PDA

View Full Version : MIAC Disinformation Still Being Taught By DHS




ronpaulhawaii
03-31-2011, 06:34 PM
http://www.survivalblog.com/2011/03/beware_of_homeland_security_tr.html
By James Wesley, Rawles on March 30, 2011 8:28 PM


I’ve been in law enforcement for the past 18 years. I have attended a variety of training over those years. During the 1990s, most training I attended was community-oriented, sponsored by local agencies or private companies specializing in police training. Themes common to training of the past included topics such as Constitutional rights, community partnerships, youth-oriented programs and problem-oriented policing.

During the past several years, I have witnessed a dramatic shift in the focus of law enforcement training. Law enforcement courses have moved away from a local community focus to a federally dominated model of complete social control. Most training I have attended over the past two years have been sponsored by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), namely the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

No matter what topic the training session concerns, every DHS sponsored course I have attended over the past few years never fails to branch off into warnings about potential domestic terrorists in the community. While this may sound like a valid officer and community safety issue, you may be disturbed to learn how our Federal government describes a typical domestic terrorist.

These federal trainers describe the dangers of “extremists” and “militia groups” roaming the community and hiding in plain sight, ready to attack. Officers are instructed how to recognize these domestic terrorists by their behavior, views and common characteristics. State data bases are kept to track suspected domestic terrorists and officers are instructed on reporting procedures to state and federal agencies. The state I work in, like many others, have what is known as a “fusion center” that compiles a watch list of suspicious people.

So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist? Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:


Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
Survivalist literature (fictional books such as "Patriots" and "One Second After" are mentioned by name)
Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
Homeschooling
Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
Belief in a New World Order conspiracy


A recent training session I attended encouraged law enforcement agencies to work with business owners to alert police when customers appear to be stockpiling items. An example was given that a federal agent was monitoring customers at a well known hunting and fishing retail outlet and noting who was purchasing certain items. This is something to remember the next time you purchase a case of ammo at one of these popular outdoor sports retail stores.

Methods of developing evidence of terrorist activity from virtually any search have also been discussed. Various common materials which may be associated with homemade explosives are listed, such as lengths of pipe, gunpowder, matches, flammable liquids and fireworks. Officers are told when these items are found, they can be listed as “bomb making materials”. The training even goes so far as to instruct officers that the items are cleverly disguised as legitimate, such as gasoline stored near a lawn mower, pipes stored in a shop building or gunpowder stored with reloading materials.

One course I attended used the example of a person employed as a plumber being the target of a search warrant. In this example, the officers were told how to use his employment as a plumber as further evidence of terrorism. The suspect’s employment would be described as an elaborate scheme to justify possessing pipes and chemicals so as to have bomb making materials readily available. Based on this example, all plumbers are potential pipe bomb makers. All gun dealers are plotting to provide arms to gangs or terrorists. All pest control companies are preparing mass poisonings. By using this logic, simply having the ability to do something criminal automatically makes the person guilty of plotting the crime. With all the various methods of manufacturing methamphetamine, it would also be easy to claim that a disassembled clandestine drug lab was located during the search. In other words, it is easy to frame anyone for possessing bomb making materials (or other crimes) if the officer knows what items to list in the report and how to link these items to terrorism.

Another common tactic used in DHS sponsored training is the slander of certain ideologies by linking an erroneous characteristic to a particular group. Here are some examples:


These groups hold the anniversaries of certain dates as significant such a Ruby Ridge, Waco and Hitler’s birthday
They oppose abortion, support gun rights and are affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan
They are fearful of big government, espouse support for the Constitution and want to kill police officers
These groups collect firearms, survivalist books and explosives
These extremists read books such as Patriots, One Second After and The Anarchist Cookbook
They are religious zealots, reading the book of Revelation, speak of the second coming of Christ and plan mass murders to summon the end of the world
These people grow their own food, raise livestock and plot attacks on commercial food production facilities


Do you see how this tactic works? List common characteristics of libertarian/conservative minded people, then throw in a slanderous accusation. If A and B apply, then you should automatically presume C applies as well. If they were disturbed by the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco, then obviously they must celebrate Hitler’s birthday. Officers are being conditioned to assume criminal and terroristic views when politically-incorrect views are observed. As simple-minded and ridiculous as this line of thinking is, there are some officers who unfortunately buy into this.

Another training session I attended two years ago discussed the dangerous of people who have strong views of the U.S. Constitution. One trainer made the statement that “these people actually believe the Second Amendment gives them the personal right to own a gun.” Of course, the trainer failed to mention that our Founding Fathers, as well as recent Supreme Court rulings, verify this view as being completely accurate. The obvious attempt here was to suggest to officers that the Second Amendment does not apply to individual gun ownership and to be suspicious of anyone who holds such a view. It was also stressed to be cautious of anyone who quotes the Constitution and even worse, actually possesses a copy of this radical document. Incredibly, in the United States of America today belief in our founding legal principles is now grounds for being labeled a domestic terrorism. Imagine how they would respond to some of the known statements of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry or George Mason concerning the issue of individual liberty and limited government. It is true that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

There are several things that we, the patriotic, self-sufficient defenders of liberty can do to counter this effort. First, get involved in local elections. Elect county sheriffs who will not fall for such propaganda nor go along with oppressive federal agendas. Elect city council members who will not tolerate such behavior by their city police department. Elect state representatives who will hold state agencies accountable for participating in such tactics. Bring these issues up during elections, demand a public statement on their position on such propaganda and a promise to stand against these efforts while in office.

Second, get to know your local law enforcement officers. It is much more difficult for DHS to brainwash officers against people they personally know. When you are viewed as a neighbor, friend or fellow Christian, these officers are far less likely to submit your name to a terrorist watch list or view you as a potential terrorist. We want local officers to be personally offended when they hear members of their community slandered in such ways.

Third, always be friendly and courteous when speaking to your local officers. Even if that officer has fallen for this propaganda, be sure not to resemble the negative stereotypes labeled to us. After the fifth, sixth or maybe tenth time he deals with one of us, he or she may come to realize we are of no threat to law enforcement or anyone for that matter. Eventually, the officer may attend one of these training sessions, hear the propaganda and say to himself, “This isn’t true, I’ve dealt with many people like this, they are God-fearing, liberty loving Americans, they are not the enemy!”

I hope you find this information useful. Please remember that there are many people in law enforcement that have not, and will never, fall for DHS propaganda. Some of the most patriotic defenders of liberty and believers in self-sufficiency can be found in law enforcement. Officers like me will continue to do our part to fight tyranny from within while the general public can do its part by electing liberty-minded candidates to office and educating their friends and neighbors about issues important to all of us.

"The suspect’s employment would be described as an elaborate scheme..." - and they complain about "conspiracy theorists"???

Anyway, is good to see someone speaking out

Anti Federalist
03-31-2011, 06:49 PM
Thanks for posting that ^^^

It strengthens the case for shutting up and invoking your 5th Amendment rights, yet again.

If they are searching to make a case, don't help them by talking to them. Nothing you say can help you.

And I'm now convinced, beyond any shadow of doubt, that when we finally "Go Egypt", the enemy will not be the armed forces, but the local, county, state and federal cops. They have been worked up into a bloodthirsty mob, just itching for the chance to light our collective asses up.

And, of course, I have to post "The Video".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Pericles
03-31-2011, 07:44 PM
It isn't misinformation, it is disinformation, as it is designed to give a false view and have the actions of other agencies be based on information known to be false by those who spread that information.

Misinformation is an honest mistake, disinformation is intentionally spreading untruth knowing it to be false.

ronpaulhawaii
03-31-2011, 07:52 PM
It isn't misinformation, it is disinformation, as it is designed to give a false view and have the actions of other agencies be based on information known to be false by those who spread that information.

Misinformation is an honest mistake, disinformation is intentionally spreading untruth knowing it to be false.

Fixed, thx..

GunnyFreedom
03-31-2011, 07:53 PM
In the process of rescheduling my tour of the Raleigh Fusion center (the original date conflicted with the Ron Paul speech at State). I'll post again as we get closer, but start thinking about questions i should raise before the DHS and SHP people while I am in the bowels of the Raleigh Fusion Center.

Anti Federalist
03-31-2011, 08:02 PM
In the process of rescheduling my tour of the Raleigh Fusion center (the original date conflicted with the Ron Paul speech at State). I'll post again as we get closer, but start thinking about questions i should raise before the DHS and SHP people while I am in the bowels of the Raleigh Fusion Center.

Question the first:

It is a violation of numerous federal laws to use US military assets for the purpose of intelligence gathering in domestic law enforcement issues.

What assurances do I have from you people that you are in compliance with applicable federal and state law on this issue?

Pericles
03-31-2011, 08:15 PM
Question the Second:

What is used as the criteria to distinguish those exercising freedom of speech from those who are considered potential threats?

Question the Third:

Could you give examples of individuals / groups that have come to the attention of the Fusion Center and how they came to your attention?

Obviously, what i"m trying to get at here is how they decided who they are watching and why - and trip them up in an inconsistancy with any "patriot" groups that are watched while environmental terrorists who have actually destroyed property, or radical Islamists get a free pass.

