Hurricane Rita: Will FEMA Block Aid & Take Guns?

i know the neo-cons are anti 2nd amendment because they're so conservative...so they won't mind if people start getting disarmed...including people trying to protect themselves...


Hurricane Rita: Will FEMA Block Aid & Take Guns?

Will Rita mean another Laboratory test of The Martial Law Police State?

Steve Watson / Paul Watson & Alex Jones | September 23 2005

Hurricane Rita, a major Category 4 storm, roared toward the Texas and Louisiana coastline early today, amidst a gridlocked mass exodus northwards.

The AP has reported that forecasters believe Houston and Galveston may avoid direct hits as Rita has veered slightly to the east, towards the Beaumont and Port Arthur area about 75 miles east of Houston.

At 8 a.m. EDT, Rita was centered about 260 miles southeast of Galveston and was moving to the northwest at near 9 mph. Its winds were near 140 mph, down from 175 mph reached late Wednesday and early Thursday.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures...5path.0923.jpg

Forecasters have warned of the possibility of a storm surge of 15 to 20 feet, and rain of up to 15 inches along the Texas and western Louisiana coast. Rita is expected to hit with full force on Saturday.

Warnings are also in effect in New Orleans, where the forecast for rain is for 3 to 5 inches, close to the amount engineers said may cause fresh flooding into areas recently cleared.

Nearly 2 million people along the Texas and Louisiana coasts have been told to evacuate their homes in what Houston Mayor Bill White called ``one of the largest mass evacuations in American history.'' .

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures...230905cars.jpg

Late last night traffic was still gridlocked for about 100 miles and people were beginning to run out of fuel.


Homeland Security Scanners Holding up evacuation

CNN has reported that the fuel shortage was just one area being overlooked in federal preparations. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat has criticized the dearth of federal security screeners at Houston International Airport. These scanners have created lines of passengers trying get out of the city, Lee blames Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

"I know we can't leave other airports exposed," Lee said. "But it's all about preparedness. We're pointing to gaping holes and getting no response from the secretary."

Instead of bypassing the scanners, Homeland Security is sending more of them. A spokesman said 180 screeners have been shipped to Houston from four different airports, and it is expected that more will be sent today.

Will FEMA "mess it up" again?

We have exposed over the past weeks how FEMA has been selling the American people on the Martial Law Police State in the Katrina aftermath. Will the federal Government attempt to conduct another laboratory test scenario for total dictatorial control should Rita provide the right conditions?

Numerous credible sources have come forward with examples of how the FEMA has been deliberately sabotaging relief efforts in New Orleans, making things worse than need be.

Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard appeared on Meet the Press and broke down in tears as he described FEMA's criminal activities.

Broussard stated "We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago. FEMA--we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said, "Come get the fuel right away." When we got there with our trucks, they got a word. "FEMA says don't give you the fuel." Yesterday--yesterday--FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards on our line and says, "No one is getting near these lines."

The mission of FEMA has never in reality been to bring people food and water and help in times of crisis. Alex Jones has attended numerous FEMA drills where the whole point of the exercise is to round people up, break up families and institute a brutal police state crackdown. FEMA needed to create a chaotic atmosphere in New Orleans so they could legitimize this.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures...0905troops.jpg

We have since posted multiple reports of police being ordered to guard key infrastructures in order to defend them from FEMA federal agents. Sheriffs in numerous different counties are guarding highways to keep FEMA out. FEMA is being treated as the enemy because they are sabotaging key facilities in an effort to intentionally worsen the already desperate scenes of horror in New Orleans.

FEMA is sabotaging lines of communication so their activities cannot be exposed to the wider relief authorities and the media.

Commenting on the sabotage by FEMA of communication lines, Washington insider Wayne Madsen states,

"Jamming radio and other communications such as television signals is part of a Pentagon tactic called "information blockade" or "technology blockade." The tactic is one of a number of such operations that are part of the doctrine of "information warfare" and is one of the psychological operations (PSYOPS) methods used by the US Special Operations Command."

Radio host Carol Baker who has been tracking the FEMA sabotage stated that Plaquemines Parish Sheriff Jeff Hingle had his deputies patrol the county line under orders not to let FEMA in.

