Leviathan's Plan for Emergency: No Thanks!

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

While the concept
of government-run, military-style detention centers is not a new
idea, another and new step toward this end has recently taken place.
Should we be worried and watchful? I think we all should be very
worried, and that without a doubt this plan should be stopped in
its tracks before it goes any further! These are the united States
after all, not communist Russia or Nazi Germany of old.

On January
22nd, 2009, just a couple of days after the new "ruler"
(Obama) took the place of the old "ruler" (Bush), Alcee
Hastings (D) of Florida introduced a new bill; H.R. 645: National
Emergency Centers Establishment Act.
This bill was referred
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition
to the Committee on Armed Services. The bill is "To direct
the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency
centers on military installations." This bill introduced by
Congress combines Homeland Security, national emergency centers
and the military in one package. The makings of this toxic concoction
could prove to be dangerous to liberty.

According to
the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not
fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
Supposedly, these centers are to provide temporary housing, medical,
and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated
due to an emergency or major disaster. I emphasize
emergency and disaster due to the fact that these
terms, while not defined in this bill, are defined, as referenced
in Sec. 6, in Title 42 > Chapter 68 > Subchapter 1
> U.S. Code 5122. "The definitions are as follows:

  1. Emergency.
    "Emergency" means any occasion or instance for which,
    in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed
    to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save
    lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or
    to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of
    the United States.
  2. Major
    disaster.
    "Major disaster" means any natural catastrophe
    (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven
    water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide,
    mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any
    fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which
    in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient
    severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under
    this chapter to supplement the efforts and available resources
    of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations
    in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused
    thereby.

In addition
to these definitions, local governments, federal agencies, public
facilities and private non-profit facilities are also defined. It
is evident given these additional definitions that the government
has jurisdiction anywhere and everywhere, and for any given reason.
Actually, after reading all the definitions that are relevant to
this bill, it is very apparent that there are really no rules at
all. On the president's say alone, these centers can be activated.
This is not acceptable!

In my opinion,
the wording and so-called intent of this bill will make it easier
for Congress to gain support from the masses. This is certainly
not unusual nor is it coincidental, but in this case it could be
deadly. It will be sold as a panacea for natural disasters like
Katrina and of course, for "national security." It will
also, if passed, open up previously closed military bases; that
an easy sale, due to the fact that those who were once working on
these bases are clamoring for relief. Since these bases already
exist, and the infrastructure is fully in place, the proponents
of this bill will not have to request as much taxpayer money at
the onset. It will be sold as an inexpensive way to protect Americans
from all harm. The requested amount of money for this project according
to the bill is $180,000,000.00 for each of fiscal years 2009 and
2010; a total of $360,000,000.00. This is but a mere pittance compared
to the trillions being awarded by government to their favored campaign
contributors. This in my opinion is by design.

This bill comes
at a time when federal combat troops have already been deployed
domestically; that an atrocity in and of itself. This happened on
October 1st of 2008 when the 3rd Infantry
Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team went under day-to-day
control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern
Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade
emergencies, including terrorist attacks. In addition, 20,000
more troops are to be positioned inside the U.S. soon. If one were
to connect the dots, it is easily discernable that these things
are not coincidental. One does not have to be a conspiracy nut to
see the "slippery slope" we're on considering the linking
of the military, Homeland Security, domestic disaster and emergency
and government holding centers.

Add to this
the current economic debacle caused fully by the government and
the Federal Reserve, and what is to be expected? Citizens are losing
jobs, losing their savings and retirement assets, losing their homes
and the conditions continue to worsen as government continues to
spend and inflate to protect their buddies on Wall Street and in
banking. Is civil unrest a possibility in our future, and if so,
what will be the consequences?

Considering
the timing of these events that I've mentioned here, is this government
expecting the worst and in turn preparing for civil disobedience?
I obviously can't say for sure, but I think studied precaution is
advisable.

It is not out
of the question that given the current state of affairs and the
very real possibility of a long-term depression on the horizon,
that crime rates may escalate, inner cities may implode, mass discontent
may gain ground and civil unrest might be the result. Should it
get to this, or even be expected to get to that level, what will
government's attitude be? Will our "civil servants" do
the right thing and quit spending, quit nationalizing the private
sector, quit destroying our money, and return to sound policies?
If not, what then?

It is apparent
to me that this bill if passed is not for safety or security, but
for the real possibility that many Americans will have to be rounded
up in the future. Considering all that has already happened and
is continuing to happen, what other conclusion can be reached? This
is simply legislation to allow control and restraint of the citizenry
should that be necessary according to the all-powerful government.
The timing is eerily suspicious and the intent alone is loathsome.
This bill, as well as all other containment measures proposed by
the government, could set the stage for a true police state. This
scenario is simply too disastrous to consider, much less allow!

March
6, 2009

Gary
D. Barnett [send
him mail
] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc.,
in Lewistown, Montana.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare