Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Mod Squad
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
When you take a closer look at recent events and policies, a bigger picture emerges. Just what is the point of all of these seemingly unrelated things? The point, as always, is money... lots of money.

Under Obummercare, trillions of dollars will be funneled to a small group of companies supposedly providing "prevention and wellness" services. Although Obummercare will cost jobs and could bankrupt many healthcare companies, there are some companies that will receive contracts worth billions. Those directing this vast flow of cash will find themselves in a position to rake in billions in profits via the stock market.

One example of this is those companies making certain vaccines. Once vaccination become mandatory, there stock prices will soar and those with the foresight (or insider knowledge) to invest in these companies will make fortunes virtually overnight. I am expecting at least 20% growth per year for certain pharmaceutical corporations.

So why block funding and shut down the government?

Well, they know that the true patriots won't stand by and get robbed while the financial elite lines their pockets with our hard earned dollars. I'm not talking about the people who will bitch about it but take no action, I'm talking about the real patriots who will stand up and do something about it.

The problem is that it's a logistical nightmare to identify and round these guys up. The solution is to create an event so disturbing that the "dangerous" ones reveal themselves by attending protests. Ideally, you would get them to gather in a place that has strict gun control laws. This will ensure that the majority of them will be unarmed, and they will more or less be willing to be arrested as part of their protest.

So you just round them up, load them on cattle cars, and ship them off to some detainment facility. They will probably think they are being sent to a local jail.... until they see the trains. But it will be too late then, won't it? Do you think the German Jews would have gotten on the trains if they knew the end of the line was a Nazi oven?

But won't some of the protesters be armed anyway, even if it's illegal? Yes, but President Comrade Yomomma signed an executive order allowing the execution of American citizen on American soil without due process. The latest Army FM on "Civil Disturbance Operations" details how military snipers will be used to identify and if need be, neutralize suspected leaders and those deemed to be dangerous at such protests. They will be authorized to use deadly force to prevent "(d) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense involving violence and threatening death or serious bodily harm."

If you show a firearm at a demonstration, you will have met the requirement to, "prevent the commission of a serious offense involving violence." BANG, yer dead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Denton

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,897 Posts
Yes, I think that there is a sinister motive behind all these shutdowns.
Could it be that Obama and those who control him want to foment open rebellion so the police state they lust for can be implimented?

Just a thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,373 Posts
The shift to the elites has been dramatic since 08. This is well documented. Obummercare and some of the poors buy outs are the elites keeping the sheep in line. I don't see rail cars for patriots in the near future. Too much money is still to be shifted about.
 

·
Mod Squad
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Ripon, well I do see rail cars. The so called "FEMA" camps (actually DHS National Emergency Centers) were established by H.R. 645 by the 111th Congress in 2009/10. These were set up with preference given to closed military installations. Quoting the resolution, "If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations." Note that FEMA isn't mentioned, which is odd for facilities whose purpose is supposedly related to natural disasters.

But what are these for? On the surface, they seem to be intended for relief in the event of a natural disaster, but there is another purpose too. Again quoting from HR 645, "(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security." In other words, they can use them for whatever they want.

I just find it interesting that the selected facilities must meet 2 of the following 3 criteria...

(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor. <---- like railroad tracks

(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities. <---- interesting wording (italics mine)

(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.

I'm not saying these are death camps or even necessarily internment camps, but they are rather interesting and could certainly perform that role.

Edited to add:

Here's a link to the full text if anyone is interested: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr645/text
 
  • Like
Reactions: shotlady

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
Ripon, well I do see rail cars. The so called "FEMA" camps (actually DHS National Emergency Centers) were established by H.R. 645 by the 111th Congress in 2009/10. These were set up with preference given to closed military installations. Quoting the resolution, "If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations." Note that FEMA isn't mentioned, which is odd for facilities whose purpose is supposedly related to natural disasters.

But what are these for? On the surface, they seem to be intended for relief in the event of a natural disaster, but there is another purpose too. Again quoting from HR 645, "(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security." In other words, they can use them for whatever they want.

I just find it interesting that the selected facilities must meet 2 of the following 3 criteria...

(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor. <---- like railroad tracks

(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities. <---- interesting wording (italics mine)

(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.