As is discussed in the Meet the Press interview, Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee also has armed guards patrolling the county line in order to prevent the FEMA sabotage.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures...olicestate.jpg

We have also exposed the long history of incompetence, corruption, fraud and criminality associated with FEMA, its officials and the people it employs.

We have also exposed how funding for flood protection systems was slashed by both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, latterly to pump more more into the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

We have also exposed evidence, backed up by overwhelming local opinion, to suggest the levees were intentionally breached by the federal government.


We have also exposed how the federal government has illegally initiated total gun confiscation of law abiding citizens and forcibly removed them from their property in New Orleans. Federal forces have led criminal gangs of police in an America-killing gun grab.

The bottom line on Katrina is that whether you believe it was all incompetence or part incompetence and part malevolence, the lasting pretext is the same.

When a disaster takes place, you have no rights and the federal government can arrest you if you donâ??t follow their every order.

Along with forced gun grabs and evacuation, we have further exposed the intricacies of the operative federalized Police State, with the presence of foreign troops, SWAT teams, privately employed security mercenaries, the treatment of citizens as "insurgents" and evacuees as "internees" and the euthanization and inoculation of survivors.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures...30905swat2.jpg

Furthermore we have probed the profiteering of government darling companies such as Haliburton, and the blatant disregard of any responsibility of the inhuman Neocons in the Bush Administration who are devoid of any care at all.

FEMA is clearly using this human catastrophe as a means of executing its decade long plans and providing the pretext for future takeover scenarios of all major American cities.

FEMA is not an elected body, it does not involve itself in public disclosures, and it even has a quasi-secret budget in the billions of dollars. It has more power than the President of the United States or the Congress, it has the power to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and hold them without trial, it can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the Constitution. Not only is it the most powerful entity in the United States, but it was not even created under Constitutional law by the Congress.

FEMA executive orders have been paving the way for the police State for many years. For a full synopsis of FEMA's executive orders in light of the hurricane, click here.

Hurricane Rita could provide the conditions for a second wave of Police State propaganda on behalf of FEMA and the hideous Neo-con administration, and this time the whole world will be watching. Will they pull it off again? Will it be on an even grander scale this time?

Rest assured that whatever happens we will report the developments. Watch this space.

I thought I heard that FEMA was already down there to help, as of yesterday, or the day before.

Rita on the way, people leaving their homes and lives behind. Possible loss of life and you post this garbage? You ARE the king of the assholes!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

I thought I heard that FEMA was already down there to help, as of yesterday, or the day before.

---

Wow, he's right, plenty of help on the way! A shame that wasn't the case a month ago, back when it mattered.

yeh....ive never seen the devastating force of a cat. 2 before....im quick replying and i dont remember how to make a sarcastic emoticon appear.

Jeez Pisshead give your passions a rest already. Also FYI the storm came ashore as a weak Cat3, and I doubt FEMA will be forcibly disarming anyone. I'd only expect forcible disarmament to take place in order to combat widespread violence, and since widespread violence isn't occurring I don't expect any forcible disarmament of the effected population by authorities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicoli

Jeez Pisshead give your passions a rest already. Also FYI the storm came ashore as a weak Cat3, and I doubt FEMA will be forcibly disarming anyone. I'd only expect forcible disarmament to take place in order to combat widespread violence, and since widespread violence isn't occurring I don't expect any forcible disarmament of the effected population by authorities.

---

So, if a hurricane is cat3, then the constitution applies? What about a 4, or 5? Not so much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

So, if a hurricane is cat3, then the constitution applies? What about a 4, or 5? Not so much?

---

All laws are flawed and under in certain extraordinary circumstances, fail to be functional. Note that even the laws of physics have a failure point.

In New Orleans, just after Katrina hit, the constitution failed to be functional. The reason for this failure was, in short, extreme environmental conditions, for which constitutional law is not suited.

For the first week after the storm, by allowing people the right to roam the streets with guns the government was complicit in violation of numerous New Orleaninan's 5th amendment rights. Regrettably, in order to rectify the situation, temporary suspension of 2nd amendment rights was necessary.

A good analogy of this situation from the perspective of traditional western legal philosophy would be the drowning boy scenario. [scenario]Boy is drowning in his backyard swimming pool, a person walking by the house can hear lots of commotion and goes to his aid. In doing so the passer by is trespassing(violating the law) in order to serve the greater good of society.[/scenario]
Note that the essence of this argument has been the legal foundation for a number of medical marijuana cases. In the case medical marijuana, someone must break the law in order to serve the greater good of society. In this case that would be the preservation of their good health.

Ultimatly once the crisis passed the 2nd amendment became functional once again, and the rights it entails were reinstated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicoli

All laws are flawed and under in certain extraordinary circumstances, fail to be functional. Note that even the laws of physics have a failure point.

In New Orleans, just after Katrina hit, the constitution failed to be functional. The reason for this failure was, in short, extreme environmental conditions, for which constitutional law is not suited.

For the first week after the storm, by allowing people the right to roam the streets with guns the government was complicit in violation of numerous New Orleaninan's 5th amendment rights. Regrettably, in order to rectify the situation, temporary suspension of 2nd amendment rights was necessary.

A good analogy of this situation from the perspective of traditional western legal philosophy would be the drowning boy scenario. [scenario]Boy is drowning in his backyard swimming pool, a person walking by the house can hear lots of commotion and goes to his aid. In doing so the passer by is trespassing(violating the law) in order to serve the greater good of society.[/scenario]
Note that the essence of this argument has been the legal foundation for a number of medical marijuana cases. In the case medical marijuana, someone must break the law in order to serve the greater good of society. In this case that would be the preservation of their good health.

Ultimatly once the crisis passed the 2nd amendment became functional once again, and the rights it entails were reinstated.

---

oddly enough, no guns were though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicholasstanko

oddly enough, no guns were though.

---

I take it you mean that the confiscated weapons were not returned to their owners? True, not that anyone should be surprised, I'm going to give it a month or so before I pass my scathing judgement on our government for failure to return the weapons. Normally I'd want them be returned immediately, but given how stretched the governments resources are at this point I doubt the government has the capability to return them immediately. Some of the weapons have probably been lost, and the government should compensate gun owners for such losses. Ultimately I'm sure the courts will issue a deadline for the resolution of such matters, and that's if they have not done so already.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/2nd...or_victory.htm

it certainly is good practice for when the total suspension of the constitution occurs...

the groundwork is there...the unconstitutional fema and the patriot act and the federalization of cities and states and police departments around the country...after a few more big 'terrorist' incidencts it's bye-bye constitution...like tommy franks said...he's so sad about it, but we'll have to have military dictatorship to be safe from the freedom hating terrorists...

our military hasn't been training with foreign troops to round people up and disarm them just to wase time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicoli

All laws are flawed and under in certain extraordinary circumstances, fail to be functional. Note that even the laws of physics have a failure point.

In New Orleans, just after Katrina hit, the constitution failed to be functional. The reason for this failure was, in short, extreme environmental conditions, for which constitutional law is not suited.

For the first week after the storm, by allowing people the right to roam the streets with guns the government was complicit in violation of numerous New Orleaninan's 5th amendment rights. Regrettably, in order to rectify the situation, temporary suspension of 2nd amendment rights was necessary.

A good analogy of this situation from the perspective of traditional western legal philosophy would be the drowning boy scenario. [scenario]Boy is drowning in his backyard swimming pool, a person walking by the house can hear lots of commotion and goes to his aid. In doing so the passer by is trespassing(violating the law) in order to serve the greater good of society.[/scenario]
Note that the essence of this argument has been the legal foundation for a number of medical marijuana cases. In the case medical marijuana, someone must break the law in order to serve the greater good of society. In this case that would be the preservation of their good health.

Ultimatly once the crisis passed the 2nd amendment became functional once again, and the rights it entails were reinstated.

---

I can imagine no circumstances under which the 2nd amendment is more important than when law and order breaks down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicoli

All laws are flawed and under in certain extraordinary circumstances, fail to be functional. Note that even the laws of physics have a failure point.

In New Orleans, just after Katrina hit, the constitution failed to be functional. The reason for this failure was, in short, extreme environmental conditions, for which constitutional law is not suited.

