Big news, folks.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990106_xex_the_plan_mas.shtml

"The National Guard is planning its first national mobilization of troops since 1940 in preparation for civil unrest resulting from the Y2K millennium bug, WorldNetDaily has learned.

"The National Guard Bureau in Washington is currently formulating plans for a mobilization test, in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency."

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 06, 1999

Answers

Recent articles on this topic can be found at this thread:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000KZS

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 06, 1999.

This is getting serious.

I never expected just a "bump in the road" - I expected more of a fender-bender. But this is getting ugly. 50-car pile-up, with gasoline trucks exploding. At the URL above on WorldNetDaily, it mentions 1) Government & Military will be paid in advance (Jan 2000 pay in Dec 1999) to "ensure loyalty" (my words) and 2) mentions that even the National Guard will be reluctant to serve in a real crisis, since they will need to protect their own family.

Then there is the "transcript" (Video teleconference with Italy) with the White-house Y2000 group. No URL (sorry), but regulars here have seen it.

And then there is *this* nasty from Rick Cowles at:

http://www.cpn.org/y2k/cowles.asp

Yes this is the CBN (700-club) site. But it sure sounds like Rick was being unusually candid here, unlike most of his web-site.

I anticipate some SERIOUS "bad-hair" days coming...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), January 06, 1999.

Kevin:

Thanks for the heads up. Now I am more confused than usual. FEEMA and the Guard are both under the administrative branch of govt. That means that Clinton commands and approves it's activities. If he approves these measures yet still remains silent on y2k, what conclusions can be drawn? The article indicates that it is not senior authority that is activating these excercises. I am pretty sure that the government doesn't work that way. Perhaps Mr. Clinton wants to look good whatever the result of y2k. Any thoughts?

Bill in South Carolina

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), January 06, 1999.

By FAR the most INTENSE article i've read. This should speak volumes, but it wont. Acceptance is the ONLY answer along with personal preparation. If they are paying 1 months salary in advance could it be they Finally realize that banks wont work? Or , could it be that they KNOW there will be NO PAY beyond one month? Funny how so much in that article but Not in Major News?

-- consumer (private@aol.com), January 06, 1999.

"That means that Clinton commands and approves it's activities. If he approves these measures yet still remains silent on y2k, what conclusions can be drawn? "-Bill

That Clinton is actively trying to prevent a panic. I've been certain of this since last summer.

"but Not in Major News?"-Consumer

Major News = Disinformation. When was last time you got a story straight on any of the major networks, with only facts and no hype or even play-downs? Do you really believe that the government has no say in what is being said in matters of national security/economy on major networks?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 06, 1999.

"The article indicates that it is not senior authority that is activating these excercises. I am pretty sure that the government doesn't work that way. Perhaps Mr. Clinton wants to look good whatever the result of y2k. Any thoughts?"-Bill

It appears to me from the article that the people in the tranches are simply taking upon themselves to be ready when the order eventually comes. It is obvious to them that a rehersal is needed in case of communication breakdown, which they seem to expect. And ofcourse Clinton wants to look good no matter the outcome. He will be on record as not having caused a panic or jumped the gun if things turn out not so bad, but still has the option to issue the orders and the Guards and FEMA being ready if things do go to hell. What else do you expect from a Slick Willy?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 06, 1999.

We will have martial law. Just need an excuse. Maybe a "terrorist act" or bank run. Al Gore is no better. Watch the movie Martial Law by Bruce Willis. My hot site at www.geocities.com/hotsprings/villa/3388 will keep you informed of the latest break in Y2K & Washington news such as the President's alleged illigitimate son with a black hooker. DNA results may be out anytime.

-- Ray (rayk22@juno.com), January 06, 1999.

Thanks, Kevin! Very interesting article in so many ways. Newbies can go to Archives (Older Messages), click on Military, and see threads re Martial Law.

Feds Prepared To Take Over

For some details of Canada's plans, still forming

Kevin & all, this is certainly something to keep an eye on. Glad the reporter is planning a series. Although alarming, I think it is good news that *somebody* in the govt & military is thinking ahead and planning drills without normal communication. It is likely that in the process, they may discover Y2K will be a bigger mess than they realized, and that pressure from within may force Gore to start getting the word out to citizens to prepare. Nothing like planning and executing a drill to find out, "Oopsie, we don't know what we're doing!"

The Canadians are much more evolved in the calm warning phase than the USA.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 06, 1999.

