provoke authorities. The situation and actions of the crowd may dictate control and enforcement options. Agitators and criminal infiltrators within the crowd can lead to the eruption of violence. Inciting a crowd to violence or a greater intensity of violence by using severe enforcement tactics must be avoided.
1.4. Community unrest results in urban conflicts that arise from highly emotional social and economic issues. Economically deprived residents may feel that they are treated unjustly or ignored by people in power and authority. Tensions can build quickly in a community over a variety of issues, such as hunger, poor employment opportunities, inadequate community services, poor housing, and labor issues. Tensions in these areas create the potential for violence. When tensions are high, it takes a small (seemingly minor) incident, rumor, or perceived act of injustice to ignite groups within a crowd to riot and act violently. This is particularly true if community relations with authorities are strained.
1.5. Significant ethnic differences in a community can create an atmosphere of distrust, even hatred. Unrest among ethnic groups competing for jobs, living areas, and sparse essentials can cause an eruption of civil disorder that can lead to full riots. As emotions run high, violence becomes likely.
1.6. Terrorist organizations may infiltrate groups within a demonstrating crowd. These terrorist groups may intend to embarrass their government or other governments. Terrorist infiltrators can be used to provoke crowds as a diversion, as part of a demonstration, or as cover for terrorist acts.
THREAT ANALYSIS AND CROWD ASSESSMENT
2-18. Threat analysis is vital for any military mission. The assessment of crowds requires its own set of questions. These questions should be answered before a crowd assembles or as quickly as possible. In some cases, all the questions may not be answered. The following questions represent a logical way to develop an understanding of the crowd the commander is tasked to control.
Who are they and what is the overarching identity of the crowd? Do they identify themselves as strikers, ethnic groups, religious factions, social protestors, some other group, or even a combination of these? Understanding who they are will indicate what they may do. It may be possible to determine identities and goals from advance assembling instructions, leaflets distributed to bystanders, placards and banners, or chants and songs.
What are their goals? What the group wants to accomplish by assembling could determine the extent to which they can be accommodated once they have assembled. They may only seek recognition for their cause (being seen and heard). If so, this goal is usually easy to accommodate. However, some groups may have more demanding goals, for example the demonstrators in Seattle who sought to stop the World Trade Organization. Goals that cannot be accommodated make confrontation very likely.
What is the composition of the crowd and are there any known factions? Seattle demonstrations against the World Trade Organization were composed of groups that were protesting environmental issues, wages, and child labor laws. Differing goals and the resulting friction were evident between such organizations as the Ruckus Society and the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations. Factions within a crowd represent threats and opportunities (Opportunities? Curious choice of words).
What are they capable of doing? Protest groups often claim that they will assemble large numbers of people to produce some disruptive action. However, there is often a difference between the claim and reality. An organization may claim that it can mass a 100,000 people, but in reality can only get 40,000. Organizers exaggerate because they want to boost the morale of their own people and they want the media to report that they have strength in numbers. Studying the past activities of a group may provide indications of what they are capable of doing in the future.
What are their traditional behaviors or cultural repertoires? What people do during protests is not universal. It varies with the group, individual, and the culture. Social protestors and striking unions may carry placards and banners, while other groups may protest in a quiet way. Understanding these behaviors, along with their goals, can be helpful in deciding how to respond.
When and where will they assemble? Every protest organizer has a time and place for assembling and a destination for the crowd to move toward. If the organizer attempts to mobilize large numbers of participants, the time and place for assembling and dispersing must be made known in the instructions. This information may be stated in the mobilization instructions or disseminated by an informal network, such as word of mouth. Such impromptu networks in densely populated areas can enable rapid assembling. Knowing the location is a key to planning for a commander and their staff.
Where will they go? Many crowds have destinations. Organizations may march a specified distance to ensure that their cause gets sufficient attention. Commanders need to know the route to minimize disruptions to the rest of the community. Knowing the route allows LEAs (Law Enforcement Agencies) to take such measures as rerouting traffic to prevent congestion caused by protest marches. It is also necessary to provide security along the route to prevent counterdemonstrators from confronting the marchers. This will prevent an even greater problem for the community.
What are the possible targets of violence? Riot participants, in particular, may focus on target facilities, personnel, or objects. There is no set target list for rioters, and it depends on the location and what is in the area. Some common targets include: authority figures (the control force), government facilities, food supply facilities, gun stores, retail stores (especially those with high value items), and symbols of authority or government (such as statues, flags, or signs).