For the first week after the storm, by allowing people the right to roam the streets with guns the government was complicit in violation of numerous New Orleaninan's 5th amendment rights. Regrettably, in order to rectify the situation, temporary suspension of 2nd amendment rights was necessary.

A good analogy of this situation from the perspective of traditional western legal philosophy would be the drowning boy scenario. [scenario]Boy is drowning in his backyard swimming pool, a person walking by the house can hear lots of commotion and goes to his aid. In doing so the passer by is trespassing(violating the law) in order to serve the greater good of society.[/scenario]
Note that the essence of this argument has been the legal foundation for a number of medical marijuana cases. In the case medical marijuana, someone must break the law in order to serve the greater good of society. In this case that would be the preservation of their good health.

Ultimatly once the crisis passed the 2nd amendment became functional once again, and the rights it entails were reinstated.

---

I was wondering if it were possible in here but I do detect a beacon of light in the clouds! Preach on brother!!! :D

it's apparent in the post, and you can readily see, that they have not yet been served a warrant nor have an officer of the law want to see inside their homes.
they will speak differently after either of those traumatic episodes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

I can imagine no circumstances under which the 2nd amendment is more important than when law and order breaks down.

---

ditto to that. but the neo-cons would rather see everyone disarmed...how conservative of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

ditto to that. but the neo-cons would rather see everyone disarmed...how conservative of them?

---

Your dribble makes you look dumber by the second. The N.R.A. loves the Republicans, it's your Dems that want to save the bunnies, trees, etc........

You better consult with Alex before you try independent thought!! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

ditto to that. but the neo-cons would rather see everyone disarmed...how conservative of them?

---

They are by no stretch of the imagination conservatives, vastly increased government power? Runaway spending? A wildly interventionist foreign policy? Well, they hate gays, I guess that's something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

I can imagine no circumstances under which the 2nd amendment is more important than when law and order breaks down.

---

Back in 1776 that would be true, and, even today, under normal circumstances the 2nd amendment contributes to the functionality of the constitution as a whole. In N.O. Shortly after the hurricane, the right for anyone to carry a gun around was causing some serious problems. We as a country canâ??t allow rescuers to be fired on and citizens to gunned down in the streets. Laws require balance in order to function in N.O. That balance was lost. The imbalance resulted from criminals having been released from the jails, and large numbers of guns having been looted after the storm by those same criminals.
The end result of this imbalance was more guns being used to perpetrate crimes(or to violate the constitutional rights of others) then were being used to deter or prevent them.(or to protect the constitutional rights of others) Under normal conditions more guns are used to prevent and deter crimes then are used to perpetrate crimes and thatâ??s why we have the 2nd amendment.

Now if you know anything of history you must know that N.O. Was subjected to Martial Law during the war of 1812 by none other then Andrew Jackson. He had to temporarily deprive citizens of their constitutional rights by forcing them to stay and defend the city from the British. In this case Andrew Jackson was breaking the law in order to preserve the law. Now had he chosen not to take this action itâ??s quite likely that the British would have captured N.O., and in doing so would have threated the very survival of the Republic and its constitution.(the law) Now do you think what he did was wrong? If not then you shouldnâ??t be so quick to judge some of the actions taken in the wake of Katrina, because the justification for those actions is not all that dissimilar from those taken in 1812.

Also, suppose guns hadnâ??t been confiscated, and then suppose that many people died as a result. Donâ??t you think that might have given the anti-gun advocates plenty of ammo? I mean thereâ??s tons of soccer moms that are fence sitters now, but show them a bunch of people gunned down by criminals and the next thing you know you have another anti-gun/gun control advocate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicoli

Back in 1776 that would be true, and, even today, under normal circumstances the 2nd amendment contributes to the functionality of the constitution as a whole. In N.O. Shortly after the hurricane, the right for anyone to carry a gun around was causing some serious problems. We as a country canâ??t allow rescuers to be fired on and citizens to gunned down in the streets. Laws require balance in order to function in N.O. That balance was lost. The imbalance resulted from criminals having been released from the jails, and large numbers of guns having been looted after the storm by those same criminals.
The end result of this imbalance was more guns being used to perpetrate crimes(or to violate the constitutional rights of others) then were being used to deter or prevent them.(or to protect the constitutional rights of others) Under normal conditions more guns are used to prevent and deter crimes then are used to perpetrate crimes and thatâ??s why we have the 2nd amendment.

