Tag Archives: Martial law

EPA armed, Homeland Security ammunition order, Martial law?, Winchester ammunition order, EPA Glock handguns, Protect human health and safeguard the natural environment?, 200 million rounds of ammunition?

Why does the Department of Homeland Security need up to 200 million, 40 calibur rounds of ammunition over the next five years? This is the same Department of Homeland Security, headed by Janet Napolitano, that has been under more scrutiny since the Christmas day terrorist attack.

From the Winchester Ammunition Co. website, August 20, 2009.

“Winchester Awarded Department of Homeland Security Contract”

“Winchester Ammunition was recently awarded a contract by the Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security to supply a maximum of 200 million, 40 cal. rounds over the next five years.

“Winchester has a proud tradition of providing high quality ammunition to our nation’s law enforcement agencies,” said Dick Hammett, president, Winchester Ammunition. “No matter if they’re protecting our block, our city or our borders, each special agent is an invaluable resource and we are committed to giving them the best products available.”

The load selected for this contract is a 135-grain, hollow point designed for the office of Field Operations of Customs and Border Protection. It will fall under the Winchester® Ranger® line of products.

For more information about Winchester Ammunition and its complete line of products visit www.winchester.com.

WINCHESTER BALLISTICS CALCULATOR
The new Winchester® Ammunition Ballistics Calculator is the most innovative program on the market, using cutting-edge technology to offer ballistics information for shooters and hunters.

The Winchester Ballistics Calculator allows users to choose their type of ammunition and compare up to five different Winchester products with easy-to-read, high-tech ballistic charts and graphs. You can customize shooting conditions by entering wind speed and outside temperature, adjust zero marks for sighting in—then print the ballistics for later reference on the range or in the field. The calculator is now live at www.winchester.com/ballistics.”

http://www.winchester.com/library/news/Pages/Winchester-Awarded-Contract.aspx
If the above does not pique your curiousty or concern you, perhaps the following will.

 
The EPA, long known for dictatorial, out of control powers, has ordered 40 Model G-19, 9mm frame handguns.
From the EPA mission statement:

Our Mission

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment — air, water and land — upon which life depends.

EPA’s purpose is to ensure that:

all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;

national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;

federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;

environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;

all parts of society — communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments — have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;

environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and

the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm

From the EPA Procurement Office, September 14, 2009:
Posted Date : September 14, 2009

Procurement Office : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Procurement Operations Division, (3803R)

Response Date: September 23, 2009, 4:00 PM EDT

NAICS code 332994 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigations Division intends to award a sole source firm-fixed-price Purchase Order to Glock, Inc. under the authority of FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures for 40 Model G-19, 9mm frame handguns with finger grove and rail frames, Tijico night sights, extended magazine catches and 3.5lb/NY1 Trigger magazines. The Glock model G-19 is the Agency standard firearm and is the only pistol that fits our training, certified repair technician contracts, and equipment capabilities without a major change to Agency operations. Our agents are trained with the Glock pistol, and changing to another manufacturer would require transition training for each agent that could range from 1 to 3 days depending on the manufacturer. Additionally, our Agents are outfitted with holsters and magazine clips that are fitted to the Glock model firearm. Furthermore, EPA-CID has a large amount of spare parts for the Glock weapons and to retool these parts would require substantial expenditure for the Government.

NO SOLICITATION OR REQUEST FOR QUOTE WILL BE MADE FOR THIS PROCUREMENT. No contract will be awarded on the basis of offers received in response to this notice. All comments and questions regarding this procurement shall be addressed in writing to the Contracting Officer, Cara Lynch by COB on Wednesday, September 23, 2009. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted. The decision not to compete this requirement is within the discretion of the Government. Any response to this notice shall show clear and convincing evidence that competition would be advantageous to the Government in future procurements

The point of contact for this procurement is Cara Lynch, Contracting Specialist, at lynch.cara@epa.gov

http://www.epa.gov/oamhpod1/admin_placement/0902080/index.htm

So now the EPA, an out of control government agency, with no apparent regard for the US Constitution is now going to be armed. No wonder many citizens are concerned about the spectre of martial law and NWO theories.

From the EPA on how they develop regulations:

Developing Regulations: From Start to Finish
When EPA identifies the potential need for a regulation, we form a workgroup to learn more. The workgroup is led by the EPA office that will be writing the regulation (i.e., the “lead office”) and includes members from other parts of the Agency with related interests or responsibilities. The workgroup may work for months – employing expert scientists, economists, and other analysts – before an appropriate course of action is decided upon. The process generally goes like this:

1. Commence Activity. EPA typically operates under statutory authority (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.) to create regulations. Additionally, we adhere to the Principles of Regulation described in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.  When we have determined that an issue exists that cannot be addressed in the absence of regulatory activity, we commence a new regulatory action.