When and where will they disperse? Crowds have a life cycle that includes how they disperse (see chapter 1). Commanders must consider this. It is essential that there be one or more avenues that individuals and groups can use to disperse. These dispersal routes should be clearly marked, visible, and open-ended. There may be a need for U.S. forces to assist the crowd with dispersal. Assistance includes: securing routes, marking routes, and providing or helping arrange transportation.
Are there plans for subsequent gatherings? Organizers may have multiple gatherings planned on different dates or locations. Also, a crowd may disperse for a short time so that participants can take care of personal needs. This could be days or only a few hours.
What is the worst-case scenario? Worst-case scenarios must be recognized, discussed, and planned for, if for nothing else, to avoid them. This could be when an originally peaceful demonstration evolves into a full-blown riot.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
2-3. Commanders must know the legal boundaries, their sources, and how they apply to interacting with civilians in OCONUS and CONUS. The staff judge advocate (SJA) office is able to assist with information as well. The SJA office should be included in planning and involved in any activity with potential legal implications. For civil disturbance missions there are differences in the legal boundaries, and in how U.S. federal forces can be utilized, depending on if the event is within the United States or within a foreign country. The planning and execution for these missions needs to be conducted within those legal parameters.
Continental United States Versus Outside the Continental United States
2-4. For the U.S. Army, conducting civil disturbance missions within the United States. will vary greatly when compared to conducting civil disturbance missions within a foreign country where the U.S. Army is conducting operations. Except as expressly authorized by the Constitution of the United States or by another act of Congress, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) prohibits the use of the Active Army as enforcement officials to execute state or federal law and perform direct law enforcement functions within CONUS. For OCONUS operations, especially when the HN does not have a legitimate government or law enforcement capabilities, the U.S. Army may have to perform these functions, including responding to civil disturbances and performing the tactics and techniques discussed in this manual.
2-5. When the U.S. Army is conducting unified land operations within a foreign country, and there is a need for U.S. forces to conduct a civil disturbance mission, there are certain legal considerations that must be made. These considerations include (if applicable): United Nations or non-United Nations mandates, status-of-forces agreements, international laws, HN laws (Environmental directives pursuant to the actualization of FM 3-100/ MCWP 3-3.7.1, a field instruction manual establishing environmental directives concerning the implementation of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical, also known as NBC, Operations) the civil authorities (if functioning) of the foreign country, and ROE (Rules of Engagement).
2-6. Within CONUS, military operations would fall under the defense support of civil authorities (see ADP 3-28 and ADRP 3-28). Military support to law enforcement is one of two categories: direct and indirect support. When authorized by the Secretary of Defense, federal military forces may provide indirect support to law enforcement agencies; but support is limited to logistical, transportation, and training assistance except when emergency authority applies. State and territorial governors can use state National Guard forces for direct support to civilian law enforcement; however, such use is a temporary expedient and must be in accordance with state laws (see ADP 3-28).
2-7. The Constitution of the United States, laws, regulations, policies, and other legal issues limit the use of federal military personnel in domestic support operations. Any Army involvement in civil disturbance operations involves many legal issues requiring comprehensive legal reviews. However, federal forces are authorized for use in civil disturbance operations under certain circumstances. The following references pertain to the use of federal forces within the United States, therefore; commanders, staffs, and leaders must be familiar with, and adhere to, the parameters within them—
Insurrection Act (10 USC 333–334).
Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385).
32 CFR, Part 215. (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 215)
AR 381-10. (Army Regulation 381-10)
DODD 3025.18. (Department of Defense Directive 3025.18)
DODI 3025.21. (Department of Defense Instruction 3025.21)
NGR 500-1. (National Guard Regulation 500-1)
2-8. The Constitution of the United States provides two exceptions for which the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply. These exceptions are based upon the inherent right of the U.S. government to ensure the preservation of public order and to carrying out governmental operations within its territorial limits by force, if necessary. These two exceptions are—
Emergency authority. A sudden and unexpected civil disturbance, disaster, or calamity may seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that local authorities cannot control the situation. At such times, the federal government may use military force to prevent the loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore government functions and public order. In these circumstances, 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 (see DODD 3025.18).
