World Paralised by Flu Epidemic.
UN Troops to Enforce Quarantine in US Cities.

Imagine waking up and reading that headline on your favorite news website. What would be your reaction?

Today as reported by AP

"EU health officials urged Europeans on Monday to postpone nonessential travel to the United States and Mexico because of the swine flu virus, and Spanish health officials confirmed the first case outside North America.

China, Russia and Taiwan said it would quarantine visitors showing symptoms of the virus amid a surging global concern about a possible pandemic.

World stock markets fell as investors worried that the deadly outbreak could go global and derail any global economic recovery. Airlines took the brunt of the selling.

The virus was suspected in up to 103 deaths in Mexico, the epicenter of the outbreak with more than 1,600 cases suspected, while 20 cases were confirmed in the United States and six in Canada.

In Luxembourg, European Union Health Commissioner Andorra Vassiliou urged Europeans to postpone nonessential travel to the United States and Mexico "unless it is very urgent for them.""

Now this is an emerging situation that likely will pass as a relatively benign exercise in beaurucratic masturbation. But, history tells us that every fifty to a hundred years a pandemic does strike and in the past the death tolls where quite large. Factually, more people died from in the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu pandemic than did in combat in World War I ! So this is nothing to take lightly. But lets digress back to the first headline in this post. What would you do if the UN decided to send peacekeepers to the US in order to "contain" a pandemic? Now lets assume that the current administration in its efforts to be lovable around the world would condone that leaving the common citizen to ponder this thought. What cost is the sovereignty of our country? What cost is the freedom that I allow my government to act on my behalf?

Any and I repeat, ANY troops on US soil, even US troops (active duty or reserve not directly administered by the state government) is an act of WAR. In the past few years, a new US Army command was established to "keep the peace" on US soil in the event of "civil unrest". Now, first this has been done before, meaning the use of US Troops on US soil but historically those troops where brought up from the local reserves and militias since at that time there was no standing Army of any size. So basically, the local citizens had to agree that there was a crisis and they reported for duty. Today, we have a rather large standing military and it would fall on the moral decision making processes of each troop whether to report or not. However, legally there is an issue here. Its called the Posse Comitatus Act:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.

So, if there is a federal law prohibiting the use of US Federal forces on US soil. Then, why did the US Army set up this command being that it is illegal to use in the first place?

Here at When do you resist? we are not conspiracy nuts, whackos, or neocons. But we do look at the series of events and see how a simple line can be draw from one point to the other. It does appear that our government has grown to a point that just as "Sky-net" acts to defend itself in the "Terminator" movie series, that the current government in this country as it is being implimented will soon do so also. Only in this scenario it is not the end of the human race as the objective, it will likely be the end of our civil liberties and freedoms.

Note: In researching for this post we came across a portion of law that was introduced in 2006 and thankfully repealed in 2008. It was a modification to the Insurrection Act that gave the White House the authority to declare martial law for various reasons. This current "crisis" is one of those reasons. Just food for thought.

There's been an overbearing amount of noise pushed out about "sub-prime" lending and the "meltdown" of the mortgage industry. But, there seems to be very little logical thought given to this at a personal level. It's easy to toss out examples on the excessive side of the equation. But likely for every one person that should never have qualified for a loan there are thousands who legally and ethically did due to their amount of available net cash flow. You know net cash flow its that amount of money you have after taxes and bills and expenses each month.

We've all seen the analyst on television, the talking heads that spout all of the reasons why the system melted down pointing fingers at each other instead of looking at the root causes of the issue. Let me enlighten you all here. People don't pay their bills when they don't have the money to do so or are pressed into a situation where they have to make hard choices. You know like between the food bill and the light bill. If the talking heads would back up from the forest and look at the trees its as simple as this. The average cost of basic essentials that most people need to exist in this country (food, gas, etc) went up in cost over an 18 month period rather dramatically. About 300% for gasoline and about 45% for food. Now did any one's base pay go up 20%? Well if you worked on Wall Street yes, it probably did but for the rest of us it did not.

Now ask yourself this question? What happened in the world to SUDDENLY cause the cost of production for fuel to increase that much? Hmmm...... Nothing. The reason for the sudden cost of gasoline at the pump was due to financial managers who bought and sold futures contracts deciding that the "market would bare the cost." Thereby artificially inflating the value of oil until the cost of production actually rose. After speaking to several oil industry analysts it became very clear that even at its highest price in the almost $150.00 a barrel range oil or rather the cost to produce a barrel of oil never exceeded $65.oo a barrel to produce. Now figure that the sudden rise in cost actually came from the money on finished product (diesel, gasoline, etc) needed to "mine" the raw product! So the range between $65.00 a barrel, times a percentage for company profit (let's use the old college theoretical 30% or $19.50 a barrel) so the actual cost retail should have been $ 84.50 a barrel or about $ 1.87 a gallon (wholesale). Now why are we talking about this now? Well, if you have been watching the major financial players in the commodities markets are once again at it and this time they have TARP funds to use. You know those monies lent to them from the Federal government. You know YOUR TAX DOLLARS and they are manipulating the markets again. Oil has been swinging between $38.50 and $54.00 a barrel for the last six months. After speaking with industry analysts about it they are formulating that the cost of production for oil currently is about $32.00 a barrel on the established fields and $35.00 a barrel on the new fields that they started when oil was so high. So, if we use the model as above oil but average the two costs together so oil should be about $43.00 a barrel which would make gasoline about $0.78 a gallon (wholesale). Now of course these simple examples do not inflate the cost for the middlemen in the business but simply adding another 30% to each cost does not drive gas up to $4.33 a gallon at its high nor does it make it $2.00 a gallon as it is now. Even adding in federal fuel taxes it does not make it there. So, start watching the players in the commodities markets the actual buyers and the sellers .... you will become very enlightened very quickly.

So I ask you this. If water was treated in the same manner as oil and one day you woke up and your water bill went from $20.00 a month to $500.00 a month simply because "the market will bare it". What would you do? Rampant speculation in one market caused a trickle down or rather a cascading explosion to occur which has effected every corner of our lives. The saying goes "Its all about the money. Follow the trail of the money and you will find the cause for the effect." Speculation without the ability to take the product and use it for your own business consumption is unethical. Its immoral when it causes distress to innocent people. It should be illegal when its done with public monies (your tax dollars). Tell the Government to stop unethical, illegal and immoral speculation.

A Call to Arms.

At what point, due to what circumstance do you pick up arms and resist the government? This question goes through my mind often. Historically speaking, it is a question that every citizen should ask themselves. We have seen time and again when a sitting government falls far and away from the principle which that government was formed or blatantly moves in manners only to secure power for the leaders et al. The list is extensive, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, Kim, and many, many others. We (the American People) seem to live in a fantasy world that it can not happen here.

Truly on several occasions several past Presidents exceeded their authority, many seem to default to the last president but this list would also include FDR, Lincoln, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Adams, and even Jefferson. Each one of these men exceeded their authority on more than one occasion. One got impeached, two assassinated (not for what they did ... directly) and two where founding fathers. But these men worked from their position in their actions. What if they had help from members of Congress? Would one dare to call that a conspiracy? Let's look at the definition.

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)

n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

When an official is not held to a standard that is on par or above a common citizen then we need to question. Is there a conspiracy? We need to question. Is there favor being given? Look at the actions to quickly forgive and then promote those in our current government for breaking laws that they are now sworn to uphold and for policies that they are now tasked to writing and administer.

We need to question the motives and actions of our sitting officials. When we do not agree with them we need to state this as so. Join, organize, protest and at the end of the day be determined to resist at every level even unto armed revolt to protect the foundations of our Constitutional Government. The danger of blindly being self absorbed is that singularly a person is just that a single undefended, unaffiliated item to be placed where authority sees fit.

The photo in this post is of people (mostly Jews) at a WW2 German Death Camp, the process in the photo was known as the Life/Death sorting where the lucky went into the camp to work as forced labor, to be slowly starved to death while providing goods for the state. The others went directly to gas chambers to be eradicated and then the "lucky" where forced to take the bodies on to the ovens to be burned. This photo should serve as a reminder to all that a few men in power, made the law and the rest of the citizens merely obeyed those laws while no one objected.

Blind obedience to the law of a siting government and not to the moral center, the foundational doctrine that has served us so brilliantly these past 200 plus years is dangerous, extremely dangerous. One must also remember that it was due to economic crisis that brought the Nazi regime into power and that they acted quickly to establish their outline for a future country which at the end brought them all great ruin. We are headed down a similar path. As it was said at the end of the Nazi Regime, "It was not the Army that gave Hitler his power, it was the clerks." When people merely shrug their shoulders and continue to do nothing then those who serve their own wants over the peoples only grow more emboldened and excessive. Not a single senior member of the Nazi party ever visited a Death camp, administered one, or even decided who would go to the gas chamber or to labor. They stayed in the capitol, promoting an image of strength, moral rightness, while touting the improvements made under their rule. It was the clerks, and the common citizen that did their bidding. "I was only following orders" was the most commonly heard defense at the Nuremberg trials. Do you follow orders or do you take up arms? and if you take up arms... when?

"Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," said that while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, such acts could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment."

Yeah, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized to veterans.

"This was an assessment, not an accusation," "It was limited to extremists those who seek to commit violence within the United States. And all this was meant to do was to give law enforcement what we call 'situational awareness.'"