2. Analyze the Problem. The workgroup begins by developing a work plan that will guide the regulatory development process. This plan is called an Analytic Blueprint and outlines the major questions that must be answered, the data needed, the experts who should be consulted, the anticipated costs, and other rulemaking needs. EPA’s senior management provides guidance on the Analytic Blueprint early in the process at a meeting called Early Guidance. After the Early Guidance meeting, the workgroup uses its Analytic Blueprint to begin studying the problem. We may draw information from EPA’s research, scientific literature, other government agencies, or other researchers in the United States and abroad.

3. Identify Options. The workgroup then considers the available options for addressing the problem. This may require evaluating environmental technologies, changes in environmental management practices, and incentives that can motivate better environmental performance. The workgroup also takes related issues into account at this stage, such as the impact of various options on small businesses, on children’s health, or on state and local governments. Sometimes the workgroup might find there is no need for regulation.

4. Publish a Proposal & Request Public Comments. If the preliminary analysis recommends the need for regulation, the workgroup drafts a proposed regulation for publication in the Federal Register. Experts from EPA, other federal agencies, advisory groups, and more help inform the proposed regulation.

The draft publication is called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). A law called the Administrative Procedure Act (5USC Ch. 5) generally requires EPA (and other federal regulatory agencies) to request comments from the public before finalizing the regulation. The public comment period typically lasts 60 to 90 days. Federal Register notices related to the environment are available online from many Web sites, including the Government Printing Office’s Federal Register site and Regulations.gov.

At the same time we publish an NPRM, EPA will sometimes publish an Information Collection Request (ICR). The Paperwork Reduction Act requires all agencies to ensure that their regulations do not impose an undue paperwork burden on individuals, businesses, and others. Therefore, we seek approval of an ICR when our proposed regulations might require more than 10 members of the public to report similar information back to us. The public can comment on these ICRs just as they can the NPRMs. See EPA’s ICR Web site for more information.

5. Review Public Comments. Next, the workgroup reviews and evaluates all the comments received. Depending on the regulation, these comments may range from recommendations for minimal change to extensive rewriting. The workgroup carefully weighs and evaluates the comments before developing a draft final regulation for review and approval by EPA senior management. All public comments and our responses are posted in the regulation’s docket. (Learn more about how to comment and how to access dockets.)

6. Issue Regulation. After approval by senior management, the EPA Administrator or his delegee reviews the final regulation and decides whether it should be issued. If the Administrator decides to issue the regulation, it is published in the Federal Register. Effective dates vary. A regulation may be effective on the day it is published, for example, or it may be effective a year later. These dates are specified in every regulation. Congress may decide to overturn a regulation after the Administrator has issued it, but it rarely does.

7. Analyze Our Regulations. When a final regulation is issued, our work has just begun. After promulgation, we work with regulated businesses, governments, and non-profits to help them comply with the requirements. In some cases, enforcement actions are necessary. And, we analyze our regulations to make sure they are effective.

Occasionally there are additional steps in this process. For instance, the workgroup might decide to draft a notice seeking public comment and information before the proposal is even developed. This pre-proposal is called an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and is also published in the Federal Register. Sometimes the workgroup receives new data from the public during a comment period, in which case we might publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) so interested parties can learn more and submit additional comments. Finally, the workgroup might decide to take a new direction after receiving new data, which in some cases results in a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

EPA has a central staff within the Administrator’s Office to support all the regulations under development. The Office of Regulatory Policy and Management supports and monitors the status of regulatory workgroups, helps with Federal Register publication, and ensures that EPA is following the various laws and Executive Orders that govern how regulations are written.

Working with Other Federal Partners
Because EPA is part of the Executive Branch, we solicit the input of other federal departments and agencies when our regulations relate to their work. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ensures rules are consistent with the Administration’s environmental priorities and policies, and coordinates review by other federal agencies that might have an interest in the issue.

Generally, OMB coordinates reviews of regulations that could impose more than $100 million in annual costs on society, present controversial legal or policy issues, or require multi-agency input. E.O. 12866 governs how the OMB review process operates. You may view the current and past regulations under E.O.12866 review at RegInfo.gov.

Where to Look for Regulations
We publish all of our proposed regulations, final regulations, and notices in the Federal Register. All general and permanent regulations are then codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is maintained for all federal departments and agencies by the Government Printing Office (GPO). Known as the CFR, this compilation of government regulations is divided into 50 titles that represent topics of federal authority, such as education, transportation, and agriculture. Environmental regulations are mainly in Title 40: Protection of the Environment.

