When Obama came to visit...
 

our local internet went down.

I was surfing the web right before my lunch break. The internet suddenly went out on the computers at work. We thought it was just our connection or service provider.

So I left, and went to join the crowd waiting to see Obama's motorcade come in. I saw an AWACs aiplane, a 747 I think it was, with a radome on top of it flying overhead. They some security vehicles drove around in circles in the street in front of us. Then Obama rode by, didn't wave or anything, but we saw him.

I stopped off at a convenience store on the way back to work. A Sheriff's Deputy was standing inside the door, and he said "Not today".

I said "What"? The cashier said "I can't sell you anything, the register won't work. The gas pumps won't work either, it's all connected to the internet".

They deputy said the internet would start working when Obama left town, "He's the Commander in Chief, he can do that".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcJf...layer_embedded

Why would he, or the notso Secret Service?
Does the great white dope have that authority as the present "POTUS"?

Did a general websearch on this event and came up dry.

I have no idea why they did this.

The Sheriff's Deputy was stationed at that store just to make sure nobody had an issue with it being open but unable to do any transactions.

I remember him saying that the POTUS was his "boss".

The local radio station was still broadcasting coverage of the event. It announced when Marine One, his helicopter took off from the local airport. About 10 minutes later, the internet started working.

When was this where?

Good question.

Ah, that's in the YouTube link post # 1.

It was Osawatomie, Kansas, December 7th, 2011. Osawatomie is a town south of Kansas City. It has a population of about 4000 people.

The video is TV news coverage. It shows Air Force One (the President's Plane) at Kansas City International. Obama flew in the Marine One Helicopter from KCI to our local airport. There was a large AWACs plane in the air.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...90_634x460.jpg

The one I saw looked more like a 747, but I may be mistaken.

By 2011, I was already aware that the United States Air Force is the primary agency that 'polices' the internet in the Continental United States. This may come as a surprise to most people, but I can show research for proof.

Any how, they shut down most, if not all, internet servers the public used locally for a little while. I was not offended by that action, i just found it curious. I guess it was a safety precaution.

My error, I did not check the link.

You and I are on good terms, Steve.

You can always PM me if the stuff i post gets too weird.

My belief system is pretty crazy. Science Fiction, someone called it :D

But I'm telling you straight out, the United States Air Force has the ability to stop the internet, stop the gas pumps, and money transactions anywhere in the Continental USA.

People are talking about civil war and rebellion in the USA. Ain't going to happen. Big Brother can and will knock us on our asses.

Just ran the video, looks like the last election put the plutocrats in the wheelhouse with a con man as captain instead of offloading them from the decision making process.
Re, the chances of armed revolt succeeding, fortunately, not much given the inevitable unintended consequences that almost always follow. The fallacious interpretation of the 2nd amendment that justifies armed insurrection is obviously an erroneous recipe for catastrophic failure.

Re, the tech capabilities of the USAF and other federal agencies is a matter of the highest security, as long as generalissimo blabbermouth doesn't disclose them with his braggadocio bullshit.

Fallacious interpretation ? Hell, it makes no sense at all. It's not even a sentence in the English language; a 'word salad' of gibberish (IMHO).

Here it is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

It can be twisted around to mean anything.

If taken grammatically as written, then the purpose of "to keep and bear arms" is to support a well-ordered State militia, full stop. That is the only "right" granted by the second amendment. The rest is left to the States and local regulation.
Btw, I agree that the anachronistic "word salad" lacking relevant context is the source of ambiguity and confusion.

In 1791, a free state was a state that prohibited slavery.

Somehow they wanted to make it illegal for the Slave States to form there own militias, and give the Free States a means to defend themselves.

Weird.

So our right to own guns is contingent on us being in a militia?

We have to be in a militia to own a gun. I'm glad that question is not on the FBI background check.

No, the Constitution only supports the "right" to keep and bear arms for support of a "well-ordered" State militia as written.
Otherwise, the Constitution leaves regulation of ownership and use to the states, except for the exceptions of continuous firing automatic firearms and muzzle suppressors for firearms regulated by the ATF Dept.
Otherwise,
You can own and use anything your state permits, used as allowed by state, county, and city ordinances.

Curiously "originalist strict constructionists" play fast and loose with their interpretations of the meaning of the second, and add all sorts of "rights" that are plainly not part of the brief wording, one assumes, by summoning the FFs intentions via a seance only they are privy. Intentions unenumerated aren't necessarily "Constitutional" outside of reasonable connection to the text. For instance there is no Constitutional "right" to armed insurrection against Federal authority under the 2nd by any reasonable reading of the text.

The 2nd is the 'militia to be safe from federal action' amendment. It's main purpose was to make the federal equivalent of the redcoat's march from Boston to Concord to seize a militia stockpile illegal.

The framers well-remembered how much they hated having all those redcoats around, and their idea was not to have a federal standing army, but have militias instead. There is a provision in the Constitution that says no appropriation for an army can persist more than two years. This means that there's always an election for the House of Representatives before a second such appropriation can be made. They figured this would assure that if a House voted for the ruinous cost of a standing army in peacetime, the people would vote them out.

The funding limitation mechanism the framers set-up worked a lot like they expected, until after WWII. The militias, not so much. In any case, the oddly-worded 2nd was written so that it would get votes both from the 'let every man be armed' believers, and the 'well-regulated militia' believers. And it therefore means whatever you want, though what actually matters is what current courts are willing to say it means.

Funny how that worked out in practice. The second is pretty much an irrelevant relic of a time long past under that read.
Re the "States Rights" argument that frequently arises, there was of course an armed rebellion based on slavery as a state right that didn't end in favor of supporting it. Nonetheless, state supported authoritarian oppression continued. Was that an acceptable alternative to Federal authority? For many, not so much.