Hi Folks,

While this is obviously a good indicator of how seriously the fedgov actually expects the situation to become I'd like to point out a couple of things here:

1. This is a COMEX (i.e. communications exercise) / MOBEX (mobilization exercise) which means that they call everybody in, everybody shows up with (supposedly) all of their issue equipment and uniforms, they then get issued the rest of their equipment (rifles and such) and report in to their headquarters that they are now officially mobilized. All well and good, and the exercise will no doubt be impressive, but the plain fact is that most of these units are understrength and operating on shoestring budgets - which means that their actual supplies on hand are minimal - especially with the regulars attempting to intimidate Iraq, etc. In other words, even if they do mobilize their actual ability to engage in any sort of sustained operations is going to be limited at best.

and perhaps more importantly:

2. National Guardsmen/women and their families aren't stupid. If there's one thing that's going to wake up a good segment of the population to y2k's potential problems, it's having Uncle Harry spend his weekend drills doing y2k prep. Also, most NG types are NOT in it solely for the money - and one month's advance isn't going to buy their loyalty away from their families and communities...any bets on what percentage actually show up (much less deploy) should y2k look like it's going down hard?

just my 2 cents' worth, Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 06, 1999.

Got a 404 no access on the following:

http://www.cpn.org/y2k/cowles.asp

-- Bumble Bee (bumble@icanect.net), January 06, 1999.

Arlin and all,

Keep in mind- the Guard is all there is, and there ain't no more. In other words, the Guard is as 'deep' in an organizational sense as the government can go (assuming that the Reserves are called up first). If they're pulling a MOBEX for the entire Guard this is a historically significant event. I won't argue that some Guard units are under strength, poorly equipped/maintained etc. It's true. But even so, if they're being looked at/considered as a possible 'solution' to 2k disorders and breakdowns, it's a serious indicator that someone is allowing for the possibility of trouble- real trouble.

Pay attention, all. This isn't the last you'll hear of this story.

-- gi (gi@alongtimeago.com), January 06, 1999.

Bumble Bee;

Try this link.

http://www.cbn.org/y2k/cowles.asp

That other one has a typo (cPn.org - should be cBn.org)

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 06, 1999.

Awesome, Kevin!!

Editor's note: This is the first of a series of investigative reports on this subject.

Music to our ears n eyes!!!

"What's driving this thing are the folks underneath the senior leadership," said one officer. "Some of the IT guys and command and control guys are the ones who are driving this because they see what the problem is" ...

Any one of these guys lurking here care to comment? Any hidden intentions?

"I've taken an oath, and I don't see some of the senior folks following through on their oath," explained one officer of his reasons for making this known. "Not only is my oath to the Constitution, but it's to the people. As far as I'm concerned, the faster and sooner people are educated on this stuff the less panic will ensue."

Hardliner, recalling your previous words ... bless you and yours.

People panic when they are caught unprepared and unaware. He says the Clinton administration should be doing more to prevent panic.

Brings tears ta mine eyes. And a big thank you to Canada, for showing the U.S. and the world, excellence in openess!

Some additional reading. For the ever shifting future.

Declaration Of Independence

http:/ /www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

The Constitution of the United States of America

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments

Very interesting FEMA Report Memo -- Regional Interagency Steering Committee Region V December 1-2, 1998:

http:// www.fema.gov/reg-v/1998/98r5n013.htm

Link to Janet Abrams forum discussion and video conference transcript.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000LCA

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

Be sure to click through to the author's home web page at http://talkusa.com

Very partisan. An interesting article, but I'd like to hear something from a more reputable journalistic source. Or is that an oxymoron?

Gosh, Arlin; am I getting to be an honorary pollyana? ;-) I think you're dead-on about NG personnel having to make some tough choices. (ditto cops, fire, EMTs,...anyone who helps the helpless.)

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

gi - you are so right - we are living in interesting times, in the true Chinese sense of that phrase...

Lewis, the thing with the guard is that they join for the benefits and because it allows them to help their local communities...if the feds try to take it beyond that, they could find themselves with, er, morale problems, among other things. ...and somehow I've never pictured you as a pollyanna, either.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 07, 1999.

Part two of the three part series of stories on this is now out:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19970107_xex_national_gua. shtml

One section of the second installment on this talks about engines for fighter planes. The engines come from a company that has notified the Air National Guard that it will not be Y2K compliant in time. Replacement parts for these planes will not be available.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 07, 1999.

Thanks for linking all of us to this, Kevin. But I have to tell you, this whole story still makes my antennae twitch.

The most effective lies are partly true. I'm sure the NG _is_ planning mobilization drills. Criminy, I hope they are!

Is it my warped perception of the postings here in Yourdonville, or is there a widely (or at least loudly) held subtext that the Guard and FEMA are out to get us? Calling in the Guard is not the same thing as martial law.

Personally, my image of the National Guard is a normal guy like me, freezing his ass off under a dead traffic light. He's scared, he's worried for his family, but right now he's got a job to do and he's just trying to get ME home to MY family. He's Serving. Hes keeping his promises.

If TSHTF, he may wind up in some impossible situations. (Kent State). Arlin, I think you're right about potential morale problems. Soldiers swear to protect the Constitution, and I for one am grateful.

But back to the story. Again I encourage all of you to click through to the authors web page and look around. http://talkusa.com He has an agenda, and no verifiable sources. I suspect the Guardsmen people hes quoting (if they exist outside his head), have one , too:

snip

Some of the officers believe the Clinton administration knows the full extent of the difficulties that will result from Y2K.

"The really skilled, crafty politicians know that fear gives them power," one of the officers told WorldNetDaily. "When people are afraid, they cry out for help from the government. Politicians might try to 'wag the dog' here and there, but they could never purposely create the kind of turmoil that will come with Y2K. This is a dream come true for politicians like Bill Clinton. Politicians want power and control, and they can get all they want when people are scared to death. Hitler knew it, and Clinton knows it too."

end snip

These guys really think Clinton is a power-mad psychopath? ( I refuse to get into the character/impeachment issue here, but come on...Hitler?)

In short, if these Guard sources exist, I hope they stay home. This article disgraces soldiers, and I hope we get to hear from a few of them in response to this story.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), January 07, 1999.

Just read both parts. Great reporting job. A must read.

-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), January 07, 1999.

Lewis,

You do have a point about these stories from WorldNetDaily. The site is 100% dyed-in-the-wool conservative--something that I am not. WorldNetDaily hates, loathes and despises Clinton. I call it everyday simply because from time to time it will have an excellent article on some issue like privacy that I will never see in the mainstream press, such as the banking "Know Your Customer" proposal.

I also like its Y2K coverage. But I think you noticed something that I did, which is that if the officers interviewed for this series bothered to contact WorldNetDaily to offer information about Y2K, then they probably were already readers and already agreed with WorldNetDaily that Clinton is dangerous.

I'm not posting these links to hint or insinuate that Clinton is up to something. I think Clinton is another JFK. I just wanted people to know that the government and the military DO take Y2K seriously, even though the government is less than forthcoming to avoid a stock market crash.

Consider the source, read the articles, and take from them what makes sense to you. There are other articles I see on WorldNetDaily that I do not agree with at all. I consider the source when I call Gary North's site (which I call everyday), and I advise the same with WorldNetDaily.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 1999.

On the other hand, I have no evidence of the blind hypnopic hypocrisy on WorldNetDaily's site that is so evident in the mainstream media.

That is, elsewhere I have seen lies, but not there. So I'll go with the "trust factor" they have shown me, and others. By the way, why do you think these "missing facts" (the parts of these stories that the mainstream liberal media is ignoring) where ignored by the other media? Does "whitewash" come to mind?

No, technically calling up the National Guard is not martial law - but you have to have successfully called them up, armed them, and in place with reliable communication from Washington emergency shelters before you can declare martial law.

The National Guard enforces it, not declares it. Declaring martial law can only be done by a known felon, who has lied under oath, accepted bribes, armed our countries enemies, attacked his accusors with the IRS and FBI, and misused government offices and staffs for his personal pleasure.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 09, 1999.

Hi Kevin-

I didn't intend to "brand" you as a sympathizer with the author of the article. Sorry if I gave that impression. I'm grateful you spotted it and posted. I think your grain of salt comparison with Scary North is very apt. Sift the wheat from the chaff. Listen for the dog that isn't barking.

Robert, I mentioned in my first post on this thread: ..."Very partisan. An interesting article, but I'd like to hear something from a more reputable journalistic source. Or is that an oxymoron?"...

I probably trust the mainstream press less than you do!;-) They do pass up alot of important stories for no apparent reason. (for example Y2K ), but I suspect that after the Tailwind fiasco at CNN, newsies are being extra-careful about sources in the stories they _do_ cover.

It seems IMHO that most other news sources only exist to propagate their own Left/Right/Up/Down POV, which to me makes them even less likely to give me a balanced, verifiable story.

I dunno. I guess the best any of us can do is try to read as wide a variety of sources as we can manage and form a Gut Feeling. Objectivity is well-nigh impossible. We all see pretty much what we want to see. Which is why I find this forum so fascinating. We all learn from considering each other's points of view.

Back to work.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.

Q&A between a GI & DGI, adapted from my rebuttal comments on MSNBC after a complaint about the WorldNetDaily interview with National Guard officers.

What about the agendas at work behind various doomsday prognosticators who are currently whining about y2k?

The term 'doomsday prognosticator' is a name-calling label which does not reflect precise thinking. In other words what is 'doomsday' supposed to mean? Difficulties secondary to infrastructure disruptions? Are you going to classify anyone who expresses concern over the prospect of impaired infrastructure as a 'doomsday prognosticator'? It would be equivalent to calling those who say 'y2k problems are no big deal' as a 'pollyanna.' We need to move beyond the childish name-calling.

Is Time, Newsweek or mainstream media making a concerted effort to brainwash the people?

It is not 'a concerted effort to brainwash' it's more like 'the lack of in-depth examination and understanding of the potential for failures in the complex and highly interdependent supply lines that enable modern industry and commerce to take place' that is behind the relatively naïve viewpoint that any major disruption must be a fabrication of sensationalists out to make a profit from fear.

I am wary of their tendency to sensationalize and overreact, all for the sake of ratings.

This happens on both sides of the fence; Time will want to sensationalize the 'millennial cultists' who are stockpiling food, while the non-mainstream press will want to sensationalize the y2k problem as something that is ignored by the powers that be.

Living in an era of distrust of any authority has given rise to publications that see conspiracy in every endeavor and quote 'sources' ad infinitum.

Most people do not distrust mainstream media such as network broadcast programming and the big newspapers. It's only those who recognize hidden agendas that will be distrustful of any source, and rightly so.

Yeah, I understand all about the National Guardsman you speak of. Was he quoted directly? Does he have a name?

Actually it was several officers who gave the report. Many news sources are quoted on background, and if this type of source is ruled out, one is left with only the most highly filtered information. Anyone with experience in journalism would have to agree. If you are implying that the newswriter has just made all this up, one would have to question what possible motivation would lead to such an unethical and irresponsible act.

I come from a family involved in the military and can tell you quite matter of factly that the boys in the trenches rarely know what the generals are up to.

It's not just a report from a foot soldier. Consider this statement:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Guard and other federal agencies engaged in Y2K planning are now expecting loss of electrical power and other related problems before the year 2000."

This should be common knowledge by now. Even Canada and the UK are making contingency plans for maintaining the peace with the likelihood of service disruptions due to the y2k problem.

I have my concerns regarding FEMA and the National Guard too, but I'd call their involvement in all of this as merely being prudent.

Absolutely, they are being prudent. But the point is there IS a problem and the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent in remediation to try to head it off is more evident to support the 'prognostication' of disruptions. To think that 100% success in remediation is likely within a year is to show unfamiliarity with computer problems.

Truth be told, snake oil salesman turn up during every misfortune man has had to endure...and y2k is certainly seen as an opportunity, even to that ilk.

And of course, human history is full of misfortunes and those who would seek to benefit from them. But that is a quite separate issue.

Truth is, I question this source.

Okay so are you saying the reporter made it all up, or the NG officers are making it all up? Do you question the fact that vacation time around the rollover is not permitted for officers in the US NG, Canada, and the UK?

In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today, a letter to the editor can be found from a local computer scientist who 'doesn't fear the y2k problem'. He states 'I'm more frightened by the public's irrational fear of the Y2K problem. A small minority is so scared of what might happen that they've begun stockpiling food.. Companies are diverting resources to look for the bogeyman, reducing their investment in other areas.'

Do you REALLY think the y2k problem is a bogeyman? Come on now, be honest! If so you need to read more than just 'letters to the editor.'

The author feels the date changeover will result merely in a 'fizzle', and that 'past experience suggests that the hysteria has been overdone'.

Is this not merely testament to his own lack of experience? Or has he lived on another planet where there was a millennial rollover and negligible computer problems? There is no prior experience with this type of problem, and you need to look beyond 'suggestions' contained in letters to the editor.

He feels that the situation has been blown out of proportion, and he is involved with computers. His name appears on the page, as does his company's name...instead of some phantom 'deep throat'-like source. He has seen for himself and made his own decisions...and didn't get it all from a friend of a friend.

