Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Obama's 'National Civilian Security Force' Call: Scary 11th-Hour Revelation
Share:
by Scrivener | November 2, 2008 at 12:20 am
13350 views | 10 Recommendations | 59 comments
• Victims of state-supported gang stalking should be outraged by little-publicized rally comment
GET POLITICAL w/ VIC LIVINGSTON
As a long-time journalist and a human rights advocate, I've written extensively about my personal experiences with state-supported "extrajudicial targeting" -- commonly known as "gang stalking" or "community stalking," or, as I've called it, "The American Gestapo."
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/american-gestapo-state-supported-terrorism-targets-u-s-citizens
I've also expressed my support for Barack Obama (once Hillary Clinton eliminated herself from contention for the nomination with her half-hearted convention challenge).
Now, on the eve of the election, the McCain campaign has launched a fear and smear fusillade of attack ads, videos and direct mail pieces intended to give pause to those who came late to the Obama party.
Well, one of those efforts has succeeded mightily in raising alarm bells in this quarter.
It's a clip from an Obama speech delivered last July in Colorado, in which he said that the security of the nation requires a "civilian national security force" that is "just as powerful" and "well-funded" as the existing U.S. military.
True to form, this comment failed to provoke much attention in the mainstream media, although today I learned that the clip was posted on YouTube almost immediately.
As someone whose personal experiences indicate that American citizens already are being terrorized by so-called "extrajudicial targeting" at the hands of a state-supported vigilante network -- operating under the cover of volunteer community watch programs and "service" corps -- I was extremely troubled when I viewed the brief clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Yes, it's taken out of context. But that Obama could utter these words is so disconcerting to me -- revelatory, and not in a good way -- that I must hear an immediate explanation and amplification from Obama himself before I can give him my vote and feel good about it.
It's apparent that Obama is oblivious to the great injustices against American citizens already being committed by these state-supported vigilantes in the name of "homeland security." (The very nomenclature chosen by the Bush administration is evocative of fascist Third Reich rhetoric.)
Many of those targeted are innocent citizens who have been labeled as "dissenters" or have been falsely and slanderously targeted as suspected wrongdoers by a neo-fascist element within the security establishment.
The existing civilian vigilante network, apparently interconnected by communications links established by federal, state and local law enforcement, is employing civilians as its extrajudicial "street muscle" in under-the-radar stealth fashion. Local officials deny this is happening, and attempt to portray those who raise the issue as delusional or worse -- the very methodology employed by fascist regimes to put down those who dare to protest against such abuses of power.
That Obama seeks to give legitimacy to what's already a Stasi-like network of civilian stormtroopers who stalk, vandalize and employ hi-tech "directed energy" weaponry is naive pandering at best, and dangerous demagoguery at worst.
If Obama does not renounce this concept immediately, and demonstrate his recognition of the danger and folly of using civilians as a domestic security force, I will seriously consider casting my vote for Bob Barr or Ralph Nader.
I don't even know if either of those candidates is on the ballot in Pennsylvania, where I live. If not, I will consider a write-in vote.
Please, Sen. Obama, clarify your position in a manner that restores my confidence in you -- a confidence which has been shattered overnight by a viewing of your disturbing Colorado rally comment.
What do you think about this? Feel free to register your opinions below.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Greg in Indiana (not verified)
Most Recommended Stories in World
Recommendations (10)
Anonymous users (3)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (59)
at 07:14 on November 3rd, 2008
What we have here is a disturbing speech, followed by disturbing excuses for it. Sure, I'd like to believe that Obama is just looking out for us and the "civilian security force" will just be another tool to help the American people prosper in safety.
Then why does it have to be as well funded and (perhaps more tellingly) just as powerful as the US armed forces? Just as powerful? We have the most powerful military in the world many times over (save China, maybe)...just how powerful does a civilian security force need to be? Disturbing for sure.
