You are on page 1of 7

National Guard Whistleblower: Doomsday Preppers Will Be Treated As Terrorists

October 25th 2012 INCLUDEPICTURE "http://static.infowars.com/2012/10/i/general/natguard.jpg" \* MERGEFORMAT

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
So begins the Oath of Enlistment for the U.S. military, but in an explosive interview with a National Guard whistleblower shown below, soldiers are now being advised they will be ordered to break that oath should civil unrest erupt across the country. Referred to only as Soldier X under promise of anonymity, an Army National Guardsman spoke via phone with Infowars Nightly News Producer Rob Dew regarding a recent briefing his unit underwent on actions the military would take in the event that an Obama election loss sparked rioting in Americas streets. Citing not only recent widespread threats to riot if Mitt Romney were to become the next U.S. president, but threats to actually assassinate him should he win, Soldier Xs superiors dispensed plans of how the National Guard would be responsible for taking over and quelling such unrest. The soldiers were reportedly told Doomsday preppers will be treated as terrorists. In addition, guns will be confiscated. They have a list compiled of all these doomsday preppers that have gone public and they plan to go after them first, Soldier X said. He claimed those in charge are acting under the belief that preppers will be the worst part of any potential civil unrest. Soldier X was also told that any soldiers in the ranks who are known as preppers will be deemed defects. He explained the label meant these soldiers would be treated as traitors. If you dont conform, they will get rid of you, he added. Unit members also warned not to associate with any fellow soldiers who are preppers. Not only does the military reportedly plan to target preppers should mass chaos break out, but Soldier X also voiced his concerns regarding civilian gun confiscation. 1

Soldier X admitted, Our worry is that Obamas going to do what he said hes going to do and hes going to outlaw all weapons altogether and anybodys name that is on a weapon, theyre going to come to your house and try to take them. It would not be the first time the National Guard has been used to unconstitutionally disarm law-abiding citizens, robbing them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, police and military took to the streets disarming lawful gun owners, including those who were on dry land and had plenty of stored food and water. Fast forward to this past summer when a leaked Army manual dated 2006 entitled, Civil Disturbance Operations surfaced outlining plans not only to confiscate firearms domestically during mass unrest, but to actually detain and even kill American citizens who refuse to hand over their guns. This manual works in conjunction with FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations, another Army manual leaked this year, which instructs troops on how to properly detain and intern Americans into re-education camps, including ways that socalled PsyOps officers will indoctrinate incarcerated political activists into developing an understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions. Add these manuals to the plethora of Executive Orders Obama has signed during his term which have dismantled our Constitution piece by piece, including the martial law implementing National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order which gives the president the power to confiscate citizens private property in the event of any national emergency, including economic. Add it all to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in which Obama granted powers to disappear and indefinitely detain American citizens without any due process, and it is easy to see the tyrannical big picture our government has painted. When asked if he would go along with gun confiscation, Soldier X replied he and his fellow like-minded guardsmen planned to stand down not answer the phone or show up to post. Im sorry but I dont believe in suicide, he said. Preppers are becoming regular government targets these days, most recently when a Mississippi prepper group member with a clean record was suddenly taken off his flight halfway to Japan and informed he was on the no-fly list, an FBI terrorist watchlist, stranding him in Hawaii. Other preppers have been denied their Second Amendment rights without legitimate cause. It is beyond glaringly obvious at this point the U.S. government is gearing up for mass civil unrest. Not only has the DHS sparked controversy by purchasing billions of rounds of ammo, but the department even went so far as to begin classifying further purchases, blacking out bullet figures it is using taxpayer money to buy. In addition, while FEMA can procure a billion dollars in bulk food supplies, the FBIs Communities Against Terrorism project released a flier instructing military surplus store owners to report any customers who make bulk purchases of items including meals ready to eat. Should society as we know it collapse following the election, it would seem the ultimate prepper and the ultimate terrorist is, indeed, the U.S. government.

Army Told Preppers Are Terrorists


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0ZqDY-z4mGY In this breaking video, Rob Dew talks with Army National Guard whistleblower. Who was briefed by his superiors that an Obama election loss could cause riots and the army would consider preppers terrorists and those in the guard who were preppers would be considered enemies as well. The stage has been set, please forward this video to everyone you know. Here is some related material: http://www.infowars.com/obamas-latest-executive-order-martial-law-confiscatio... http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-nationa... http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-theyre-setting-the-stage-for-violence-in-thi... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr645/text http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-200-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/ http://www.infowars.com/prepper-put-on-no-fly-list-stranded-in-hawaii/ http://www.infowars.com/new-orleans-mayor-admits-illegal-gun-confiscation/print/ Videos to Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_XLUMGmyF4&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hpz3mh7v2A&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4

Any Questions?