 
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/brochure/developing.html

Obama, Martial law, Flu pandemic, Emergency, Manufactured crisis, Pentagon request, Federal troops, Nationwide vaccinations, US Northern Command, Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters

This blog is not here to start rumors or manufacture a crisis in Obama camp, Saul Alinsky style.

We are devoted to covering stories that are largely ignored, diminished or downplayed by the MSM.

The Citizen Wells blog has been urging everyone to keep their eyes and ears open. To stay vigilant.

Our biggest concern is another manufactured crisis from the Obama camp and the potential for Martial Law. Martial Law would give the usurper, Obama, nearly total control, especially when he is losing control over the American public and some in Congress.

The following article is from The Progressive, a site that many of those following this blog would normally not agree with on many subjects. However, we can find common ground in this article:

“The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S.
By Matthew Rothschild, August 12, 2009

“The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster.

This request has already occasioned a dispute with the nation’s governors. And it raises the prospect of U.S. military personnel patrolling the streets of the United States, in conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

In June, the U.S. Northern Command distributed a “Congressional Fact Sheet” entitled “Legislative Proposal for Activation of Federal Reserve Forces for Disasters.” That proposal would amend current law, thereby “authorizing the Secretary of Defense to order any unit or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve, to active duty for a major disaster or emergency.”

Taken together, these reserve units would amount to “more than 379,000 military personnel in thousands of communities across the United States,” explained

Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs, in a letter to the National Governors Association, dated July 20.

The governors were not happy about this proposal, since they want to maintain control of their own National Guard forces, as well as military personnel acting in a domestic capacity in their states.

“We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues,” Governor James H. Douglas of Vermont and Governor Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the president and vice president of the governors’ association, wrote in a letter back to Stockton on August 7. The governors asserted that they “must have tactical control over all . . . active duty and reserve military forces engaged in domestic operations within the governor’s state or territory.””

“But NorthCom’s Congressional fact sheet refers not just to a “major disaster” but also to “emergencies.” And it says, “Those terms are defined in section 5122 of title 42, U.S. Code.”

That section gives the President the sole discretion to designate an event as an “emergency” or a “major disaster.” Both are “in the determination of the President” alone.”

Read more:

http://www.progressive.org/wx081209b.html

If that does not scare the heck out of you enough, read these exerpts from Creative i:

“Militarization of public health in the case of emergency is now official

According to CNN, the Pentagon is “to establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials.”

“The proposal is awaiting final approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The officials would not be identified because the proposal from U.S. Northern Command’s Gen. Victor Renuart has not been approved by the secretary.

The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military.

It has yet to be determined how many troops would be needed and whether they would come from the active duty or the National Guard and Reserve forces.

Civilian authorities would lead any relief efforts in the event of a major outbreak, the official said. The military, as they would for a natural disaster or other significant emergency situation, could provide support and fulfill any tasks that civilian authorities could not, such as air transport or testing of large numbers of viral samples from infected patients.

As a first step, Gates is being asked to sign a so-called “execution order” that would authorize the military to begin to conduct the detailed planning to execute the proposed plan.

Orders to deploy actual forces would be reviewed later, depending on how much of a health threat the flu poses this fall, the officials said.” (CNN, Military planning for possible H1N1 outbreak, July 2009, emphasis added)

The implications are far-reaching.

The decision points towards the militarization of civilian institutions, including law enforcement and public health.

A nationwide vaccination program is already planned for the Fall.

The pharmaceutical industry is slated to deliver 160 million vaccine doses by the Fall, enough doses to vaccinate more than half of America’s population.

The Pentagon is already planning on the number of troops to be deployed,. with a view to supporting a mass vaccinaiton program.

It is worth noting that this involvement of the military is not being decided by the President, but by the Secretary of Defense, which suggests that the Pentagon is, in a key issue of of national interest, overriding the President and Commander in Chief. The US Congress has not been consulted on the issue.

This decision to mobilise the Armed Forces in the vaccination campaign is taken in anticipation of a national emergency. Although no national emergency has been called, the presumption is that a national public health emergency will occur, using the WHO Level 6 Pandemic as a pretext and a justification.

Other countries, including Canada, the UK and France may follow suit, calling upon their Armed Forces to play a role in support of the H1N1 vaccination program.

US Northern Command

Much of the groundwork for the intervention of the military has already been established. There are indications that these “regional teams” have already been established under USNORTHCOM, which has been involved in preparedness training and planning in the case of a flu pandemic (See U.S. Northern Command – Avian Flu. USNORTHCOM website).

Within the broader framework of “Disaster Relief”, Northern Command has, in the course of the last two years, defined a mandate in the eventuality of a public health emergency or a flu pandemic. The emphasis is on the militarization of public health whereby NORTHCOM would oversee the activities of civilian institutions involved in health related services.”

Read more:

http://www.creative-i.info/?p=9290

Keep your eyes and ears open.