Protection of federal property and functions. When the need for the protection of federal property or federal functions exists, and duly constituted local authorities are unable to, or decline to provide adequate protection, federal action, including the use of military forces, is authorized.
2-9. Laws passed by the U.S. congress include four exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. With the first three laws discussed below (10 USC 331–333) there is a prerequisite that the President must take personal action, including the issuance of a proclamation calling upon insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably within a limited time. The four exceptions, based on law are—
10 USC 331. When a state is unable to control domestic violence and they have requested federal assistance, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
10 USC 332. When ordinary enforcement means are unworkable due to unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
10 USC 333. When a state cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, due to domestic violence or conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
House Joint Resolution 1292. This resolution directs all departments of the U.S. government, upon request of the Secret Service, to assist in carrying out its statutory duties to protect government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.
WRITTEN ADDENDUM - The codified stipulations present within this measure, specifically 2-8 and 2-9, allow for the termination of Posse Comitatus pursuant to the Federal Government’s declaration of a uncontrollable domestic civil disturbance - this revocation, in turn, authorizes the use of military force on civilian populations as a means of effecting a semblance of order.
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Document: U.S. Army Preparing to Use Lethal Force Against “Unarmed Civilian Contingents” in Advance of “Full Scale Riots” in the United States
United States Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances
MILITARY FIELD MANUALS - FEMA COORDINATED OPERATIONS INSTRUCTIONALS
FEMA U.S. Army/ DoD Memorandums of Understanding
DoD Instructional Guidelines Concerning the Military Support of Civilian Law Enforcement
U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force “Garden Plot” Civil Disturbance Plans 1968-1991
U.S. Military Multi-Service Defense Support of Civil Authorities Manual
U.S. Army Regulation 500-50 Civil Disturbances Emergency Employment of Army Resources
U.S. Military Civil Disturbance SRUF (Standing Rules for the Use of Force)
U.S. Army Field Manual 3-19.15 Civil Disturbance Operations
Military Police Internment/ Resettlement Operations
Figure 4. Pamphlet excerpt from U.S. Army Field Manual 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations | February 2010, interior schematic detailing the architectural features applicable to civilian detention centers across the continental United States.
Figure 5. Prototypical turnstile entrance of the aforementioned detainment facilities.
U.S. Army Field Manual 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations | February 2010
FEMA Domes
Patented as a form of disaster contingency staging area, these dome-reinforced structures - which are also being marketed as wind resistant educational facilities, gymnasiums, churches, domestic communes, storage repositories, green technology/ environmentally sustainable enclosures (Articles whose construction and development is in legal/ code compliance with Agenda 21 Directive), commercial buildings, etc. across the continental United States, yet predominantly in portions of Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma - are part of a larger, more substantive collaborative venture involving FEMA and the Italy, Texas-based Monolithic Dome Institute (MDI). The design and layout of these concrete encapsulated housing units also considered to be a factor in the establishment of militarily occupied territories, an environmental concept oftentimes referred to as the megacity strategy, where various segments of the metropolitan community are effectively relocated into a series of domestically condensed population centers.
LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:
Woodsboro (Texas) Independent School District Receives $1.5 Million Federal Grant From the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Facilitate the Construction of a Multipurpose Dome-Reinforced Structure That Would Serve as Both an Educational Facility and Community Shelter in the Event of Disaster
School Districts Embrace Monolithic Dome Structures as Gymnasiums - FEMA Providing an Estimated 75 Percent of the Federal Funding Necessary to Complete the Development and Construction of These Facilities
Monolithic Dome Construction: Materials and Structural Composition/ Design Elements
From Geodesic Enclosures to Monolithic Dome-Reinforced Facilities | Chronological History of Development - 70 Page Aggregation of Articles
FEMA Coffins
Patented as ‘multi-functional cremation containers for cadavers’, these storage receptacles exist as an intrinsic component of a government subsidized contingency whereby large segments of the populace are interred in accordance with crematory procedure. These storage receptacles are then transported en masse via Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) owned and operated trains to encampments housing large-scale incinerators within their periphery. Credible reports of an estimated 500,000 FEMA coffins stacked within Georgia state lines, in close proximity to FEMA Region IV’s District Headquarters in Atlanta, have fueled speculation surrounding the inherent purpose of these constructs for many years. The actual geographical coordinates of these particular containment units is recognized as the equivalent of the following: 33.62961796023842° N, 83.94394040107386° W (Prospective viewing audiences are advised to consult the use of the Google Maps application entering in the following numerical values 33.62961796023842N, 83.94394040107386W) - a fact substantiated by ones perusal of the following visual:
NOTE: The black storage receptacles pictured in the illustrative composite above are representative of the aforementioned coffins
A landowner evincing ties to the surrounding area has traced the ownership of such appurtenances back to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a massive scientific research facility based in Atlanta that functions as a subsidiary component of the World Health Organization (WHO).