Operational Plan in Place

The Real Histor y of the Assault Weapons Ban


October 26th 2012

After months of presidential campaigning with little to no discussion on gun control, gun owners were starting to wonder if the candidates would ever be forced to declare their positions. Then, all of a sudden during the second presidential debate, there it was. Undecided voter Nina Gonzalez asked President Barack Obama what his administration has done or plans to do to limit the availability of so-called assault weapons. Were a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment, Obama said. Weve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves. OK. So far, so good. But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where Ive had to comfort families who have lost somebody, the president continued, Most recently out in Aurora. And here we go. Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters dont belong on our streets, the president said. And so what Im trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. With that 30-second sound bite, Obama resurrected the favorite bogeyman of the anti-gun left: semi-automatic rifles. The ramifications were swift. The NRA ramped up its ad campaign. The Brady Campaigns phones rang for the first time in years. And suddenly the nation was thrust back into a debate over a widely owned category of firearms. However, if youve ever participated in the discussion, youve likely experienced an unfortunate frustration: The public has been intentionally misled by anti-gun groups regarding firearms law, the capabilities of semi-automatic firearms, and the effect of Bill Clintons 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. In fact, you may have even talked to a few actual gun owners who have their facts confused. So, lets take a look at the history of the original law, including what guns it banned, its effect on crime, the attempts to reinstate it and what a new assault weapons ban may look like.

The Real Assault Weapons Ban


First, an important clarification: The semi-automatic rifles affected by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban are not, by true definition, assault rifles. There are several reasons why, but the most important distinction is they arent capable of fully automatic fire. However, when the average non-gun owning citizen hears assault weapon, he hears machine gun, even though the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 already requires such firearms to be heavily taxed, highly regulated and registered with the federal government. Therefore, Bill Clinton truthfully did not ban assault rifles FDR did. Yet how many folks have you run into who assume you can just waltz into a gun store and buy an automatic rifle? Theyve been fed misleading information on this issue. And thats arguably the greatest victory ever scored by anti-gun groups: Theyve won public support by incorrectly branding semi-auto rifles as assault weapons. With a little help from the mainstream media, of course.

Bill Clintons Assault Weapons Ban


Once the term assault weapon became part of the American lexicon sometime in the late 80s, gun rights were in a sorry state of retreat. In 1989, California banned assault weapons, followed by New Jersey in 1990. Soon Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Maryland and New York passed similar bans. Then came the greatest blow of all: On Sept. 13, 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). President Bill Clinton signed it into law on the same day. The AWB prohibited the manufacture of certain semi-automatic firearms (those made prior to the AWB could still be legally owned and sold). One of the most interesting if not disturbing aspects of the AWB was the criteria it used to define a so-called assault weapon. Critics argued that the criteria consisted merely of cosmetic features that appeared scary to the bills authors, but did nothing to prevent crime. You be the judge: Here are the firearm characteristics that were covered by the AWB. Rifle prohibitions: Bayonet mounts Barrel shrouds Folding or telescoping stocks Flash suppressors or barrels threaded to accept them Pistol grips Pistol prohibitions: Magazines that attach outside the pistol grip Any semi-auto version of a fully automatic pistol Barrels threaded to accept extensions, suppressors, flash suppressors, or handgrips Barrel shrouds Pistols with unloaded weights of 50 ounces or more Shotgun prohibitions: Magazine capacities of five shells or more Folding or telescoping stocks Pistol grips Detachable magazines 6

Additionally, 19 models of firearms were specifically banned by name, as were magazines or other feeding devices with capacities of 10 rounds or more. However, moderate lawmakers in Congress were able to attach a sunset provision to the AWB that provided for its expiration after 10 years.

Effects of the Assault Weapons Ban


The AWB significantly raised the market value of pre-ban firearms and led to production of a lot of fixed-stock AR-15s, but did it actually do what its proponents said it would save lives? According to the vast majority of research, including by the University of Pennsylvania and a Congressionally mandated study by the U.S. Department of Justice, the AWB neither increased nor decreased violent crime. The governments study argued it would be difficult to determine the effect of the AWB one way or another, because the guns it affected were used in only a small fraction of crimes prior to the ban. There is one study that suggests the AWB had a positive effect on crime, but it was funded by guess who the Brady Campaign. Another effect of the AWB had nothing to do with firearms: It mobilized pro-gun voters. President Clinton largely credits gun owners with fueling the Republican Revolution of 1994 and defeating Al Gore in 2000.

Renewal Efforts
Despite efforts by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California to renew the AWB, it expired on March 2, 2004. Since that time, McCarthy has reintroduced an AWB in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2011 none of her bills have made it out of committee. What might a new ban look like if it ever again reaches the presidents desk? We can be fairly certain thered be no expiration date this time around. None of McCarthys bills have included one, and shes made it clear she wants a permanent ban. A new McCarthy ban would also likely prohibit all of the gun accessories covered by the 1994 AWB (despite the embarrassing admission that McCarthy doesnt even understand some of them), plus a few others, including fixed-magazine centerfire rifles holding ten or more rounds, certain semi-auto shotguns, and detachable-magazine semi-auto rifles. In short, a new assault weapons ban would likely have farther reach and it would be here to stay. How can we ensure that doesnt happen? If you havent heard, theres an election in two weeks. Perhaps its time to mobilize the same huge bloc of voters that sent Mr. Clintons allies a simple message in 94: Go after our guns and well vote you out.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/24/morning-bell-obamas-imperial-presidency-part-ii/

You might also like