Excuses made in this thread are equally disturbing. Seems that there are too many people willing to overlook the obvious here. This is dangerous ground. But it is instructive - those providing excuses from the left are wearing their big government desires on their sleeve. From the right, there is an almost universal desire to get the government out of our lives. When distilled in that fashion, it is a simple and profound philosophical difference.
at 14:27 on November 3rd, 2008
Again people do not see the danger right before them. This is like a communist type secret policing organization where children will be informing on their parents if they hear their parents make any comments which the communists / liberals do not like. The children will be indoctrinated even more than they are now, and will be singing in unison for Obama the messiah. The parents will then be cast as villains and the leftists will laugh with delight as the executions begin and at the very least the imprisonment for hate crimes thought crimes and sedition, because anyone who does not agree with the party line is the enemy.
The leftists cannot even see what is so readily apparent from his books, speeches and demeanor or his wife’s behavior, nor do they care because they hate the European mores which their parents represent. Obama hates <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />America and white people, and he will use any power he has to destroy both.
People think history moves slowly, but changes take place very quickly, and those who do not look at the possibilities will get run over by them. Liberals besides being hypocrites and full of vengeance and cruelty are very stupid. The system they hate (european civilization) and want destroyed is the only system which affords them the right to speak their mind and to live their hedonistic life in relative peace.
We will get change alright, and it isn't going to be good.
at 17:45 on November 3rd, 2008
If you are concerned about an Obama presidency and that he would carry out this plan, then vote for McCain. Unfortunately, although admirable, voting for Barr or Nader will just allow Obama to do the very thing you are concerned about.
at 19:05 on November 3rd, 2008
Obama is the biggest con ever presented. I will not listen to anyone say, "God **** America" for years. It is hate...How can you "liberals" claim to be the antithesis of hate when everything coming out of your mouth is hate? And now, we learn that the tools of your hate will be the stasi? Whatever the cause, a Nazi is a Nazi...If it walks like Nazi, talks like a Nazi, hey, it's a Nazi...The Obama fans key cars and break out windows. This is what a Liberal means in the new world order...and now, we are going to give them authority?
May God have mercy on us all!
at 23:28 on November 3rd, 2008
There is a lot of paranoia here.
How easy it is to forget that eight years of republican neo-conservative rule have subverted the powers of the Constitution and the Congress and usurped them to the executive. These are attacks on our freedoms that have ACTUALLY HAPPENED. We cannot allow these folks, through their candidate, to remain in power. As Scrivener said above:
"Ascribe to your enemies the very methodologies being employed against them: A Golden Rule of the disinformation agent."
at 23:55 on November 3rd, 2008
I have would bet that I have researched Barak Obama's
background more than 90% of those voting for him. I
plan to vote for McCain tomorrow. History has repeated
itself time and time again. If Barack wins, you will see Jews by the Thousands moving to Israel, and for very good reason, because they all did their research on both
candidates, rather than what the Obama voters did, by not being able to distinguish between the facts, and his background,compared to the media Brain Washing Obama Supporters.
Wait until you see our mass Exodus, and how it will further disintegrate U.S. Businesses, thus further spiraling down consumer confidence, and the U.S. dollar.
Do you know what is like to be survivor of the Holocaust, and wake up almost every night with nightmares ? Do you know what it is like surviving the harsh Russian winters, with no shoes on your feet, or no idea where you will get food each day ? Obama wants his own SS security force. This recent exposure of Obama describing this on you tube has been turning off Obama Voters. Albert Einstein was wise enough to leave Natzi Germany, before it was too late, and he would have otherwise gotten stuck in a cattle car. History does repeated itself many times, for reasons that I will not get into. If Barack Obama wins, I have decided that I can no longer live in a country whose moral downward spiral has been so dramatic, in my lifetime. My lifetime consists of only forty years. No, I do not think McCain is the perfect candidate. It often comes down to which candidate is the least worst. There are leaders, and followers. If you are foolish enough to vote, with out cross examining the background of both candidates, then you will be followers, whether you like it or not.
at 09:02 on November 5th, 2008
Ascribe to your enemies the very methodologies being employed against them. -- Golden rule of the disinformation artist.
