Thread: UN Military Troops Allowed On US Soil - O's Executive Order

United States Politicians Gleefully Approve of United Nations Invasion of America
Kristan T. Harris | American Intelligence Report
7/13/16


United Nation military troops may soon arrive and see action on American soil following the United States’ announcement of support for “a set of principles that give a green light for U.N. peacekeeping troops and police to use force to protect civilians in armed conflicts,” Military Times reports.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told attendees at an important U.N. meeting that the United States was “proud” and “humbled” to be a included in the new agenda and promised to follow by the 18 pledges, Fox News reports.

The arrival of the United Nations requires federalization of police in order to set a global standard of law enforcement. President Barrack Obama has pounced on the opportunity to exploit recent shootings to push for the federalization of local police forces.

More federalization of local police, collaborated with the arrival of the United Nations military presence, could mean big trouble for liberty and freedom of speech in America.

Videos are flooding the internet documenting the slow-moving invasion of United Nations military-like vehicles across America.

This is not the first time American politicians have attempted to sell their citizens out to the powers of the United Nations.

The UN’s first attempt to capture America was in 1951, under a top secret program titled, “operation AGGRESSI.”

In strange fashion, forces flying the flag of the United Nations began to occupy small towns and cities across the United States. This was intended to test the will of the people and see if they would accept a UN “takeover.” The test failed and sparked controversy and concerns over a “revolution-in-the-making” that would destroy any plot formulated by the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations.

Project AGGRESSI forces were quickly met with much resistance and silently left occupied government buildings and removed United Nation flags nationwide. Jewish broadcaster Myron C. Fagan documented the secretive operation in the 1960’s claiming “the UN ‘invasions’ were intended to be completely hush-hush. The Mass Media were very accommodating and the local newspapers and Radio Stations in the ‘invaded’ cities were kept silent under order of the UN. However, in several of the cities the local police refused to be ‘captured’. That caused quite an uproar — true, only locally, but it threatened to spread nationwide, especially after troops and officers assigned to additional ‘invasion units’ refused to ‘serve’. The alarmed plotters hastily halted all further ‘invasions’.”

Webster’s dictionary defines “treason” as: “the crime of trying to overthrow your country’s government or of helping your country’s enemies during war.” Let that sink in.

http://americanintelligencereport.co...-american-soil


Executive Order: United Nations allowed to use Force on US Citizens

President Obama has signed an executive order that allows for the US military to use force against American citizens for the first time in history.
The order was signed on July 1st, 2016 and is titled “Executive Order — United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force“.

The order appears to have changed the rules of engagement between the military and ordinary U.S. citizens in an end-around the Constitution.


Whitehouse.gov reports:

EXECUTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES POLICY ON PRE- AND POST-STRIKE MEASURES TO ADDRESS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN U.S. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations. As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.
The protection of civilians is fundamentally consistent with the effective, efficient, and decisive use of force in pursuit of U.S. national interests. Minimizing civilian casualties can further mission objectives; help maintain the support of partner governments and vulnerable populations, especially in the conduct of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations; and enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of U.S. operations critical to our national security. As a matter of policy, the United States therefore routinely imposes certain heightened policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of armed conflict that relate to the protection of civilians.
Civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of force in situations of armed conflict or in the exercise of a state’s inherent right of self-defense. The U.S. Government shall maintain and promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, take appropriate steps when such casualties occur, and draw lessons from our operations to further enhance the protection of civilians.
Sec. 2. Policy. In furtherance of U.S. Government efforts to protect civilians in U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense, and with a view toward enhancing such efforts, relevant departments and agencies (agencies) shall continue to take certain measures in present and future operations.
(a) In particular, relevant agencies shall, consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:
(i) train personnel, commensurate with their responsibilities, on compliance with legal obligations and policy guidance that address the protection of civilians and on implementation of best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, including through exercises, pre-deployment training, and simulations of complex operational environments that include civilians;
(ii) develop, acquire, and field intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems that, by enabling more accurate battlespace awareness, contribute to the protection of civilians;
(iii) develop, acquire, and field weapon systems and other technological capabilities that further enable the discriminate use of force in different operational contexts;
(iv) take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, such as providing warnings to the civilian population (unless the circumstances do not permit), adjusting the timing of attacks, taking steps to ensure military objectives and civilians are clearly distinguished, and taking other measures appropriate to the circumstances; and
(v) conduct assessments that assist in the reduction of civilian casualties by identifying risks to civilians and evaluating efforts to reduce risks to civilians.
(b) In addition to the responsibilities above, relevant agencies shall also, as appropriate and consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:
(i) review or investigate incidents involving civilian casualties, including by considering relevant and credible information from all available sources, such as other agencies, partner governments, and nongovernmental organizations, and take measures to mitigate the likelihood of future incidents of civilian casualties;
(ii) acknowledge U.S. Government responsibility for civilian casualties and offer condolences, including ex gratia payments, to civilians who are injured or to the families of civilians who are killed;
(iii) engage with foreign partners to share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of and responding to civilian casualties, including through appropriate training and assistance; and
(iv) maintain channels for engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other nongovernmental organizations that operate in conflict zones and encourage such organizations to assist in efforts to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, including by appropriately marking protected facilities, vehicles, and personnel, and by providing updated information on the locations of such facilities and personnel.
Sec. 3. Report on Strikes Undertaken by the U.S. Government Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities. (a) The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), or such other official as the President may designate, shall obtain from relevant agencies information about the number of strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, as well as assessments of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from those strikes, and publicly release an unclassified summary of such information no later than May 1, 2017. By May 1 of each subsequent year, as consistent with the need to protect sources and methods, the DNI shall publicly release a report with the same information for the preceding calendar year.
(b) The annual report shall also include information obtained from relevant agencies regarding the general sources of information and methodology used to conduct these assessments and, as feasible and appropriate, shall address the general reasons for discrepancies between post-strike assessments from the U.S. Government and credible reporting from nongovernmental organizations regarding non-combatant deaths resulting from strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.
(c) In preparing a report under this section, the DNI shall review relevant and credible post-strike all-source reporting, including such information from nongovernmental sources, for the purpose of ensuring that this reporting is available to and considered by relevant agencies in their assessment of deaths.
(d) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs may, as appropriate, request that the head of any relevant agency conduct additional reviews related to the intelligence assessments of deaths from strikes against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.
Sec. 4. Periodic Consultation. In furtherance of the policies and practices set forth in this order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, through the National Security Council staff, will convene agencies with relevant defense, counterterrorism, intelligence, legal, civilian protection, and technology expertise to consult on civilian casualty trends, consider potential improvements to U.S. Government civilian casualty mitigation efforts, and, as appropriate, report to the Deputies and Principals Committees, consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 1 or its successor. Specific incidents will not be considered in this context, and will continue to be examined within relevant chains of command.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) The policies and practices set forth above are not intended to alter, and shall be implemented consistent with, the authority and responsibility of commanders and other U.S. personnel to execute their mission as directed by the President or other appropriate authorities, which necessarily includes the inherent right of self-defense and the maintenance of good order and discipline among U.S. personnel. No part of this order modifies the chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces or the authority of U.S. commanders.
(b) No part of this order modifies priorities in the collection of intelligence or the development, acquisition, or fielding of weapon systems and other technological capabilities.
(c) No part of this order shall prejudice or supplant established procedures pertaining to administrative or criminal investigative or judicial processes in the context of the military justice system or other applicable law and regulation.
(d) The policies set forth in this order are consistent with existing U.S. obligations under international law and are not intended to create new international legal obligations; nor shall anything in this order be construed to derogate from obligations under applicable law, including the law of armed conflict.
(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMATHE WHITE HOUSE,
July 1, 2016.

Where is our Congress on this????

This cannot be acceptable and the House needs to file another lawsuit against Obama's over-reach in executive power and all funding must be denied!

If you carefully read the actual Executive Order part you will find that it is the rules of conduct for U.S. Troops in foreign war zones in regard to how they must deal with civilians in those war zones .

U.N. is NOT mentioned once in the Executive Order.

It says nothing about U.N. troops coming to the U.S.

U.N. is only mentioned in the popaganda part of the article.
===============

Whitehouse.gov reports:

EXECUTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES POLICY ON PRE- AND POST-STRIKE MEASURES TO ADDRESS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN U.S. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations. As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.

The protection of civilians is fundamentally consistent with the effective, efficient, and decisive use of force in pursuit of U.S. national interests. Minimizing civilian casualties can further mission objectives; help maintain the support of partner governments and vulnerable populations, especially in the conduct of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations; and enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of U.S. operations critical to our national security. As a matter of policy, the United States therefore routinely imposes certain heightened policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of armed conflict that relate to the protection of civilians.

Civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of force in situations of armed conflict or in the exercise of a state’s inherent right of self-defense. The U.S. Government shall maintain and promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, take appropriate steps when such casualties occur, and draw lessons from our operations to further enhance the protection of civilians.

Sec. 2. Policy. In furtherance of U.S. Government efforts to protect civilians in U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense, and with a view toward enhancing such efforts, relevant departments and agencies (agencies) shall continue to take certain measures in present and future operations.
(a) In particular, relevant agencies shall, consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:
(i) train personnel, commensurate with their responsibilities, on compliance with legal obligations and policy guidance that address the protection of civilians and on implementation of best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, including through exercises, pre-deployment training, and simulations of complex operational environments that include civilians;
(ii) develop, acquire, and field intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems that, by enabling more accurate battlespace awareness, contribute to the protection of civilians;
(iii) develop, acquire, and field weapon systems and other technological capabilities that further enable the discriminate use of force in different operational contexts;
(iv) take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, such as providing warnings to the civilian population (unless the circumstances do not permit), adjusting the timing of attacks, taking steps to ensure military objectives and civilians are clearly distinguished, and taking other measures appropriate to the circumstances; and
(v) conduct assessments that assist in the reduction of civilian casualties by identifying risks to civilians and evaluating efforts to reduce risks to civilians.
(b) In addition to the responsibilities above, relevant agencies shall also, as appropriate and consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:
(i) review or investigate incidents involving civilian casualties, including by considering relevant and credible information from all available sources, such as other agencies, partner governments, and nongovernmental organizations, and take measures to mitigate the likelihood of future incidents of civilian casualties;
(ii) acknowledge U.S. Government responsibility for civilian casualties and offer condolences, including ex gratia payments, to civilians who are injured or to the families of civilians who are killed;
(iii) engage with foreign partners to share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of and responding to civilian casualties, including through appropriate training and assistance; and
(iv) maintain channels for engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other nongovernmental organizations that operate in conflict zones and encourage such organizations to assist in efforts to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, including by appropriately marking protected facilities, vehicles, and personnel, and by providing updated information on the locations of such facilities and personnel.

Sec. 3. Report on Strikes Undertaken by the U.S. Government Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities. (a) The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), or such other official as the President may designate, shall obtain from relevant agencies information about the number of strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, as well as assessments of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from those strikes, and publicly release an unclassified summary of such information no later than May 1, 2017. By May 1 of each subsequent year, as consistent with the need to protect sources and methods, the DNI shall publicly release a report with the same information for the preceding calendar year.
(b) The annual report shall also include information obtained from relevant agencies regarding the general sources of information and methodology used to conduct these assessments and, as feasible and appropriate, shall address the general reasons for discrepancies between post-strike assessments from the U.S. Government and credible reporting from nongovernmental organizations regarding non-combatant deaths resulting from strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.
(c) In preparing a report under this section, the DNI shall review relevant and credible post-strike all-source reporting, including such information from nongovernmental sources, for the purpose of ensuring that this reporting is available to and considered by relevant agencies in their assessment of deaths.
(d) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs may, as appropriate, request that the head of any relevant agency conduct additional reviews related to the intelligence assessments of deaths from strikes against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.

Sec. 4. Periodic Consultation. In furtherance of the policies and practices set forth in this order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, through the National Security Council staff, will convene agencies with relevant defense, counterterrorism, intelligence, legal, civilian protection, and technology expertise to consult on civilian casualty trends, consider potential improvements to U.S. Government civilian casualty mitigation efforts, and, as appropriate, report to the Deputies and Principals Committees, consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 1 or its successor. Specific incidents will not be considered in this context, and will continue to be examined within relevant chains of command.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) The policies and practices set forth above are not intended to alter, and shall be implemented consistent with, the authority and responsibility of commanders and other U.S. personnel to execute their mission as directed by the President or other appropriate authorities, which necessarily includes the inherent right of self-defense and the maintenance of good order and discipline among U.S. personnel.

No part of this order modifies the chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces or the authority of U.S. commanders.
(b) No part of this order modifies priorities in the collection of intelligence or the development, acquisition, or fielding of weapon systems and other technological capabilities.
(c) No part of this order shall prejudice or supplant established procedures pertaining to administrative or criminal investigative or judicial processes in the context of the military justice system or other applicable law and regulation.
(d) The policies set forth in this order are consistent with existing U.S. obligations under international law and are not intended to create new international legal obligations; nor shall anything in this order be construed to derogate from obligations under applicable law, including the law of armed conflict.
(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 1, 2016.

O is getting his ducks in order - we shall see what comes out @ UN in the future.
Obama's federalization of police grows nationwide

White House: 53 departments sign on to federal oversight

Published: 04/22/2016 at 7:15 AM
Cheryl Chumley Police around the nation are joining on to President Obama’s plan.

Announced Friday, 53 police departments around the country have signed on so far to the White House-pressed Police Data Initiative, a plan by President Obama to make crime-fighting more technology-driven and accountable to higher-ups, but that is seen by critics as a not-so-subtle federal takeover of community policing.

The program, which comes by way of a recommendation from the Task Force on 21st Century Policing that Obama launched in December – which was created by the White House in response to widely reported instances of police-community clashes and alleged cop discrimination against minorities – is aimed at enhancing “data transparency and analysis” among police departments around the nation.

In White House jargon, according to a May 2015 “Launching the Police Data Initiative” press release: “Through the initiative, key stakeholders are establishing a community of practice that will allow for knowledge sharing, community-sourced problem solving and the establishment of documented best practices that can serve as examples for police departments nationwide.”

The ultimate goal?

“Increased trust and impact,” the White House reported.

The initiative in 2015 kicked off in Camden, New Jersey, a “predominantly black city” that’s “one of America’s most violent and also among its poorest,” NewsOne reported. Then, 20 other communities joined on to the program as well, which included training from federal authorities on how to gather and use data to “increase transparency, build community trust and support innovation,” the White House reported.

But it’s grown. Now, the number of participating police departments has jumped to 53.

And critics say it’s little more than a federalization of local police because it puts the White House at the helm of deciding such matters as cameras on cop uniforms and whether or not local jurisdictions accept equipment from the military.

Critics also say the data that’s being gathered at the local levels will lead to a massive federal database, overseen by federal authorities, who will then decide whether the individual police department is pursuing crime-fighting techniques in a manner that doesn’t discriminate against minorities.

As the New American put it back in March of 2015: “The plan … will use U.S. taxpayer dollars to deploy ‘experts’ and ‘researchers’ charged with training officers to act in a manner that the [Department of Justice] deems just – in essence doing the bidding of the Obama administration. Officially, the Justice Department will be helping local officials ‘fight crime’ under the scheme.”

And as the Blaze reported in August of 2015: “President Barack Obama’s administration has begun the second phase in federalizing the police.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch underscored in October 2015 the need for the federal government to collect data from local police departments, in order to “improve the accuracy and consistency” of how cops conduct their business.

“The [DOJ’s] position and the administration’s position has consistently been that we need to have national, consistent data,” she said, in a statement on the Justice Department website. “This information is useful because it helps us see trends, it helps us promote accountability and transparency. We’re also going further in developing standards for publishing information about deaths in custody as well, because transparency and accountability are helped by this kind of national data.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/obamas-fe...KzxO6bj2vQR.99

Obama Administration and UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight ‘Extremism’ In U.S.
Anthony Behar-Pool/Getty Images

by Pamela Geller2 Oct 2015

On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the United Nations that her office would be working in several American cities to form what she called the Strong Cities Network (SCN), a law enforcement initiative that would encompass the globe.

This amounts to nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the United States itself – without any consultation of Congress at all.

The United Nations is a sharia-compliant world body, and Obama, speaking there just days ago, insisted that “violent extremism” is not exclusive to Islam (which it is). Obama is redefining jihad terror to include everyone but the jihadists. So will the UN, driven largely by the sharia-enforcing Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the pro-Islamic post-American President Obama, use a “global police force” to crush counter-jihad forces?

After all, with Obama knowingly aiding al-Qaeda forces in Syria, how likely is it that he will use his “global police force” against actual Islamic jihadists? I suspect that instead, this global police force will be used to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia (Islamic law), and to silence all criticism of Islam for the President who proclaimed that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

What is a global police force doing in our cities? This is exactly the abdication of American sovereignty that I warned about in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America. The Obama Department of Justice made it clear that it was exactly that when it distributed a press release last week announcing the “Launch of Strong Cities Network to Strengthen Community Resilience Against Violent Extremism.” In that press release, the DoJ complained that “while many cities and local authorities are developing innovative responses to address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale.”

So if the local and municipal effort to counter the euphemistic and disingenuous “violent extremism” is inadequate and hasn’t developed “systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale,” the feds – and the UN – have to step in. Thus the groundwork is being laid for federal and international interference down to the local level. “The Strong Cities Network,” Lynch declared, “will serve as a vital tool to strengthen capacity-building and improve collaboration” – i.e., local dependence on federal and international authorities.

Lynch made the global (that is, United Nations) involvement clear when she added: “As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”

This internationalist character was brought to the fore by the fact that the Strong Cities Network was launched on September 29 not at the White House or the Department of Homeland Security, or at the FBI headquarters or anywhere else that might be fitting for a national project, but at the United Nations.

Even more ominously, the DoJ press release says that the Strong Cities Network “will strengthen strategic planning and practices to address violent extremism in all its forms by fostering collaboration among cities, municipalities and other sub-national authorities.” Sub-national and international: the press release then quotes Governing Mayor Stian Berger Røsland of Oslo, Norway, a participant in the Strong Cities Network, saying: “To counter violent extremism we need determined action at all levels of governance. To succeed, we must coordinate our efforts and cooperate across borders. The Strong Cities Network will enable cities across the globe pool our resources, knowledge and best practices together and thus leave us standing stronger in the fight against one of the greatest threats to modern society.”

But what is that greatest threat, exactly? Remember, the DoJ presser says that the SCN will “address violent extremism in all its forms.” It also says that it will aid initiatives that are working toward “building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism.” “Building social cohesion” is a euphemism for keeping peace between non-Muslim and Muslim communities – mostly by making sure that non-Muslims don’t complain too loudly about, much less work against, rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities.

The DoJ presser noted that at the launch of the Strong Cities Network, “welcoming remarks” would be offered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City. The involvement of New York City’s Marxist internationalist mayor is yet another warning sign.

Assert American sovereignty and individual rights. Contact your representatives now. Exhort them to oppose SCN now. Exhort them to keep America free – while it still is.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI),
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...remism-in-u-s/

They can start by arresting and throwing the DOPE in the White House in Gitmo...along with Hillary!

Not main stream media but .....

United Nations Troops on U.S. Soil Prepared to Assist With Martial Law?

By Voice of Reason Sunday, 6/26/16

The video below, recaps some of the U.N. activity that had been taking place here on U.S. soil as of last summer. In the video, he makes a point to highlight the stealth with which many of the U.N. forces have been caught attempting to operate, often covering up their U.N. logos. If these forces aren’t nefarious in nature, why the need for the secrecy? Furthermore, why has the U.N. been hiring Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration Officers SINCE 2014?

You don’t believe me? This is all “conspiracy nonsense?” Feel free to go the U.N.’s website and apply for the job directly at their Career Opportunities Page. QUESTION: Which do you think is more likely? 1) The U.N. is in bed with all the crazy right-wing “conspiracy theorists,” or 2) They are hiring Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration Officers because there is a plan in place to eventually go for the gun grab to end all gun grabs? First, check out the video, then we’ll take a look at the broader picture of how events are unfolding geopolitically, and see if there is larger picture that is unfolding.

Recall, not that long ago, a former federal prosecutor revealed that sources inside the DHS claimed Obama has plans to Incite a racial war no later than this summer. At the time, that might have sounded crazy to some (present company excluded). Unless you’ve been sleeping under a rock, you may have noticed things seem to be getting awfully tense domestically as a result of the 2016 presidential campaign, and perhaps more so with the outcome of the recent Brexit vote.

To support the idea that racial and ethnic tensions are ratcheting up (all according to plan), there’s President Obama’s changing of the U.S. Citizenship Oath specifically to accommodate Sharia and Islamic Law, the terrorist shooting in Orlando, and Obama’s announcement this week that he doesn’t care what the Supreme Court says, he has no plans to follow our immigration laws.


As I mentioned in the video above, we already know the Pentagon says it’s preparing for massive civil unrest, and there are reports law enforcement agencies are also preparing for rioting on a national scale. How much more evidence do people need? Anti-Media Reports:
Fascism doesn’t often sweep in overnight and take over some hapless nation’s government; rather, it gradually seeps into the cultural fabric — as is quietly taking place all around the globe, evidenced by an upsurge in sales of riot equipment that has gone largely unnoticed.

IS THERE ANY DOUBT WHO IS BEING TARGETED?

Patriotic Americans should feel comforted (sarcasm) that just recently, The Department Of Justice Announced its Plans To Step Up War On "Domestic Extremists.” Thanks to a Freedom of Information Request from Judicial Watch, we were able to obtain an Obama administration Department of Defense training manual, that actually defines “Domestic Extremists” for us! The training manual defines “Domestic Extremists” as:
“Americans who are ‘reverent of individual liberty,’ and ‘suspicious of centralized federal authority’ are possible ‘extreme right-wing’ terrorists.
The document linked above also lists people who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” who are likely to be members of “hate groups.”
Finally, the document goes on to call the Founding Fathers, “extremists.”

Obama Signed Our Death Warrant When He Gave Away Our Sovereignty – Part One
Obama Signed Our Death Warrant When He Gave Away Our Sovereignty – Part Two

http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/06...al-law-videos/

Originally Posted by lorrie

Where is our Congress on this????

This cannot be acceptable and the House needs to file another lawsuit against Obama's over-reach in executive power and all funding must be denied!

We haven't heard about this from any member of the House or the Senate because it is 90% distortion and fabrication.
If it were true Trump would be all over it and using it in his campaign.