- Category: News
- Published on Thursday, 03 January 2013 12:30
- Hits: 240
Unfortunately, we have all, at one point or another, been made painfully aware of the destructive surveillance state that the United States has become since the alleged terrorist attack on September 11, 2011.
Over the past year or two, however, The Department of Homeland Security, under Secretary Janet Napolitano, has been pushing local police departments as well as individual citizens to spy on their neighbors and local residents, expanding and intensifying this horrible Orwellian nightmare.
They have even gone so far as to release “If You See Something, Say Something” advertisements and extensive documents which outline the various ‘suspicious activities’ people should be looking for.
It has already been made public that Homeland Security has a list of ‘suspicious’ words used to monitor social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter (RT – Target on your cyber back: DHS has a list of words deemed ‘suspicious’) and that this list of words contains everything from “assassination” to “agriculture” and even “pork.”
We also know that we’re supposed to report anyone who avoids eye contact, owns multiple firearms, takes photos or videos, is over dressed, or covers furniture in their home. (National Terror Alert – See Something, Say Something)
Now, the Liberty Battles team has come across a document from December 27, 2010 which suggests that we should report anyone who has coffee grinders and goggles. And no; this is not a satirical article, although we wish it was.
In a December 27, 2010 “Roll Call Release,” the DHS informed law enforcement and first responders that they should be on the lookout for certain people; but it’s not gun owning patriots or citizen journalists; it’s coffee drinkers and scientists.
The document intends to show indicators to the law enforcement and first responders which may suggest that a person is making or has the ability to make CBR (chemical, biological, and radiological) weapons.
The document starts off by saying that witnessing one of the indicators listed in this document alone would not be conclusive, but witnessing more than one of these indicators along with other ‘suspicious’ activity might be.
We’ve already concluded that ‘other suspicious activity’ could be owning guns, practicing citizen journalism, and taking about pork; so what are these new ‘indicators’ that police, first responders, and average citizens should be on the lookout for?