Times they are a changin.' Better get on the side of the rule of law. Fear-mongering won't work any more. Have a nice day.
at 04:09 on November 4th, 2008
What could have been his motives in tha last days of the campaign to bring up a subject that on the surface can seem extremely controversial with out a in depth explanation? Anyone- please direct me to a site that he explains what a NCSF is.
at 04:31 on November 4th, 2008
This Civilain Security Force wreaks of the civilian police of NAZI Germanhy of the 30's where neighbors snitched on each other to kill dissent against Hilter. I don;t trust Obama any farther than I can throw him
at 07:46 on November 4th, 2008
I object to the alarmist words "scary 11th hour" in the headline. Obama has alluded to this kind of national force at least since July 2008. The tone of the terminology means bad journalism to me.
at 07:58 on November 4th, 2008
When Obama describes his "civilian national security force" that is "just as powerful" and "well-funded" as the existing U.S. military. Since when does the peace corps or Ameri-corps need to be "just as powerful" as the us Military?
What is he talking about? Brown Shirts?
at 15:18 on November 4th, 2008
Let's not be naive.
I don't know what *he* was talking about, but the proverbial "Nazis" are here today in the "guise" of InfraGard and other clever disguises.
Completely Innocent civilians are being attacked/assaulted using "Directed Radiation Weapons" along with chemical dispersion weapons of many descriptions.
This is *FACT* and cannot be "shouted down" by "disinformation" operatives.
Quote "the powers that be" -
"InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.
InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.
“Then the FBI cloned it,” says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.
InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.
“We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility,” says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.
“At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector,” the InfraGard website states. “InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories.”
In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that “350 of our nation’s Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard.”
http://www.progressive.org/mag/mc070208
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9725077
http://www.progressive.org/mag_rothschild0308
http://www.eastbaytewg.org/tlo_position.htm
at 03:38 on November 5th, 2008
Scrivener,
It's called epiphany. Not only did he say "civilian national security force", he said "to meet the security objectives which -->we have set<--".
It's a deliberate plan, which will unfold. Hugo Chavez did the same thing in Venezuela for precisely the totalitarian reasons you spout.
Obama different? He robbed the "national treasury" together with Bush and Obama both --remember-- to give the loot to his corporate masters in the banking industry. Grand theft larceny before our very eyes in broad daylight in which even the lying snakes called "pollsters" were saying 80 percent of us opposed.
That's probably the last free election. Next comes the Media Muzzle aka the Unfairness Doctrine, then this force, then stacking the Supreme Court with his own lackeys.. With better success than Roosevelt..
And Bush set it up for him...
--Alan
at 19:05 on November 11th, 2008
Welll, having been initially shocked at the 10 second blurb circulating through e-mail, and not being one to jump on a bandwagon, I had to check out the whole speech to figure our what he was saying in context. I am still bothered at the concept of a "civilian national security force." He was talking just prior about growing our "foreign service" doubling the size of the "Peace Corps" to "renew our diplomacy." Then comes the line "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've
Well, having been initially shocked at the 10 second blurb circulating through e-mail, and not being one to jump on a bandwagon, I had to check out the whole speech to figure out what he was saying in context. I am still bothered at the concept of a "civilian national security force." He was talking just prior about growing our "foreign service" doubling the size of the "Peace Corps" to "renew our diplomacy." Then comes the line "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set, we've gotta have a civilian national security that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." Now it seems to me that he is going through a grocery list of service opportunities available, and this actually seems disconnected from his foreign Peace Corps comments before, and his technology comments after. Now I am very excited about community service; in fact it is my profession at a local university; mobilizing students for such service and taking “citizenship seriously.” I am all for “grass roots service” and especially mobilizing our youth. But is Obama talking about one of those programs, which do not yet exist, that he will establish in order to provide young people opportunities to “serve” by assisting the administration to “achieve the national security objectives we've set?” A "force" that is as “powerful, strong and well-funded” as our military? Yes, that is what he is saying! And who is the “we” in the “we’ve set” clause? This is so utterly ambiguous. What do you picture when you consider a force of young people equipped to achieve a nation's "national security objectives?" It sounds very much like a specialized police to ensure the president's goals! Don't let the language of "service" fool you into thinking that what Vic is talking about is not a distinct possibility under an Obama administration. I hope Vic is wrong, and my fears are unwarranted, and that we are not talking about a Gestapo or secret police or something, but I will not rule it out. I really need to hear more about this “security force” he is proposing. I have always thought that Obama may have Socialistic tendencies, and talk of this “force” concerns me greatly.
at 20:13 on November 11th, 2008
What a bunch of crap.
