Monday, March 25, 2013

Federalizing Local Law Enforcement, Obama's Reign of Terror

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The cities of Murrieta and Hemet in Southern California have met with a difficult reality.  Now that they are spending more than they have coming in (in 2012 Murrieta's was a $900,000 budget gap), while being faced with paying for massive pensions of retired police and fire, a rising cost for Murrieta's City Manager's massive wage that is illegally not being tempered by Measure E which was voted in by the people in 2010, and in the case of Murrieta also fighting a massive lawsuit that, if they lose it, could spell a loss comparable to the city's annual revenue, extinction may be on the horizon for both cities.  One way they may be able to delay, or avert, certain destruction, is to contract out their emergency services to the county, as Hemet is currently considering in regards to police services.

The counties, be it in California, or around the nation, also face financial difficulties, and are facing difficult decisions in maintaining local law enforcement services.

During the time period approaching sequestration when the liberal democrats were spewing all of the propaganda they could muster, one of the comments was that police and fire would suffer as a result of cuts to federal spending.  Opposition to the liberal left accused them of crying wolf, proclaiming the democrats were idiots, because local law enforcement and fire is handed by local governments.

Was the liberal left's claim that sequestration would influence police and fire a misstatement, or did it betray a deep down desire by the statists of the party-of-the-jackass to federalize local emergency services?

Local cities are already acting in a manner consistent with federal desires, implementing Agenda 21 provisions, and ordering totalitarian "police-state" equipment such as unmanned flying drones, armored personnel carriers, and city-wide surveillance camera systems.

Is this all a part of a greater plan to federalize local emergency services for the purpose of population control, under the guise of seeking to protect the people against chaos created by natural disasters or terrorist attacks?

On March 19th, the Murrieta City Council was challenged regarding their intended purchase of drones, armored personnel carriers (I call them armored assault vehicles), and surveillance camera systems.  The Chief of Police commented that the armored vehicles were needed (the City of Murrieta has one at this time, and is seeking to buy a second one) if dealing with an armed individual (domestic terrorists?).  "You have to have a vehicle that can withstand gunshots."

Remember, the government has already labeled the Tea Party, Constitutionalists, Military Veterans, and conservatives that cling to their Bibles and guns as potential domestic terrorists.

And I fit each one of those categories!

The Murrieta Police Chief, when discussing the need for these toys of war, explained how they are needed for the police force to use what is called a Surround and Call-Out operation.  This kind of tactic requires hard cover (armored cover), which you only get with armored personnel carriers.  You need two. One for the front and the other for the rear of the location being approached.

Air Vehicles, also known as Drones, was addressed with concern by citizens, and a couple city council members, in light of the Obama administration stating that such vehicles could be used to kill Americans on American Soil legally, and without due process.  The Chief of Police stated these vehicles would not be armed, and would be used in the same manner as a police helicopter could be used, without the high price of a helicopter, or risking the life of a pilot.

The citizen response to all of this in the Southwest Riverside County city was that this was a part of a program to move Murrieta, which doesn't need this kind of Los Angeles law enforcement tactics, towards becoming a police-state.  The concern is that the equipment could be used against the citizenry.

That is why in the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, the standing army requires a new appropriation of funds every two years.  The Founding Fathers did not wish for the federal government to maintain a permanent army without the voice of the people being involved.  Since the House of Representatives, which is the voice of the people, is the part of government that holds the purse strings, requiring approval of funding every two years provided a check against the government in regards to the army, so that the central government would be less likely to create a standing army that could be used against the people.

The current administration has shown a desire to create a civilian army (through FEMA) under federal control, and to increase federal involvement in local jurisdictions.  As local emergency services face financial difficulties, while arming up with technology that can be used to create fear for controlling the populace, it does not seem to be completely out of the realm of possibility that the federal government may federalize local law enforcement, and use this technology as a part of a terrible reign of control against American Citizens that dare to refuse to goose-step in unison with the current ruling elite in control of the federal government.

Before you disregard my conclusions as the rantings of an extremist, or a conspiracy theorist, (and this is mainly pointed at the liberal left democrats reading this) ask yourself, "Would you have wanted this kind of power in the hands of George W. Bush?  How about someone in the future with aspirations similar to Hitler, or Stalin?

The accumulation of these devices by cities, and the federal government, along with the increasing purchase of ammunition by government agencies (which is causing a shortage of ammunition for private purchase), coupled with gun control legislation, equals one thing to the average guy like me watching from my perch: Control through the actions of a Police State.  They are gearing up for control, confiscation, and tyranny.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Murrieta Police Department Five Year Strategic Plan - City of Murrieta Agendas, Minutes and Video

Public Safety, Construction to be issues, Who will protect Hemet? - Press Enterprise

Calvary Chapel sues over land dispute - UTSanDiego

Murrieta Police Forgo Pay Raise, Agree to Pension Terms - Murrieta Patch

Measure E, Murrieta - Murrieta Patch

Getting Wise to Government Lies - NewsMax

Agenda 21 is Being Rammed Down the Throats of Local Communities All Over America - Alex Jones' Infowars

Terrorism Center at West Point Warns Against Danger of American Limited-Government Activists and 'Far-Right' - The Blaze

War on Terror's New Targets: Veterans, Tea Partiers, Anti-Fed Activists - Alex Jones' Infowars

Eric Holder: Drone Strike To Kill U.S. Citizen On American Soil Legal, Hypothetically - Huffington Post

Obama Still Claims Power to Murder Americans on U.S. Soil Using Drones - Natural News

Obama's Civilian Army (FEMACorps) just graduated it's first class - Glenn Beck

FEMA Preparing Police for 'Domestic War' w/ video InfoWars - Secrets of the Fed

Why Is The Government Buying So Much Ammo? - Fox Nation

Local Law enforcement face ammo shortage as gun owners, DHS stock up - Fox News

1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammo for Homeland Security? It's Time for a National Conversation - Forbes

NRA Declares Government Will Seize Guns - RT USA

Black Conservative Releases Hard-Hitting Ad Equating Gun Control to Jim Crow - The Blaze

No comments: