Home / US / Michigan Police Take On ‘Disgruntled Veteran’ In Hostage Drill

Michigan Police Take On ‘Disgruntled Veteran’ In Hostage Drill

Michigan police trained to shoot and kill a disgruntled military veteran at the state’s Fed­eral Correctional Institution this week as part of a multi-agency hostage drill.

Image: Police (Wikimedia Commons)
Image: Police (Wikimedia Commons)

According to the training scenario, a disgruntled prison employee who served two tours in Afghanistan had shot five prison guards before taking the warden’s wife and son hostage. Joined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons Disturbance Control Team and the State Police Emergency Support Team, Michigan police, complete with an armored vehicle, arrived on scene to confront the veteran.

“This is the state police,” Trooper Rob Bow said. “The area is surrounded by police officers. You cannot escape.”

Police reportedly spent several hours using the scenario to enhance their communication, negotiation, forced entry and hostage rescuing skills. As the exercise continued, police unleashed an attack dog on an unknown man suddenly fleeing from the warden’s home.

Sometime later, the veteran, played by a bureau of prisons employee, could be heard saying, “ We’re gonna finish this. I don’t see a way out. I’m done,” from inside the home.

Police responded by immediately storming the warden’s home and shooting the veteran dead.

Speaking with Monroe News, state police Sgt. Aaron Hunt admitted that his team needed to improve their communication skills, but applauded their overall performance.

“It was a very successful training session,” Sgt. Hunt said. “I think things went very well.”

Dundee Police Chief David Uhl, who operated the MRAP armored vehicle during the drill, praised the federal government for giving his department the vehicle free of charge several months prior.

“It was an opportunity of a lifetime to get a vehicle like this for Monroe County,” Chief Uhl said. “Any time you can train with this is a benefit.”

J.A. Dunn, executive assistant to the prison’s detention center administrator, admitted that such a scenario was completely unrealistic, but supported the chance for officers to train.

“In the unlikely event something like this was to happen we want to be ready,” Dunn said. “ That’s the whole purpose here; nobody expects this to happen but we need to be prepared.”

While police are expected to train for serious situations, the scenario clearly represents not only the militarization of police, but the continued demonization of military veterans.

As the federal government floods police departments with armored military vehicles, it also continues to label military veterans as a major terrorism threat.

In 2009, former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to speak out against a report from the department that labeled returning military veterans as the number one terror threat.

Incredibly, the government’s anti-veteran campaign has even been forced upon children in the Boy Scout Explorers, who were taught to kill “disgruntled Iraq war veterans” during a 2009 training session featured by the New York Times.

Given the fact that military personnel donated more cash to Ron Paul than all other presidential candidates combined in 2012, it is unsurprising that the federal government has trained police to treat Ron Paul supporters as domestic terrorists, revealed by the leaked MIAC Report.

Despite the fact that gun homicide has dropped nearly 50 percent since 1993, police departments continue to believe the federal goverment’s ridiculous claims of a never-ending domestic terror threat, allowing them to justify their continued militarization.

Share Button

About Mikael Thalen

Mikael is the lead features writer at Storyleak.com. His articles have been featured on sites such as the Drudge Report, Infowars and Natural News. During his time at Examiner.com, he was frequently ranked the number one political writer.

Check Also

SLcoper

Video: Citizen Pulls Over Unmarked Sheriff’s Deputy, Issues Warning

A Washington state sheriff's deputy was in for a surprise last week after being flagged down by a local resident.

274 comments

  1. Of course they're being targeted. They are a threat to the dictator as he seizes power.

    And anyone else that stands up and draws a line in the sand will be targeted too, like Reid and the Ranch defenders.

    • Morning Roger, this is the SWINE I was talking about yesterday…utterly horrific. Even if this guy is wrongfully being accused there is no denying what goes on in Hollywood.
      http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/x

      • Mr. Liberty, your diminish your credibility when you try to exchange dialogue with Rogre.

        • That may be. Just trying to steer him str8. He is human too.

          Plus I don't really care about my internet credibility, hence no "point" tracker for my profile. I am sure you feel the same way?

          • Yes. That is why I deleted my formal profile.

            As to steering him str8, GLWT………..

            It appears he has now descended on another website. LRC is graced with his presence.

          • My history with that site goes back almost 5 years off and on.

          • ………and it has been all bad.

          • I smell fish. Maybe I better go open a window and spray some vinegar and water in the air.

          • Yeah.
            Do that, you coward.

          • I'm not the coward here.

            I'm not hiding behind a guest profile pulling comments since I have nothing to add to the discussion.

            How does that feel, does it make you feel old and wrinkled?

          • I am not old. am not wrinkled. I am in my prime. That is more than you can say. Speaking of old and wrinkled, why don't you go back to ConcVic and hold Dooches shriveled old foreskin.

            Or at his age, it might be called his aftskin……….

          • Why are you so obsessed with foreskins?

            I doubt he's interested.

            Of course since you can't post there you can't just say so to his face. As a coward hiding behind a guest profile you wouldn't have the courage anyhow.

        • Nope, not at all. He actually dialogues. You should take lessons.

      • That story, Its all over drudge.

        And it bothers me for several reasons.

        Of course we know the hollywood scene is debauchery at it's worst.
        A 17 year old went to a party where he was told to be naked in a pool with other naked men and is shocked something happened?

        Why was a sexually abused teen so isolated he felt he had no place better to be on that night? Why didn't he have someone to turn to before all this time went by?

        The actual incident was bad enough, but why so long before he sought justice? There has to be more to the story and the media is only reporting on the parts that are salacious.

        • Why did it take so long for the Sandusky abused boys to come forward as well? It is because their soul has been stolen, wrecked, their world is shattered. That is why these scum thrive, they steal life force.

          • I had mixed feelings about that case as well.

            Predators do what you just described, in both cases the victims felt they had no choices, no other options. They trust nobody, by necessity and it traps them as surely as the ones abusing them.

            The age of innocence. It's as dead as common sense in our time.

          • You are a fan of the "rule of law". The law ruled that Sandusky is a demonic predator, how could you still have mixed feelings?

          • I have no mixed feelings about his sentence.
            But about the system that allowed the abuse to continue for so long.

            That asst coach that walked away. He finally spoke up, but a real man would have pulled sanduscky off him, right then, wrapped the child in a towel and taken him to safety.

            How do you deal with that mindset that Sandusky should be allowed to finish what was going on? And how can the victim think what happened can be stopped or even that reporting it would do any good?

          • I see. You are right, more people need to rescue these children. Stop being so scared of consequences to "yourself" i.e. I might loose my job. Or Jo Pa, I might loose my program. People are too self centered these days.

          • And that points to the larger problem.

            Our society is geared towards being self centered, face book is a prime example.

            I had a young relative ask me why I hadn't watched 'hunger games'. I tried to explain that Rome had that mentality before. The gladiators and the arenas. That our society is going down that path and that by even accepting the premise (while suspending reality) made it much more likely in our time.

          • Yes. But Hunger Games supports the idea of Liberty IMO. You should try it out, it may suprise you.

          • What setting were the games held in?
            What were the rules for the games?

            If the premise was liberty why was she standing beside a boy she didn't like to survive at the end?

            There was a hope for some sort of change hinted at, but isn't that what the marxists give us now? A vague wisp of hope that someday if we all change things enough a utopia might happen?

          • Have you read the books? One of the key themes is insurrection against an oppressive government that manipulates population via disinformation and false scarcity. All of the key characters in the games were unwitting participants who worked to bring the system down.

            I read them to my children, after reading them myself.

          • And then you won't have a problem answering my questions.

            The setting was a world with the food supply controlled almost to the breaking point. The rules for the game were mere survival.
            The premise for liberty was one that was unrealized.
            And she stood by a boy she didn't like while her true feelings were for another because she was afraid of being murdered if the truth came out.

            That isn't a utopia, that's not freedom and that's not the practical idea of liberty.

            Deal with it.

          • She didn't dislike him, she had strong feelings for another. This is a book for young people – sorting out her feelings was central to the story.

            You didn't answer my question. Did you read them? You said you didn't see the movie, so how are you familiar with the story?

            I had a running conversation with my sister-in-law about the Harry Potter series. We each have several children, we each are raising them in a Christian household. I read the books to my children, she would not let hers listen in because of what she'd heard about the stories from others at her church.

            Years later, she exposed herself to the films and came to a realization that she had shortchanged her kids of special family time.

            Children have a great capacity to understand what is fantasy and what is real. Exposure to these stories gives them a basis for more mature conversations later on.

            I don't understand how you can be so dismissive of the premise of this film if you did not see it. God has blessed us with powerful minds and choice. I feel that I am selling such a gift short if I do not listen to the world and decide accordingly.

            Incidently, nowhere in these stories is "utopia" promised or even contemplated. The best message from them comes from an inherent optimism that things can be better for those who recognize the challenges in front of them and stand to meet them.

          • I don't understand how you can be so lame and boring at the same time you have pretenses of adequacy.

            And what I said still stands. I avoided these books/movies after learning what the plot was, and after watching one movie with a child explained why.

            You haven't touched on any of that since you're a mindless troll that is simply here to behaving badly and stop debate on the topic at hand.

          • Alinsky Hero USA

            Roger reads the stupidest books about teen girls finding love with hot guys in space. A creepy 51 year old man that loves to read about teens in books written for children.

            He doesn't like the Hunger Games because the girl didn't get her prince at the end, and that made gay Roger so sad.

            And he is too stupid to realize that it's a trilogy, and the girl can still get the hot guy Roger wants to f u ck.

            Then he tried to write his own book. This is the review he gave HIMSELF for that s h i t book "Double Taking It" he wrote. What a snake oil salesman.

            "This story may set out with care in an ideal setting. But things evolve as the plot moves towards the murder.
            Then every time the crime seems explained new twists take it in a completely different direction. By the time the real plot is revealed things are moving so fast I didn't want to put it down.

            Justice can be served in many ways, the author had an original approach solving it with this story."

          • Poor little alinsky troll.
            You can't say you ever actually did anything. But that doesn't stop you from attacking in the best alinsky tactics.

            Of course that still leaves you having never accomplished anything.

          • Did you write that review?

          • Alinsky Hero USA

            He did write the review for himself. What a pathetic loser.

            That book is such a POS.

            You should have seen his c oc k on the walk after it came out. He didn't tell anyone that it was self published.

          • You sure do have fun talking to yourself.

            You don't know anything but that doesn't stop you from making up chatter.

          • I find it comical he complety tried to insult you when you were being civil and he claims he is not a troll. Trolls commoent on thing sthey have no clue about in an attempt to destroy the thread. Pretty clear he has no clue about Hunger Games

          • I find if comical that you pretend you looked at the thread with any sort of open mind.

            And to think you have pretenses of not trolling.

            I have a clue, and explained it.

          • I sure did look at it with an open and since you have never seen the movies or read the books you only have what your handlers have written and told you through their own opinions.

            You are completely wrong about the Hunger Games

          • Ah. I see the problem.

            You pretended to read my comments before you replied.

            I have watched a movie in the series.
            And I did point to specifics in the plot that were actually there, and you haven't shown my points to be actually wrong.

            So, you're just trolling, and if I wanted to misuse the term as you do, I'd say you stalked me here on this thread.

          • Which one did you watch?

          • Why is that part of the debate here based on the story?

            Unless you can show I was wrong on the plot points why do you care?

          • So which one did you watch?

            You only have two to pick from. You pretend you can discuss the movie when you never watched it. Just like when you tried discussing video games you never played and you pretended you knew about them

          • NOYB.

            Unless you can show I was wrong about anything, you're just here harassing me.

          • So you pretend you want to discuss it but won't say which one you watched????

            They have a term for that and it's called trolling.

            It was alrready explained to you why you are wrong, you didn't like the answer and you insulted SUA

          • My comment is what it is. I don't pretend.

            And here you are insulting me with no apparent attempt to discuss the story at the top of the page, that would fit your definition of trolling.

            So, you finally admit you are here to troll.

            And since you didn't show I was wrong, you didn't rebut anything. You simply harassed me (according to your own definitions).

            I already explained to you why you are derailing the thread and you didn't like the answer.

          • Let it go. Even if he has seen one (which I doubt – he only asserted that he had after realizing how foolish he looked), do you really want to get into a literary discussion with him?

            Having read the first chapter of his "novel", I certainly don't. It's as if it was written by someone who is morally opposed to reading for pleasure and intended for an audience of people he wished to punish.

          • You're right and I will.

            I read his book it was down right horrible, did burn good in the fire though. Got it for free

          • There you go again.

            You came to insult without rebutting.

            That would be (by your own definition) harassment.

          • SUA, I notice you still didn't say I was wrong on any of the plot points I used as examples.

            And the second paragraph? Did it actually say anything or did you just want to use a bunch of words randomly?

          • Maybe I took a chapter from your book, so to speak.

          • Then mixed and matched the words so that I wouldn't recognize the chapter or paragraph?

          • He is busy now TDing my comments on another site so at least this site gets a break for a minute from him

          • I"m not the only one that finds you constant rhetorical tactics boring.

            Don't think I'm the only one that would discuss things much more civilly if you weren't around with your insulting mannerisms.

            If your passé uses guest profiles to avoid me, why do you think people that appreciate my values don't avoid your scrutiny as well?

          • You went over and TD my comments. No one tracks me like you do and TD's my comments seconds after I post them.

          • Unless you have proof of that you are just (in your terms, by your definitions) harassing me.

          • Well said

          • What is well said is that the conclusions that I drew, he had other ideas but didn't explain, or wasn't capable of explaining why the plot issues I brought out where actually wrong.

          • Ever hear of the phrase. "self praise is no praise"?

          • Yes, of course. Facts are what they are.

            Had I wanted to 'praise' myself it would have been must more elaborate.

          • The fact is that you drew conclusions, but because you qualified these conclusions by referring to them as "well said" is indeed self praise, however elaborate.

          • Is that the best you can say?

            I would have been more elaborate had I wanted to give my self praise.

          • That's all I have to say.
            You praised your own conclusions by describing them "well said" – That's self praise – FACT

          • I stated that my conclusions had not been shown wrong. Had I wanted self praise I would have been more elaborate.

          • You referred to them as "well said" – it's up there in black and white only 7 posts above.

            This is self praise and this is a fact

            Weak self praise but self praise none-the-less

          • More growls from under the bridge.

          • None at all just using facts
            At least you've stopped arguing a point which is inarguable from a sane point of view

          • I keep hearing even more growls from under the bridge.

          • Yes it does and the books plus the movies are great

          • They are popular. But so were the gladiators and fights to the death in the Roman Empire.

            Society is on the decline and the suspended reality you must accept to enjoy the series lends itself to that.

          • "They are popular. But so were the gladiators and fights to the death in the Roman Empire"

            You do realise it is a work of fiction?

            Society is on the decline and the suspended reality you must accept to enjoy the series lends itself to that.

            No it is not. You wish society to be in decline as you can then point to Relevations and End time. Which by the way is another piece of fiction.

          • Do you realize that the gladiators of ancient Rome were not fiction?

            That in our past as humans we have recorded history that shows when any civilization goes into moral decline human life is not valued, and that it's cheered on if death happens spectacularly enough?

            That's the side of human nature the fictional series suspends reality on, and tries to make it sound acceptable since there are hints of something more.

          • Read the book(s). It's painfully obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.

          • If you are going to imply I have inclinations, why don't you just man up and say so?

          • Read my comments, it's painfully obvious you have no idea what I'm talking about.

          • You're not alone, then.

          • Ain't that the truth

          • I knew what I was talking about, even if you didn't agree.

          • Yes I do realise that Galdiators in ancient Rome we're real, hence my opening question, pointing out that your comparison between Gladiators and The hunger Games is puerile to say the least.

            By which benchmark are you comparing historical societal morality?

          • Not really. But your knee jerk reaction isn't.

            Not when the ultimate fight games is growing in popularity.
            When violence is on so many shows and growing in cities around the world.

          • Unless you can demonstrate that violence is on the rise globally and there is a causal relationship between that, the Hunger Games and the popularity of mixed martial arts, I'd say its your knee that's doing the jerking.

          • Ah guest don't let facts get in the way of utter b0llocks

          • Can you show that there isn't?

            Not only crime more common, but it has lost it's shock value it's so ordinary.

            Look at the crime rate in Chicago, where was the outrage at the deaths?

          • Ah the old Burden of Proof Logical Fallacy Rog.
            You use this a lot so to keep it simple I've copied and pasted a excerpt from Wikipedia (I thought even you should be able to understand)

            As you have made the claim you are the Holder of the burden

            Holder of the burden – Definition
            When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning

          • He does that all the time

          • Yes, state the obvious only to have some troll try to argue about it.

            Growling under the bridge, it's all they know.

          • "…state the obvious…"
            http://corkskeptics.org/2011/05/03/the-common-sen

            "…only to have some troll…"
            http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-homin

            You're a hard case, but we'll coach you up somehow.

          • The only thing you have to teach I'm not interested it.

            I like my values, I like my freedoms. And I won't climb under that bridge to growl with you guys.

          • You also use copious amounts of Logical Fallacies in a feeble attempt to continue threads when quite clearly you've been beaten into a corner.

          • There you go again. You want to think they were fallacies.

            Are all liberal irish as dense as you seem to be?

          • I don't think they are they just are
            Most fall under the "burden of proof" fallacy which has been proven to you above only 7 posts ago.

          • Still even more growls from under the bridge.

          • No growls just facts.
            Facts that prove just how feeble you are at debating

          • Wow, the growls are so constant, I wonder what's going on under that bridge?

          • At least you now admit that you are guilty of using The Burden of Proof Logical fallacy.

            I wonder how many of your thousands of posts you have unintentionally discredited by admitting this?

          • At least now you admit you want me to be labeled as using that fallacy.

            Are you using the "I have to argue since I'm Irish and can't stand the thought that my country is broke and needs repeated bailouts and we still spend too much' fallacy?

          • My needs or wants towards you are irrelevant. You admitted to TheNewsMadd that he was correct in pointing out the obvious when stating that you use the Burden Of Proof Logical Fallacy all the time. Ipso facto you admit to using this logical fallacy. These in turn make your argument above (as well as countless others) invalid.

            Your second paragraph doesn't warrant much of a response – only to say its a pathetic act from someone who has been completely out debated on several occasions by me in the last 24 hours.

          • Still more growls from under the bridge.

          • Have a banana

          • Is it what makes you growl under the bridge?

          • Thanks for that. It will fall on deaf ears. Despite his protestations, ol' Rog is not here for proper debate, much less civil discussion.

            I judge formal debate events. Most of what passes for debate on Teh Internetz falls far short of the mark – my contributions included. In most cases, though, the participants are making a sincere effort. That is demonstrably untrue of our friend here.

          • The manson murders were brutal and made all sorts of headlines.

            Now, those same murders would barely merit a mention in the news.

            The shock factor just isn't there since crime is so common.

            And your fallacies, they may work in Ireland. I'm not in Ireland.

          • And your fallacies, they may work in Ireland. I'm not in Ireland.

            No they work everywhere and prove your arguments to be weak, childish and generally just wrong!

          • There you go trying to label everything you can't figure out as a fallacy again.

          • I'm not. I've pointed out the Burden of Proof fallacy to you with a Wikipedia definition. You have since admitted to using it to TheNewsMadd

            Using a sound logical basis we have deduced that since you use this type of fallacy on a significant number of occasions, many of your posts are utterly invalid.

            As and when you use fallacies I'll happily send you a link pointing out exactly how they work.

            Look on this as an educational experience from which to improve your debating skills

            In the mean time have a big juicy ripe banana!

          • Boy, still more growls from under the bridge….

          • You may get used to them

          • Growling, it's so predictable.

          • Apparently suspension of belief is such a dangerous activity that it must only apply to The Word..

          • It is when it lowers inhibitions.

          • So where does your kudos in this particular subject come from? Or are you just spouting off from a position of ignorance once again?

            Maybe you have a PHd in anthropology or something similar?

          • There sure seems to be a lot of growling under the bridge this morning.

    • Roger,

      I would like to pass to you the name Nancy Ruth Owens. I encourage you to read up on her and tell her story. It is too dangerous for me but the more patriots like you who are out there telling it, perhaps those of us who are close to the story can live openly.

      God Bless.

  2. Is this where someone from the Oath Keepersps up and proclaims No! That will never happen.

    After what we have seen in history at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and the latest last week in Nevada, where the Government attacked citizens, why would we not expect that these c*cksuckers are training to kill civilians.

    • Foul language only weakens your argument.

      I have been advocating that we need to control the training programs in any law enforcement agency. We need to control and eliminate any department heads that tolerate that sort of training to happen under their watch.

      Tyranny starts at the top, but only gets traction if tolerated at the bottom.

      • STFU!.

        How is that for fowl, you chicken-hearted little prick?

        • It's expected from you.

          For someone that likes to stick to issues where possible, it's not something I'd probably use very often.

          And the name calling, you should reach lower and try to self label while you're in the mood for bad words.

  3. This is an example of 'NDAA' folks!

    Boston Bombing, House to House Searches A Prelude to Martial Law Gun Confiscation in The US
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRqCWFmfnsI

    April 11, 2014 Ben Shapiro: The Rise Of American Totalitarianism Fascism is coming with the promise of a better world.
    http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/rise-am

    • Screw those people.

      The nest time that I hear Shelter in Place, I will tell them to Kiss My Ass.

      • Yeah, you didn’t know if there is an active shooter to just lay there and take the bullets?! You are Un-American if you don't die like a sheep!!

      • Best thing to tell them too

        • it needs to be done by everyone in mass so that the action sticks.

          Much like the patriots in Nevada showed up by the hundreds.

          • Roger there are laws against stalking. HINT, HINT!

          • Sure is. It's gonna bite him in the a$$ too. I have requested he cease communication with me multiple times .

          • And I have explained multiple times that I am on an open forum using the features as they are designed.

            You are here voluntarily and understand that you post comments with open replies being what happens on this forum.

          • Not when you say things like this:
            Roger 160p • 1 hour ago
            And I wouldn't stalk you if you weren't such a hack.

          • Replying to your flawed comments because I consider you a hack is part of the designed features on this forum. You are here voluntarily.

          • Yes there are.

            Why not ask him to describe my home and lawn.
            How about the buildings in the neighborhood.

            Hint, hint.

          • Of course you made this comment before I did that and you got a taste of your own medicine:
            Roger 160p • 1 hour ago
            And I wouldn't stalk you if you weren't such a hack.

            And lets not forget you contacting who you though was my employer in an attempt to get me fired, plus stalking the times I get on ID

          • You misused the term stalk and I humored you.

            And wee, making up facts doesn't make them real.
            There is a definition for stalking, and describing my home and neighborhood might qualify more than my using designed features on this forum.

            You may want to check with your legal counsel on that.

          • Already have. You are cyber harrassing me and I am asking you to cease any communication and stop harrassing me online.

          • Wee, this may be a shocker. But this is a voluntary forum.
            If you want to avoid me, you can do so. I'm not (using the legal definition of stalking) stalking you. I use the designed features of this forum in a way the forum is meant to be used.

            You post bigoted comments (as in you can't imagine the other side has merit) and can't imagine why I rebut those points. You don't have to stay in the kitchen if the heat bothers you.