Here's from Factcheck.org
This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.This question stems from an interview that Republican Rep. Broun of Georgia gave to The Associated Press Nov. 10. The story carried a headline, "Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship." It said that Broun "fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship." And it quoted him this way:
Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context.
Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.
Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold.
Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.
-Brooks Jackson
at 09:38 on November 12th, 2008
I agree with the poster who said that the comment about "national civilian security force" seems oddly disjointed from the rest of Obama's speech.
My main concern about Obama is not that he's an authoritarian... I don't believe that.
My concern is that he may be naive.
The nationwide network of state-supported vigilante "extrajudicial targeting" that I have written about extensively has made a mockery of our judicial system and threatens our democracy.
Well-meaning citizen volunteer organizations, created and funded by government, ALREADY have been co-opted by ideologues who are using local law enforcement as pawns in a larger game that could be described as "social engineering."
It is, in effect, an "American Gestapo."
When Obama starts musing about mandatory service and a "national civilian security force," he unintentionally may be lending legitimacy to a vigilante citizen network that is operating under the cover of volunteer organizations, who apparently use communications links established by local, state and federal law enforcement/security agencies to harass, intimidate and terrorize their fellow citizens -- including those tagged as "dissenters," "dissidents," or "whistleblowers" -- outside the bounds of the law.
Will Obama dismantle this system of extrajudicial targeting... or will he become its unwitting foil, seduced into complacency by utopian visions of national service benefiting the common good?
Hopefully, members of his team are aware, or are becoming aware, of the subversion of our democracy and the rule of law that has been occurring in the name of "keeping America safe."
Our local sworn officers of law enforcement are being used and manipulated by this system, which drains local resources that could be used against actual threats. Because so much local police funding now comes from federal agencies, notably Homeland Security, our local law enforcement seems to have come under de facto federal control -- a national police force with an ideological agenda.
Do local officials really want this to happen? Or has federal funding blinded them to the dangers of letting outside agencies set their agenda, and determine their priorities?
I don't see national or local media addressing these questions. Perhaps it's up to the "good people on the inside" to resist being co-opted. It used to be called "state's rights." Maybe that wasn't such a bad idea after all.
at 10:57 on November 13th, 2008
Actually, Ryan R, the issue was brought up much earlier than Nov. 10 by at least one journalist and not a politician. See attached link dated July. 15. Unfortunately, it was buried by other bias mainline media prior to the election.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601
The issue is not as clear as you would paint it. Refer to Obama's later comments in the same plan that you refer to. He mentions the creation of a Homeland Security Corps. "Homeland Security Corps to help communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies. Participants will include full-time members who work with communities to help them plan and prepare for emergency response as well as a cadre of volunteers who can be mobilized to help in a national disaster. The Corps would draw on the experience of the National Civilian Community Corps, and work in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a U.S. senator, Obama introduced legislation to create a national emergency health professional volunteer corps to ensure there is a ready pool of volunteer doctors and nurses who are willing, trained, and certified to serve in times of disaster. Obama’s planned Homeland Security Corps would build on that effort."
There shouldn't be a need for that since it's already in the mission of the National Guard to fulfill this need. My opinion is that the most important question is, does Obama/Biden plan on allowing any portion of these civilian corps to bear arms?
at 14:21 on November 12th, 2008
I just listened to the speech again. I understood perfectly what he was saying. Within the boundaries of Civilian service, Americorp, Peace Corp, etc., we can acheive the greatest security our country can have , That of being an example to a disillusioned world. If we can regain the Diginity and Honor of our country through serving others, be it in Education ,Health Care, reduction of poverty and hopelessness anywhere in the world, then we have we will have the other people of the world seeing us as We should always have been seen, as that shining Light of Liberty. If We can stop being so damned selfish and pig-headed and narrow-minded, then that message is very strongly and Brilliantly Illuminated.