Now if you know anything of history you must know that N.O. Was subjected to Martial Law during the war of 1812 by none other then Andrew Jackson. He had to temporarily deprive citizens of their constitutional rights by forcing them to stay and defend the city from the British. In this case Andrew Jackson was breaking the law in order to preserve the law. Now had he chosen not to take this action itâ??s quite likely that the British would have captured N.O., and in doing so would have threated the very survival of the Republic and its constitution.(the law) Now do you think what he did was wrong? If not then you shouldnâ??t be so quick to judge some of the actions taken in the wake of Katrina, because the justification for those actions is not all that dissimilar from those taken in 1812.

Also, suppose guns hadnâ??t been confiscated, and then suppose that many people died as a result. Donâ??t you think that might have given the anti-gun advocates plenty of ammo? I mean thereâ??s tons of soccer moms that are fence sitters now, but show them a bunch of people gunned down by criminals and the next thing you know you have another anti-gun/gun control advocate.

---

seems to me that the 2nd amendment says it is in place to insure a free state not as a deterrent to crime, in fact a well regulated militia is said to be necessary to the security of a free state.
wouldn't that mean that the guns were there to keep the government in line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hempity

seems to me that the 2nd amendment says it is in place to insure a free state not as a deterrent to crime, in fact a well regulated militia is said to be necessary to the security of a free state.
wouldn't that mean that the guns were there to keep the government in line?

---

Well that's your own interpretation of the law, but in my opinion that interpretation is overly simplistic and quite bias. (not that I like the government but I do value objective analysis) The fact is that many threats to freedom can originate from within the general population and not just the government. Deterring crime helps maintain socio-economic stability which in turn promotes the existence of a free state or is conducive to the security of a free state. In the case of N.O. All the normal methods of crime prevention essentially failed for a time, and as a result many people in N.O. started acting irrationally and unpredictably. (many turning to crime for multitudinousness reasons) I feel that there were good legitimate reasons for temporarily suspending 2nd amendment rights in N.O. Not only to protect other rights granted by the constitution but to protect our constitution as a whole.
Like I said before, had we not disarmed people in N.O. We as a nation might have faced the prospect of permanent, considerable erosion of our 2nd amendment rights. Those who would demand the Forfeiture of such rights would not be the government, but citizens who would have been outraged by the gun crimes committed during the crisis. (of course itâ??s possible that it wouldnâ??t have ended that badly but would you want to chance it?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicoli

Well that's your own interpretation of the law, but in my opinion that interpretation is overly simplistic and quite bias. (not that I like the government but I do value objective analysis) The fact is that many threats to freedom can originate from within the general population and not just the government. Deterring crime helps maintain socio-economic stability which in turn promotes the existence of a free state or is conducive to the security of a free state. In the case of N.O. All the normal methods of crime prevention essentially failed for a time, and as a result many people in N.O. started acting irrationally and unpredictably. (many turning to crime for multitudinousness reasons) I feel that there were good legitimate reasons for temporarily suspending 2nd amendment rights in N.O. Not only to protect other rights granted by the constitution but to protect our constitution as a whole.
Like I said before, had we not disarmed people in N.O. We as a nation might have faced the prospect of permanent, considerable erosion of our 2nd amendment rights. Those who would demand the Forfeiture of such rights would not be the government, but citizens who would have been outraged by the gun crimes committed during the crisis. (of course itâ??s possible that it wouldnâ??t have ended that badly but would you want to chance it?)

---

Yes i guess i would chance it.

#2.) a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

it seems that is pretty simple and self-explanatory.

police as normal, ran for their lives, they are not here to protect the people, there is no way they could, and they know it.
so for the most part they sit in their ward rooms until they feel like going out, and then only enforce what they themselves don't like.
police commit many more gun crimes than the people do, they are just not reported as such.
to live in a country where only police have firearms, can only be called a police state, no matter how safe you believe yourself to be.
the u.s. has so many unenforceable laws, there is too much discretion on the part of an officer that was not hired for intelligence, only for enforcement capabilities and loyalty to the owners.