I'm not saying these are death camps or even necessarily internment camps, but they are rather interesting and could certainly perform that role.

Edited to add:

Here's a link to the full text if anyone is interested: Text of H.R. 645 (111th): National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
When our new station was built all the conspiracy nuts were saying that it was a FEMA camp right up to the point we put up our sign and moved in.
 

·
Mod Squad
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I think the bikers are forcing the feds to re-examine their plans. They seem to somehow be able to muster a few million bikers in a matter of hours, a feat that makes military planners wonder how the hell they do it. These guys seem willing to force the issue, and won't be intimidated by the feds.

You have to respect these guys!
 

·
Mod Squad
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
When our new station was built all the conspiracy nuts were saying that it was a FEMA camp right up to the point we put up our sign and moved in.
Yeah, a lot of people post pictures of "FEMA" camps that aren't camps, aren't FEMA, and aren't even in the USA. Seems like anything with a fence becomes a FEMA camp these days. Even so, HR 645 isn't some "conspiracy theory," even though it was adopted by people who are arguably nuts. It's a real bill that was enacted in the real world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shotlady

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
Yeah, a lot of people post pictures of "FEMA" camps that aren't camps, aren't FEMA, and aren't even in the USA. Seems like anything with a fence becomes a FEMA camp these days. Even so, HR 645 isn't some "conspiracy theory," even though it was adopted by people who are arguably nuts. It's a real bill that was enacted in the real world.
Yes that people are reading into it and creating a conspiracy. HR 65 is nothing new; it was just ratified from lessons learned from Katrina. Camps need to established in a secure location because after Katrina all the hospitals, care facilities, and police stations were no more. Base of operations had to be quickly added to military bases outside of the destruction zone of Katrina. Doesn't it make sense to set aside sections of secured military facilities so that these are ready to go in case of an emergency?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
I think the bikers are forcing the feds to re-examine their plans. They seem to somehow be able to muster a few million bikers in a matter of hours, a feat that makes military planners wonder how the hell they do it. These guys seem willing to force the issue, and won't be intimidated by the feds.

You have to respect these guys!
A lot of those bikers were feds themselves. I got a friend that not only rode on that day but is currently escorting WWII vets to the memorial.
 

·
Mod Squad
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Yes that people are reading into it and creating a conspiracy. HR 65 is nothing new; it was just ratified from lessons learned from Katrina. Camps need to established in a secure location because after Katrina all the hospitals, care facilities, and police stations were no more. Base of operations had to be quickly added to military bases outside of the destruction zone of Katrina. Doesn't it make sense to set aside sections of secured military facilities so that these are ready to go in case of an emergency?
Yes, it makes sense to build them in secure locations. But, "(B) ... located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities" isn't exactly the same as a "secure location," it's the opposite of a secure location. Are you suggesting that natural disasters are afraid to attack a military base or that they are somehow more resistant to natural disasters when placed in abandoned military bases?

If I was looking for a place to build National Emergency Centers, I would look for places that have a LOW level or threat of disaster related activities, but are connected to areas of higher risk through a robust transportation network.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
Pfft, don't people know that any I-### highway is the wall for a FEMA camp?

I'm just afraid that something in the next few days might go bad - like some VN or WWII vet getting tazed at a national monument that is 'shut down' but patrolled and staffed by more JBT's than it has seen in the past year combined... Tinder, meet fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
Pfft, don't people know that any I-### highway is the wall for a FEMA camp?

I'm just afraid that something in the next few days might go bad - like some VN or WWII vet getting tazed at a national monument that is 'shut down' but patrolled and staffed by more JBT's than it has seen in the past year combined... Tinder, meet fire.
Already had a bunch of this stuff already happen in DC past few days. I have been threatened by people while in uniform saying, "You feds are the first to get it when this kicks off!" It's a very volatile time in the US right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
Yes, it makes sense to build them in secure locations. But, "(B) ... located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities" isn't exactly the same as a "secure location," it's the opposite of a secure location. Are you suggesting that natural disasters are afraid to attack a military base or that they are somehow more resistant to natural disasters when placed in abandoned military bases?