When we stop being so ego-centric and act as Citizens of a Greater Purpose does it not give us a greater sense of security? Will not this give the world at large an idea that we as Americans are not just there for our own goals and interests and that they might also benefit from trying to emulate us? Does that not increase our security? If the ones that hate us begin to actually look to us for examples of truth , Does that not Increase our Security?
Folks Our country has been nothing to look up to for along time. I am a veteran of Vietnam ,Grenada and Beirut, and I have been ASHAMED of my country for so many years that I am unable to hold my head up when I see my flag. If the plans of Obama, whatever he wants to call them, can restore MY country's, OUR country's honor then I say PLAN ON.
at 14:56 on November 12th, 2008
Those of us who have witnessed and experienced the civillian spy networks (yes, they are real!) make our lives living hells see nothing new in Obamas announcement of the "civilian national security force". The "force" is already here, and has been in operation for a long time. Perhaps Obama, in giving the speech, only intended to display his support for the civilian spy network to garner their votes.
at 18:02 on November 12th, 2008
know President Elect Obama does *not* know about the types of organized surveillance, assaults and harassment that scriviner, I and an undetermined number of others are suffering and have suffered for many years. I don't think his speech meant anything like what *is* happening now under the current administration.
I don't believe that President Obama would let these violations of our Constitutional Rights stand.
I wish I knew how many people know about *this*. Maybe they believe that the "targets" of these assaults are actual "internal threats", the new term being used for terrorists. From what I have read and experienced, the victims (targets) have done nothing that is against any law, of course if they had they would have been arrested.
This alleged "Government Program" or whatever it is, should be called "Covert Murder Incorporated", the "slow kill" version.
The attacks using so-called "less-lethal" weapons, both chemical and electronic is *torture* by any definition.
Could it be that finding "targets" for these assaults is necessary to keep the money flowing?
at 12:33 on November 13th, 2008
Do your feelings tell you know what Obama does or does not know? His speech about the civilian spy network shed light on what he does know.
Alleged "Government Program"? The secret police are real, and the reason you don't know about them is because it's a secret, duh.
at 21:01 on November 13th, 2008
Quote operative - "Do your feelings tell you know what Obama does or does not know? His speech about the civilian spy network shed light on what he does know." end quote.
What I believe is that those in power that know about *this* don't know what they are really doing or who they are doing it to. And that is using baiting methods similar to the "Brownshirts", but assaulting with chemical and electronic weapons instead of fists and clubs.
Quote operative - "Alleged "Government Program"? The secret police are real, and the reason you don't know about them is because it's a secret, duh." end quote.
I say "alleged" because as yet it has not been uncovered *and* I think calling a bunch of hired hooligans and what were ordinary citizens and neighbors the "Secret Police" is a stretch, but the Stasi lower end was just that.
And of course I know they exist because I've been assaulted by them for many years. Double duh.
at 15:20 on November 14th, 2008
Anon77 said "What I believe is that those in power that know
about *this* don't know what they are really doing or who
they are doing it to. And that is using baiting methods
similar to the "Brownshirts", but assaulting with chemical
and electronic weapons instead of fists and clubs."
You can believe whatever you want. There are those in power who know ALL
about this. And they also KNOW about the methods.
Anon77 said "I think calling a bunch of hired hooligans and
what were ordinary citizens and neighbors the "Secret
Police" is a stretch, but the Stasi lower end was just
that."
Wishful thinking. I have seen the "secret police" seriously
evolve over time, and to call them "hired hooligans" is to
make light of the entire program. It IS an injustice to do
that.
at 19:57 on November 14th, 2008
Quote operative - "You can believe whatever you want. There are those in power who know ALL about this. And they also KNOW about the methods." -end quote.
Of course the people who started it and control it know exactly what is happening and who it is happening to. I'm not referring to them but to others that could have been informed of a "program" but not the details.
Quote operative - "Wishful thinking. I have seen the "secret police" seriously
evolve over time, and to call them "hired hooligans" is to make light of the entire program. It IS an injustice to do that." - end quote.
I was talking mostly about some of the "street talent" that *they* hire that I usually see. I have heard and seen their advertizing for "ex-convicts" in my area, yes, it's true.