The broad tendency has been for the Federal Government to be more liberal and less corrupt than the run of state governments. With exceptions noted. Likewise militias have gotten up to more mischief than the U.S. Army, Again, with exceptions noted.

The idea of 'constitutional right of insurrection' is a flagrant oxymoron. The resort to violent coercion is always the antithesis of 'rights.'

Not to the self-entitled "patriots" of selective authoritarianism.

I told Pio about the beat down the FBI gave my old man in 1971.

It's a long story. But my dad was known to the FBI.

In the mid-1970's, our next door neighbor (who lived about one mile away) invited my dad to join The Posse Comitatus. It was a regional militia, they called it The Posse. It was very discrete. Don't know much about it. My dad declined but was worried he might face some harassment from them. Dad told me "The Posse was just a bunch of red neck thugs who want to be the new KKK." If they threaten him, I didn't hear about it. In

Anyhow, the FBI came back to see him in about '77 or '78. They were asking about The Posse. My dad told me that he told them, "We hear rumors about The Posse, but I don't know anything about it".

In 1988 I had an M1 carbine and shit. My friends would come out blasting on our farm. The Posse neighbor did not like that at all. One time he blocked the road in front of me. Now his grandson lives with him. The boy don't like me, he watched me the last I went shooting about 2 years ago.

Skip forward to 1995.

LaVeigh and McNichols (unrelated to The Posse AFAIK) built that bomb they used in the OKC bombing. Built it about 30 miles north of our house. They had stored some of the fertilizer in my home town of Council Grove, Kansas. You should have seen all the helicopters, and police SUVs swarming around.

James Madison penned the 2nd amendment.

He was a slave owner, so he not referring to a 'free state' in that context.

Just wanted to say I was wrong regarding my previous interpretation.

I forgot to mention that I like Obama, voted for him twice even though he's an arrogant MF'er.

Profiled me to a 'T'.

"Cling to their guns and their religion".

He's smarter than me, but his health care plan came straight from his Rothschild reign holders. O'bama Care. Pfft.

We're going to see nationalized health care five years from now, if we're still alive.

Just figured out what Madison (the slave owner) meant when he said "free state". He was bragging about the newly won independence of the States from the Crown of England.

It was written in 1791.

Doh ! It takes me a while.

Sounds like Sci Fi to me. Like to see some actual evidence of these capabilities. Also, why are Alaska, Hawaii and our territories not under this Big Brother umbrella?

Actually, none of those things are really that hard to do if you have sufficient power in the right places. The actual movers and shakers in our government are not the caricatures you see in 50's science fiction movies. They are highly intelligent people who work on threat models all the time.

Underestimate them at your peril.

Bah. Most analysts everywhere are faking it. Real analysis is very hard work, and you know what result is wanted ahead of time....

It's not as hard as you think. It's why debaters prepare for debates by practicing with someone playing the part of their opponent, enabling them to be more prepared for the "surprise" responses.

A car lost control and flipped in front of my house about 30 years ago. The guy got out of his car and a friend of his picked him up in his pickup.

This was at 3;00 Saturday morning.

The cops showed up and we talked a bit. The cop said to me that is was surprisingly common for people to drive home drunk on a friday or saturday night, wreck their car, hoof it home and then report it stolen.

Not one minute after he told me this he got a call that the car had been stolen. :D

But there was a problem...

The pickup drove by going the other way and I said to the cops (there were three cops there by then) that that was the truck that picked the guy up. One cop went after it and came back about 15 minutes later with a guy in the back seat. He was the guy I saw leave the car. He was also the car's owner. ;)

A simple example. But the military is not the bafoons one would make them out to be. Neither are many of the people heading government agencies. More importantly, neither are their underlings that do the real intelligence work.

Sometimes I think part of the press' job is to cause us to think they are easily fooled when, in reality, they are trying to respond to the results of their intelligence in a politically correct way. THAT's the hard part.

You have reading comprehension issues. My post and the post I was replying to aren't about threat models. They are about a claimed capability.

FWIW, before retiring I often found myself working with many of the highly intelligent people you referenced and do not feel in peril regardless of my estimate of them.

Projection. The working with threat models is part of having the claimed capability.

I also have worked with said people. You are only partially correct. There are a few geniuses and a lot of worker bees. Focus on the former. They exist and are not to be trifled with.

So, you were deflecting and continue to do so.

I used the same words as you and then for some reason you pointed out that many of these highly intelligent people aren't geniuses.

Nope. I'm staying on topic. Deflecting would be you saying "trump said x", And I say, yeah, but Hillary...

And I think you got it backward. I thought you were saying they were not geniuses and I was making the argument that some of them are.

Related: I worked at Fort Knox for a while. One of the guys there spent almost all his time on Facebook. :D

Actually, you changed the topic of my post, which is deflection.

Here's what I wrote: "... I often found myself working with many of the highly intelligent people..." Looks like you're the one who gets thing backwards and I did not say they were not geniuses, nor did I imply it.

Well if we can't fight about politics we can at least fight about psychology, grammar, articulation and interpretation.

Pedantism?

Damn nits!

I took that statement as sarcasm. Sorry about that. :)

I suppose they can do it anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. Hawaii would be a big place for them. Snowden did all his NSA work on Hawaii.

I think in terms of the CONUS only. I'm in Kansas, never seen an ocean in my 56 years of living.

I'm looking for proof that the USAF is the top dog on the internet. I read an article about it 15 years ago that was amazing.

Can't find it right now.

I don't feel imperiled at the present time.

Just saying that the guys with the AR-15s, talking on Facebook about a revolution will find themselves in an outdoor stockade. Without their AR-15s.