          • It is voluntary and you are abusing it to stalk and harrass people and what you are doing is illegal.

            You don't rebut my comments all you do is harass me with your bigotry

          • You may think so. But that doesn't make it so.

            You (using your definitions)stalked my comments on the hunger games. What you did, by your own definitions was illegal. You didn't rebut my comments but merely dropped personal insults. That is harassment according to your definitions, and shows bigotry.

            Wee, you just don't like the fact that you can't keep up, apparently.

    • Mr.Lincoln, as an aside, I can't help noticing that your second link is from Ben Shapiro. Have you noticed how the folks at BleatBlart threw little Ben under their bus?

      Pretty sad.

      I haven't looked at that site in well over a year, but did a few weeks ago when I heard they fired Lee Stranahan. I was appalled. It is one giant cluster-schtoop.

      • I do not follow baseball or anybody's drama's. I just research for factual information I can share with others. Folks who follow my posts, can verify this about me. I most certainly go down my own path, and direction.

        • What do you do for fun then Lincoln? Don't get me wrong I appreciate your work, but you need some you time once in awhile.

          • Chess, working out, reading, fellowship at my church, posting and helping find what they seek. Just to name a few! I do disappear at times. I just will not announce it.

          • That's good to hear brother. Just don't stare into the abyss too much. It can get very depressing. I have to remind my self to check out from time to time to recharge.

          • I have been there and done that. Then I learned how to disconnect from it just as I did as a Corporate manager as well for many, many years. This is also when I made the decision and became born again. Now, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C. S. Lewis

          • Great quote brother! God is certainly the best remedy to all this garbage going on, that is where I look for comfort too.

          • Here is great inspirational story Apr 14, 2014 Nathan Schroer

            Divorce after divorce, Nathan watched his mom sink into addiction. After a childhood of disappointment, he got married and became a police officer, only to wake up one morning with his body bruised and gums bleeding.

            Would cancer just become another episode of disappointment in Nathan's life? Eventually the doctors told him to go home, get into hospice, and get comfortable. Reality sunk in. Would he be there the day he daughters got married? Was God really enough? With it came brutally honest questions he asked to God, with his life hanging in the balance.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=428-O1m_n9A

          • I will have to watch later. At work. Added it to my favorites though, thanks!

        • I would verify that for you any day

      • His site is doing great, but not on ID.

  4. The fictional premise of the training drill bothers me less than other aspects of this story – particularly that the government perceives there is a growing threat from "homegrown" terrorism and yet no elected officials speak directly to the underlying causes. To do so would be to call into question the legitimacy of many of the federal government's own actions.

  5. Alinsky Hero USA

    Roger 173p · 3 minutes ago

    a real man would have pulled sanduscky off

  6. Alinsky Hero USA

    Great article about how conservatives cherry pick what they are passionate about,
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/cli

    • And your comment is a great example of how marxists try to use alinsky playbook tactics on defining their opponent.

      Our love of constitutional values, values taken from the European enlightenment are the basis for our passions as you put it.

      We refuse to bow to tyranny.

    • I agree with about 50% of this article. It is correct to assume that most Conservatives do not know why we Libertarians are supporting Bundy in the first place.

      "The rest of us may barely remember them, but they're totemic events on the right, fueling Glenn-Beckian fantasies of black helicopters and jackbooted federal thugs for more than two decades now."

      That is incorrect. Beck has been a staunch supporter of the gov. in this case. He has claimed that the majority of the Bundy supporters were armed, that they put women and children in front of them as shields, and that they were the aggressors. Glen Beck is a liar, I used to support him, but it seems that his greed has got the best of him and he has joined the Globalists.

  7. Happy Easter all! Enjoy this song and really focus on the lyrics.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgFQ6WmxdMs

  8. Maybe you ask the federal prison e!ployeees in Milan how they
    Go a steal black statues on the lake docks and take racial pictures with them?
    Email me i show the pictures !!! " theassistant9@aol.com"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>