What kind of credibility is 'involved with computers' (pardon me while I LOL). Sorry that doesn't cut it, and whatever his name is and whether it's given seems quite immaterial. You might as well rely on a public opinion poll to form your beliefs.

All of which leads me to say that I am not sure that he is right or not, but all sources should be questioned and the agenda behind each--if applicable---deserves notation. In comparing publications like Time and Newsweek with the information posted here, one could say that stating a brainwashing campaign has been initiated by the former rather than the latter is irresponsible, at best.

'Brainwashing campaign' is more name-calling and spin, and is not the idea that I was attempting to convey. Rather, my point is that the masses do not want to be disturbed from their comfort zone of complacency, and for example the entire stock market and fiduciary system is based on faith. People also have come to place great faith in the infallibility of computers and it is that complacency which must be challenged.

I'm not saying that the mainstream media are intentionally trying to conceal information (although it wouldn't surprise me if this happens on occasion), but rather, that the prevailing attitude of anything that goes against the grain of conventional thinking is met with suspicion and disbelief among the mainstream press, and in-depth coverage is not part of their mission. After all these people are used to 10-second sound bites and they also have to spend equal time on sports, weather, politics, etc.

In summary:

1. There is much more going on behind the scenes than you will ever find on news-stand publications. Relying on this type of source will lead to shallow and naive beliefs.

2. It is an unfortunate oversimplification as well as a logic error to indulge in polarized binary thinking that everyone is either a 'pollyanna' or a 'doomsayer.'

3. There is a superabundance of evidence that the y2k problem is far more than 'just hype' and to attribute any concerns to profiteering motives is little more than sloppy thinking.

4. It is very true that the biggest risk BY FAR of the y2k problem is the 'human response' of fear and panic, however there are two parts to this. First is the fear and panic over what MIGHT happen in the future and then is the fear and panic over what IS happening a year or so from now. However both of these are secondary to some very real technical difficulties which are likely to impact the infrastructure, industry, and commerce of developed countries in a very real and harsh way. This part of the problem is not affected by new reports; the buggy computer code does not care what anyone thinks.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 12, 1999.

Well said, Jon!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 12, 1999.

John, outstanding. Wow. Thanks.

-- Lisa (lisab@shallc.com), January 12, 1999.

FEMA Embarks on Y2K Roadshow

January 11, 1999
FEMA Embarks on Y2K Roadshow

Concerned that local emergency preparedness offices have not sufficiently tested Year 2000 fixes, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced last week that it will soon begin an effort to educate state emergency management, fire and emergency services communities on Year 2000 planning and preparedness.

"Every community, every organization and every individual has an obligation to learn more about their vulnerabilities and take action to prevent potential problems before they occur. Potential problems need to be identified and addressed now," said FEMA deputy Director Mike Walker in a statement.

In February and March, FEMA will begin holding Y2K Consequence Management workshops to notify local emergency management services (EMS) offices of critical issues and Year 2000 vulnerabilities.

Furthermore, FEMA will stress to local EMS staff the importance of contingency plans and policies they will need to kick in if systems should crash. FEMA reported that many states so far have failed to develop Year 2000 contingency plans. Instead, they are promising to have systems fixed, or they plan to handle situations under current emergency plans.

However, FEMA found some promising statistics included in a recent Year 2000 survey conducted by the National Association of State Information Resource Executives and the National Governors Association. With that December survey, the two associations reported that states have made a lot of progress recently on crucial date changes. Collectively, states have spent almost $3.5 billion on system renovations, and every state has designated a Year 2000 coordinator.

President Clinton's Council on Year 2000 Conversion also released last week results from the "First Quarterly Summary of Assessment Information" on the nation's Year 2000 efforts. The report concluded that on most federal-state programs -- such as Medicaid and food stamps -- data-exchange points have been identified. Three states, however, have not yet provided information on the status of their data-exchange activities. Year 2000 czar John Koskinen last fall was running out of patience with lagging states and vowed to begin exposing those that have fallen behind in efforts to secure federal-state interfaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note the quote from Mike Walker, the DoD transplant. He makes sense! Steve, add that quote, plus its source, to your PowerPoint presentation. And Diane, thank you for posting the info about Mike Walker.

The developments since the beginning of this year are almost too much to handle except that they are so interesting. We on this Forum have ringside tickets to the finale fireworks countdown show.

Ashton & Leska in Cascadia, overwhelmed by the emerging picture

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 12, 1999.