"The last thing I want to do is offend or castigate all veterans. To the contrary, let's meet and clear the air,"

First, if that was an apology my grandmother's teachings where all wrong. I thought a comment of regret, like "I apologize" or, "I'm sorry", or maybe even "please forgive me if I offended you but what I meant was" more in line with an apology rather than a clearing statement which is what Ms. Napolitano made.

Second, military personnel know about "situational awareness" its drilled into our heads from the first day at boot camp to the last day we serve. Most of us continue with those skills for the rest of our lives. But to simply be so arrogant to lump people that swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States into a group and make these remarks and "retractions" is pitiful and should not be condoned.

But to look deeper into the text of the remark. "concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms". Every citizen should be concerned about these issues not just returning soldiers. Does these mean that anyone concerned about these issues are ripe to be plucked by "radicalism"? A shift in federal governmental policy is truly swinging towards socialism, some may say fascism but definitely away from the principles outlined at the founding of our republic. Is Ms. Napolitano concerned about her role in homeland security or in protecting the apparent agenda of those like minded pocket socialist? As defenders of this republic, every soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman has sworn an oath to defend not the government but the Constitution. Most servicemen and women are more concerned about the moral right rather than the legal ramblings so maybe Ms. Napolitano, the current administration and current sitting Congress should take note of this comment. Act in the moral right instead of manipulating the intent of the law lest the people revolt.

Cyber Security Act of 2009

Let's talk a bit about this act. Link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.773:

But specifically this part :

S.773

Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate)

---

SEC. 17. AUTHENTICATION AND CIVIL LIBERTIES REPORT.

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, or the President's designee, shall review, and report to Congress, on the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program, with the appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections, for government and critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

The President--

(1) within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, shall develop and implement a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy, which shall include--

(A) a long-term vision of the Nation's cybersecurity future; and

(B) a plan that encompasses all aspects of national security, including the participation of the private sector, including critical infrastructure operators and managers;

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

(3) shall designate an agency to be responsible for coordinating the response and restoration of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network affected by a cybersecurity emergency declaration under paragraph (2);

(4) shall, through the appropriate department or agency, review equipment that would be needed after a cybersecurity attack and develop a strategy for the acquisition, storage, and periodic replacement of such equipment;

(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;

(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

(7) shall, through the Office of Science and Technology Policy, direct an annual review of all Federal cyber technology research and development investments;

(8) may delegate original classification authority to the appropriate Federal official for the purposes of improving the Nation's cybersecurity posture;

(9) shall, through the appropriate department or agency, promulgate rules for Federal professional responsibilities regarding cybersecurity, and shall provide to the Congress an annual report on Federal agency compliance with those rules;

(10) shall withhold additional compensation, direct corrective action for Federal personnel, or terminate a Federal contract in violation of Federal rules, and shall report any such action to the Congress in an unclassified format within 48 hours after taking any such action; and

(11) shall notify the Congress within 48 hours after providing a cyber-related certification of legality to a United States person.

Notice the phrase "Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network." This broad stroke line brings the following to task ... ANY system tied to the internet is part of the "UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE". By design (and Federal mandate) all telecom systems are interlinked for various reasons this is a necessary event. However, until this legislation these interconnects are managed by seperate competing companies that simply agree to work jointly in providing an agreed level of service all with in the guidelines established and regulated by the FCC. So this infrastructure is already Federally regulated so where is there a need to create an additional agency? Additionally, since there is already regulation in place which states in the event of a national emergency how these private firms must operate. Why should the president have additional new powers?

Flatly this legislation is so broad in scope, context, and scale that it the conclusion of this proposal reminds many of Orwell's "1984". It is interesting that this legislation comes out the same week the Supreme Court rules on what is an illegal search of a person's vehicle during a traffic stop when this legislation allows illegal search of everything electronic ... which in this day and age is EVERYTHING. If you carry a smartphone it is part of "critical infrastructure" as defined by the FCC. Same with home computers, TV's connected via cable, laptops via wifi and every corporate, banking or commercial server.

Please read the whole proposed act at : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.773:

Over the last 90 days several events have occurred that spurred the creation of this blog. These events are

• The pre-election bailout, full of earmarks and without the standard debate and review. Factually most of the members that signed this legislation never actually read it before it was signed.
  
• The post election appointments of several cabinet members who after being appointed decided only then to meet their personal tax obligations. These people where ratified without normal or sufficient penalties, which would not have been done with an "average" citizen.
• The post election fast track and ratification of the largest debt transaction in world history.
• The labeling of current and former military service personnel as "potential domestic terrorists"
• The introduction of the Cyber Security Act of 2009

We will be discussing these and other issues in this blog. Your participation is encouraged ... rhetoric is not. This blog spot is non-partisan and will remain that way. Postings of direct party line rhetoric will be "moderated".