GunnyFreedom
03-31-2011, 08:22 PM
keep thinking about the questions. I'm not asking for them now, the visit has not been rescheduled yet. it probably won't be for another 2 or 3 weeks, and when it's coming up I'll ask again, just let the thoughts percolate a while so they will be fully formed and hard-hitting when I put the query and compile the list.

AFPVet
03-31-2011, 09:18 PM
The truth is scarier than fiction.

NewRightLibertarian
03-31-2011, 09:25 PM
The truth is scarier than fiction.

1000x scarier and crazier than fiction. And if/when the collapse happens, that's when it's going to get much worse.

pcosmar
03-31-2011, 10:54 PM
Comes as no surprise. (no comfort either)

This is why I wanted to make the FPIAC report more generic and not limited to Missouri.
MIAC was never limited to Missouri.

Philhelm
04-01-2011, 02:56 AM
And I'm now convinced, beyond any shadow of doubt, that when we finally "Go Egypt", the enemy will not be the armed forces, but the local, county, state and federal cops. They have been worked up into a bloodthirsty mob, just itching for the chance to light our collective asses up.

I agree, and have always thought that. Some points to consider:

-There is a far higher proportion of authoritarians in law enforcement.
-The military doesn't have an "us vs. them" mentality against the citizens.
-The police have become increasingly militarized.
-Soldiers victimize foreigners, while the police victimize our own citizens.
-Collateral damage aside, it seems that the military's rules of engagement are more strict than that of the police.
-The public generally likes soldiers but dislikes cops.
-Current veterans were mentioned in the DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism.
-Generally, soldiers never point weapons at American citizens, while the police only point weapons at American citizens.

I do believe that there are soldiers who would obey any order, but I think that it would be a much harder sell to have them kill Americans, as opposed to the police. As you have said a few times, to cops it's "Cops, cops' families, and scumbags." This isn't part of the military mindset. I had a debate with someone worried about martial law, and I had stated that it won't happen. My rationale was that there would be no reason to use troops when the police can just drag anyone away, one by one, without the overt show of force that a military garrison would have.

tangent4ronpaul
04-01-2011, 03:37 AM
Gunny,

first off read this thread and the (500+ page) document linked to in it. Intelligence guide for fusion centers.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?225483-Intelligence-guide-for-fusion-centers&highlight=fusion+center

Second, Contact Catherine Bleish - she's on Facebook and did tours of many fusion centers and reported on them. She should have some interesting ideas for you. Her posts about this should be on the C4L site.

third, WikiLeaks came up with some info a while back about mil, police and civilian contractors playing musical hats to evade restrictions placed on them legally as to what kind of things they could do. Track that down.

-t

Anti Federalist
04-01-2011, 11:58 AM
Excellent points, agreed on all.


I agree, and have always thought that. Some points to consider:

-There is a far higher proportion of authoritarians in law enforcement.
-The military doesn't have an "us vs. them" mentality against the citizens.
-The police have become increasingly militarized.
-Soldiers victimize foreigners, while the police victimize our own citizens.
-Collateral damage aside, it seems that the military's rules of engagement are more strict than that of the police.
-The public generally likes soldiers but dislikes cops.
-Current veterans were mentioned in the DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism.
-Generally, soldiers never point weapons at American citizens, while the police only point weapons at American citizens.

I do believe that there are soldiers who would obey any order, but I think that it would be a much harder sell to have them kill Americans, as opposed to the police. As you have said a few times, to cops it's "Cops, cops' families, and scumbags." This isn't part of the military mindset. I had a debate with someone worried about martial law, and I had stated that it won't happen. My rationale was that there would be no reason to use troops when the police can just drag anyone away, one by one, without the overt show of force that a military garrison would have.

Romulus
04-01-2011, 07:15 PM
I agree, and have always thought that. Some points to consider:

-There is a far higher proportion of authoritarians in law enforcement.
-The military doesn't have an "us vs. them" mentality against the citizens.
-The police have become increasingly militarized.
-Soldiers victimize foreigners, while the police victimize our own citizens.
-Collateral damage aside, it seems that the military's rules of engagement are more strict than that of the police.
-The public generally likes soldiers but dislikes cops.
-Current veterans were mentioned in the DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism.
-Generally, soldiers never point weapons at American citizens, while the police only point weapons at American citizens.

I do believe that there are soldiers who would obey any order, but I think that it would be a much harder sell to have them kill Americans, as opposed to the police. As you have said a few times, to cops it's "Cops, cops' families, and scumbags." This isn't part of the military mindset. I had a debate with someone worried about martial law, and I had stated that it won't happen. My rationale was that there would be no reason to use troops when the police can just drag anyone away, one by one, without the overt show of force that a military garrison would have.

+rep on all that.

Philhelm
04-02-2011, 10:34 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgOKgpWrT04