http://intellihub.com/2013/08/03/war-likely-imminent-survival-food-company-urgently-contacted-by-fema/
Police State today Martial Law tomorrow.
Survival Food Company Urgently Contacted By FEMA – Is a War Or Disaster Looming?
Recently my friend who owns a preparedness and survival food company was contacted by FEMA and the questions might scare you.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Recently my friend Matt, the owner of MyPatriotSupply.com was contacted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by way of email, leading on that something is ready to pop off.
Matt being the patriot he is immediately contacted me with this disturbing news. He even provided screenshots of the actual email sent by a FEMA representative. The names and revealing information have been blurred out.
Actual email received by Matt of MyPatriotSupply.com. (Image: MyPatriotSupply.com)
Matt of MyPatriotSupply.com wrote, “here we are, August 2013 and FEMA once again is trying to buy up large stockpiles of food. And they don’t want anyone to know it, and they want to take immediately delivery… I’ve studied history. That is what got me into preparedness in the first place. History has shown us time after time that those who depend on the government to come to their aid during a disaster are the ones waiting the longest for help. Sometimes help never comes…or comes too late.
I do not believe these critical emergency food supplies should be in the hands of the government, stored in some secret warehouse only to be brought out and distributed to their own agencies first, with the rest of us getting table scraps long after we need it.
These life-saving meals belong in the hands of people like you and me. This is why I declined the opportunity to sell to the Department of Homeland Security.
But let’s not forget the most important part of this: Why the sudden sense of urgency? What do they know that we do not?
I’m not one to cry that the sky is always falling, but when DHS/FEMA make a move to quietly buy up emergency food supplies and ask how much we can ship within 24 hours…I think this is far enough outside the realm of what is “normal” to beg some questions.
Fortunately I’ve been in this business long enough to predict what happens next. One or more of the other “survival companies” out there will inevitably see a chance to make a quick buck from Uncle Sam (which is really paid for by us, the taxpayer). This could create a run on many of the core raw ingredients used by emergency food makers that will cause a ripple effect throughout the industry as supply chains become bottle-necked handling the FEMA/DHS request.”
This is extremely disturbing to know.
What is the government gearing up for? A major disaster or war they know is coming?
I myself don’t want to be left in the dark.
http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2013/08/something-big-is-being-planned-more-proof-of-upcoming-disaster-in-america-2483414.html
The two videos below and this story from Intellihub should provide all the proof necessary for Americans that something huge is brewing, and possibly very, very soon. Why has FEMA contacted MyPatriotSupply.com and requested immediate disaster assistance? With US Embassies being closed around the world and Russia withdrawing Ambassadors from Syria after promising WW3 if Syria is attacked, have we reached the ‘end game’? Time is of the essence…
Police State today Martial Law tomorrow.
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
― Frank Zappa
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/08/is-america-planing-an-unprovoked-nuclear-attack-on-china-2728022.html
Is America Planning An Unprovoked Nuclear Attack on China?
Saturday, August 3, 2013 11:04
This is an edited abridgement by Lasha Darkmoon of Professor Amitai Etzioni’s ground-breaking article in the Yale Journal of International affairs, Who Authorized Preparations for War with China? It is followed by extracts from Paul Craig Roberts’ impassioned response to the same article. Additional comments by Dick Eastman and Lasha Darkmoon. This important material has been condensed to roughly one-fifth of its original length.
AMITAI ETZIONI: The Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China. It is a momentous conclusion, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress. This important change in the United States’ posture toward China has largely been driven by the Pentagon.
The decision at hand stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.
Have the White House and Congress properly reviewed the Pentagon’s approach—and found its threat assessment of China convincing? If not, what are the United States’ overarching short- and long-term political strategies for dealing with an economically and militarily rising China?
Since the Second World War the United States has maintained a power-projection military, built upon forward deployed forces with uninhibited access to the global commons—air, sea, and space. For over six decades the maritime security of the Western Pacific has been underwritten by the unrivaled naval and air power of the United States. Starting in the early 1990s, however, Chinese investments in sophisticated, but low-cost, weapons—including anti-ship missiles, short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, stealth submarines, and cyber and space arms—began to challenge the military superiority of the United States, especially in China’s littoral waters.
These “asymmetric arms” threaten two key elements of the United States’ force projection strategy: its fixed bases, such as those in Japan and Guam, and aircraft carriers. These Chinese arms are viewed by some in the Pentagon as raising the human and economic cost of the United States’ military role in the region to prohibitive levels. To demonstrate what this new environment means for regional security, military officials point out that, in 1996, when China conducted a series of missile tests and military exercises in the Strait of Taiwan, the United States responded by sending two aircraft carriers to the South China Sea, a credible display of force that reminded all parties of its commitment to maintaining the status quo in the region.
However, these analysts point out, if in the near future China decided to forcefully integrate Taiwan, the same U.S. aircraft carriers that are said to have once deterred Chinese aggression could be denied access to the sea by PLA anti-ship missiles. Thus, the U.S.’s interests in the region, to the extent that they are undergirded by superior military force, are increasingly vulnerable.
Two influential American military strategists, Andrew Marshall and his protégé Andrew Krepinevich, have been raising the alarm about China’s new capabilities and aggressive designs since the early 1990s.
With Marshall’s guidance, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates instructed the Chiefs of Staff to begin work on the AirSea Battle (ASB) project and, in September of 2009 . . . a classified Memorandum of Agreement was signed allowing the US “to counter growing challenges to US freedom of action.”
In late 2011 Gates’ successor, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, also signed off on the ASB and formed the new Multi-Service Office to Advance AirSea Battle. Thus, ASB was conceived, born, and began to grow.
MORE>>
AMITAI ETZIONI: The Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China. It is a momentous conclusion, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress. This important change in the United States’ posture toward China has largely been driven by the Pentagon.
The decision at hand stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.
Have the White House and Congress properly reviewed the Pentagon’s approach—and found its threat assessment of China convincing? If not, what are the United States’ overarching short- and long-term political strategies for dealing with an economically and militarily rising China?
Since the Second World War the United States has maintained a power-projection military, built upon forward deployed forces with uninhibited access to the global commons—air, sea, and space. For over six decades the maritime security of the Western Pacific has been underwritten by the unrivaled naval and air power of the United States. Starting in the early 1990s, however, Chinese investments in sophisticated, but low-cost, weapons—including anti-ship missiles, short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, stealth submarines, and cyber and space arms—began to challenge the military superiority of the United States, especially in China’s littoral waters.
These “asymmetric arms” threaten two key elements of the United States’ force projection strategy: its fixed bases, such as those in Japan and Guam, and aircraft carriers. These Chinese arms are viewed by some in the Pentagon as raising the human and economic cost of the United States’ military role in the region to prohibitive levels. To demonstrate what this new environment means for regional security, military officials point out that, in 1996, when China conducted a series of missile tests and military exercises in the Strait of Taiwan, the United States responded by sending two aircraft carriers to the South China Sea, a credible display of force that reminded all parties of its commitment to maintaining the status quo in the region.
However, these analysts point out, if in the near future China decided to forcefully integrate Taiwan, the same U.S. aircraft carriers that are said to have once deterred Chinese aggression could be denied access to the sea by PLA anti-ship missiles. Thus, the U.S.’s interests in the region, to the extent that they are undergirded by superior military force, are increasingly vulnerable.
Two influential American military strategists, Andrew Marshall and his protégé Andrew Krepinevich, have been raising the alarm about China’s new capabilities and aggressive designs since the early 1990s.
LD: By China’s “aggressive designs”, he means China’s decision to defend itself against American aggression. The mere fact that American ships are patrolling the Chinese coast, and not Chinese ships patrolling the American coast, makes it quite clear who the real aggressor is.
Building on hundreds of war games played out over the past two decades, they gained a renewed hearing for their concerns following Pacific Vision, a war game conducted by the U.S. Air Force in October 2008.With Marshall’s guidance, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates instructed the Chiefs of Staff to begin work on the AirSea Battle (ASB) project and, in September of 2009 . . . a classified Memorandum of Agreement was signed allowing the US “to counter growing challenges to US freedom of action.”
In late 2011 Gates’ successor, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, also signed off on the ASB and formed the new Multi-Service Office to Advance AirSea Battle. Thus, ASB was conceived, born, and began to grow.
MORE>>
No comments:
Post a Comment