I rarely see the professionals/higher-ups, except those that are "off duty", although I have seen the occasional fireman and city/county worker that were "on the job". The infrastructure is one that already existed, just without the management structure that has been assembled, trained and added through time.
Since their aim is to constantly assault me, I usually refer to them being more like an "army".
I *more* than recognize how dangerous this *movement* is to all citizens and our country. The danger will continue to grow until these "programs" are put in check or stopped completely.
And my situation started with provable criminals long before the "Secret Police" arrived on the scene. Why don't you tell me how that happened.
Are you being assaulted with focused energy or chemical weapons? I speak as a victim/target from my "fox hole", where are you speaking from?
at 20:10 on November 15th, 2008
Anon77 wrote: "I *more* than recognize how dangerous this
*movement* is to all citizens and our country. The danger
will continue to grow until these "programs" are put in
check or stopped completely."
I know an awful lot of people who would argue with you about
that statement, but I am not one of them. All citizens of
our country are now prisoners, whether they realize it or
not. However most of them, for the time being, and as long
as they follow orders, are in low security situations where
they are treated humanely.
The "programs" should be stopped completely, because "put in
check" will only mean "business as usual".
Anon77 wrote: "And my situation started with provable
criminals long before the "Secret Police" arrived on the
scene. Why don't you tell me how that happened."
I have no idea how your situation started. Provable
criminals? Were you mixed up with criminals?
My situation started with people in positions of power, why
don't you tell me how that happened?
Although, some say that most of those in positions of power
are criminals.
Anon77 wrote: "Are you being assaulted with focused energy
or chemical weapons? I speak as a victim/target from my "fox
hole", where are you speaking from?"
I can't answer that first question, since I don't know, and
they aren't disclosing. I can only say that I have periods
of extreme fatique for undetermined reasons - as diagnosed
by my doctor. However, inferences have been made to me on
the QT by the "secret police" that support a yes answer to
your question.
I am speaking from the trenches too. There are no unbelievers in foxholes.
On the bright side, Paranoia is decreasing in America as
people realize that people were really out to get them, and
did.
Now a question for you: are you attempting to "bait" me?
at 21:40 on November 15th, 2008
Quote operative - "The "programs" should be stopped completely, because "put in
check" will only mean "business as usual".
I agree.
Quote operative - "I have no idea how your situation started. Provable
criminals? Were you mixed up with criminals?"
I am not a criminal and don't associate with them. I didn't know they were until I found out something that I was not supposed to.
Quote operative - "My situation started with people in positions of power, why
don't you tell me how that happened?"
The people that started my assaults have connections to a major defense contractor, a major university, well known for "less lethal" weapons testing, a well known "secret society" and as I was to discover the hard way, a well known crime syndicate.
So it appears that our situations are not completely different.
Quote operative - "Although, some say that most of those in positions of power
are criminals."
Well, these people had enough influence or power to "flip" me into whatever this is.
Quote operative - "Now a question for you: are you attempting to "bait" me?"
No, just conversing. I guess in this situation one should question everything, If you are feeling physical effects that are undetermined, I know what you mean. I thought I was coming down with something too at first. That was many years ago.
Quote operative - "I am speaking from the trenches too. There are no unbelievers in foxholes."
Agreed.
at 06:29 on November 16th, 2008
I should clarify that by "believers", I mean that I *know* that innocent civilians are being assaulted, because I am a victim.
From all appearances, this is a modern day "witch hunt" hiding behind "patriotism".
at 10:30 on November 16th, 2008
I mean "believers" in the same way as you.
anon77 said: "From all appearances, this is a modern day
"witch hunt" hiding behind "patriotism".
It seems that both of us have been "tagged" as witches by
our kind community leaders. But we both know who the
REAL witches and barbarians are.
Be happy you live in a "civilized" society. In Kenya
the kind community leaders don't mess around, they
outright CALL them witches:
Mob burns to death 11 Kenyan "witches"
Wed May 21, 2008 1:07pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL21301127
at 02:50 on January 24th, 2009
Your alarm is warranted these licenses to protect us from supposed terrorist has effectively destroyed our constitutional rights and have opened up the door for legal oppression for those targeted. the Movies 1984 and Bowfinger can give you insight to the tactics that have destroyed America.