If I was looking for a place to build National Emergency Centers, I would look for places that have a LOW level or threat of disaster related activities, but are connected to areas of higher risk through a robust transportation network.
No what I mean is it has to be federal property so that it will be secure and maintained until it is needed. No one knows when and where the next disaster will take place but we have a pretty good idea on what it will be. For example you wouldn't place hurricane supplies in Fallon, Nevada but in federal installations out of the direct threat area where supplies can be lifted from to the areas it is needed in relatively short amount of time. When the hospitals were destroyed by Katrina, many of the hospitals in the surrounding areas were overwhelmed. It would make sense to have a mobile hospital that can be quickly lifted from a base and put in place as well as military hospitals that can take patients in short order. For example a military hospital can be given the title as a FEMA national center and all that means is that along with its normal day to day operations, it is also equipped to be used as a FEMA base of operations. First thing in a disaster is to have a rally point in which lines of communication can be established and the equipment and skills can get to the people that need it. It has to be in the high risk areas because that is where it will be needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,296 Posts
A lot of those bikers were feds themselves. I got a friend that not only rode on that day but is currently escorting WWII vets to the memorial.
Not all agents are mindless drones?

Man, can you imagine the simmering, seething anger being felt by the agents who are true patriots who take their oath to the constitution very seriously?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,296 Posts
+1 I'm one of those!
Glad to hear that!

Let us know when it is go-time. We all need to roll when you guys get a belly-full. Who better to know than those who believe in the laws of nature and nature's God and took an oath to protect the document based on such understanding?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
When are the true patriots going to stand up and say enough is enough.. What is the line in the sand? People in the government like their jobs mostly. Especially the law enforcement,military and detention side of things. They like the excitement and enjoy carrying a weapon. That is why they chose it in the first place. What is it going to take for them to say "Hey, wait a minute." It is their bread and butter. They feed their kids by doing it. I'm just not sure that a large majority of them wont follow the government to the edge of the earth.

Here is why, just like now. It will be a bunch of smaller things so it wont seem so bad. It's not like the government is going to order them tomorrow to go into homes and start shooting Americans. It will be many smaller situations that they might think about being on the edge, but not quite. Just like the older lady's home they went into after Katrina. The cops and National Guard were going in taking guns "to help prevent violence'.. That is why I think the majority of the police and troops will be on the governments side.Because it wont seem like a big deal to them..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
Even now, your not even getting paid and you are still there. Say the same situation like Katrina happened. Would you go in and start taking guns? I think where there are several LEO's there and some of them are following the order, others just go along with it because it seems right because others are doing it. I keep tossin around different things in my head and just keep thinkin the majority, not all will follow orders. Hell, they have to eat..

Even now, I would think there would be a few feds sayin "what the **** is goin on? I'm not even getting paid am I am following this retarded ass government" But they are not. Why, it is their source of income and their kids have to eat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
Glad to hear that!

Let us know when it is go-time. We all need to roll when you guys get a belly-full. Who better to know than those who believe in the laws of nature and nature's God and took an oath to protect the document based on such understanding?
It really seems like it's going in that direction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
When are the true patriots going to stand up and say enough is enough.. What is the line in the sand? People in the government like their jobs mostly. Especially the law enforcement,military and detention side of things. They like the excitement and enjoy carrying a weapon. That is why they chose it in the first place. What is it going to take for them to say "Hey, wait a minute." It is their bread and butter. They feed their kids by doing it. I'm just not sure that a large majority of them wont follow the government to the edge of the earth.

Here is why, just like now. It will be a bunch of smaller things so it wont seem so bad. It's not like the government is going to order them tomorrow to go into homes and start shooting Americans. It will be many smaller situations that they might think about being on the edge, but not quite. Just like the older lady's home they went into after Katrina. The cops and National Guard were going in taking guns "to help prevent violence'.. That is why I think the majority of the police and troops will be on the governments side.Because it wont seem like a big deal to them..
First thing, in Katrina it was the mayor of New Orleans, local law enforcement and National Guard from New Orleans who confiscated weapons. As for the feds, I know for a fact that we were stuck on the airport tarmac for three days because we wouldn't play by the locals rules of shoot first, GPS, and deal with it later attitude.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top