The close proximal distance of these structures lends credence to assertions alluding to a massive campaign of complicity between the WHO, the CDC, FEMA, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This unspoken alliance fostering the conditions necessary to elicit the predicted response - the very essence of a False Flag government initiative, whereby the incidence of calamity is utilized by an unknown contingent of provocateurs to perpetuate the genesis of a sinister enterprise.
The following cinematic references detail the existence of these multi-functional storage receptacles, chronicling the manufacture and distribution of these containment units:
A landowner evincing ties to the surrounding area has traced the ownership of such appurtenances back to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a massive scientific research facility based in Atlanta that functions as a subsidiary component of the World Health Organization (WHO).
The close proximal distance of these structures lends credence to assertions alluding to a massive campaign of complicity between the WHO, the CDC, FEMA, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This unspoken alliance fostering the conditions necessary to elicit the predicted response - the very essence of a False Flag government initiative, whereby the incidence of calamity is utilized by an unknown contingent of provocateurs to perpetuate the genesis of a sinister enterprise.
The following cinematic references detail the existence of these multi-functional storage receptacles, chronicling the manufacture and distribution of these containment units:
Original Documentation and Research © Jane Burgermeister and Jim Stachowiak 2009.
Paraphrased Documentation and Additional Research © Michael Reign 2013.
Concrete Tombs
Paraphrased Documentation and Additional Research © Michael Reign 2013.
Concrete Tombs
Marketed as mass burial chambers for deceased military personnel, the recent accumulation of these tomb-like constructs has led to numerous questions regarding the personal intentions of those agencies charged with its manufacture, a fact evidenced in the following cinematic presentations:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following documentation, obtained from Biblioteca Pléyades, illustrates the involvement of UN-based representatives in the orchestrated dissolution of state sovereignty through a coordinated campaign of regionalization.
Figure 6. UN Regionalization, FEMA, and the Abolition of State Sovereignty
In theory, this coordinated delineation of territorial boundary was designed to gauge the reaction of the general public in advance of what would later become a concerted effort by internationalist organizations and extrajudicial assemblies to author into existence a North American amalgam. A regional conglomerate that would ultimately mirror the European Union, with the abolition of geographical precinct through the incidence of engineered military conflicts precipitating a clash of civilizations.
Figure 7. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
SOURCE ARTICLES/ REGISTRY LINKS:
FEMA - The Secret Government by Harry V. Martin with research assistance by David Caul © FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995
The Tackmar Game by Sonya AKA The Spacelady
AMERICAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS | AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK
Latest Homeland Security Armored Vehicle Purchase Registry by Ken Jorgustin
The following cinematic references elaborate on the contentions presented in the above exposition, providing additional documentation relevant to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s scope of influence:
The following documentation, obtained from Biblioteca Pléyades, illustrates the involvement of UN-based representatives in the orchestrated dissolution of state sovereignty through a coordinated campaign of regionalization.
Figure 6. UN Regionalization, FEMA, and the Abolition of State Sovereignty
In theory, this coordinated delineation of territorial boundary was designed to gauge the reaction of the general public in advance of what would later become a concerted effort by internationalist organizations and extrajudicial assemblies to author into existence a North American amalgam. A regional conglomerate that would ultimately mirror the European Union, with the abolition of geographical precinct through the incidence of engineered military conflicts precipitating a clash of civilizations.
Figure 7. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
SOURCE ARTICLES/ REGISTRY LINKS:
FEMA - The Secret Government by Harry V. Martin with research assistance by David Caul © FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995
The Tackmar Game by Sonya AKA The Spacelady
AMERICAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS | AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK
Latest Homeland Security Armored Vehicle Purchase Registry by Ken Jorgustin
The following cinematic references elaborate on the contentions presented in the above exposition, providing additional documentation relevant to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s scope of influence:
No comments:
Post a Comment