# Continuity of Government



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Here is some info.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21089.pdf

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Executive_Branch_''Continuity_of_Operations_Plan''

Here is my thought... SHTF, our elite lawmakers, military top brass, and their families, and whom ever else gets to go, bug to their super bunkers, after a while, they dare to come out and try to re-establish the government.

How well do you think THAT would go over? The same ass-hats with their ass-hat policies wanting to start ruling again. Would they be greeted with open arms? Or, tried for murder/treason/etc etc.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*If I am guessing correctly*



pandamonium said:


> Here is some info.
> 
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21089.pdf
> 
> ...


If I am guessing correctly, the 577 elected officials of the US Government and their famielys will come out after a huge die off our civilian population backed by the US Military and take charge.

Remember it if the proceedure to plan and have rations for all military personell for at least a year ahead at all times.

The reminant left will likely welcome them with open arms.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

BillM said:


> If I am guessing correctly, the 577 elected officials of the US Government and their famielys will come out after a huge die off our civilian population backed by the US Military and take charge.


Hey, I saw a "documentary" on TV last night about this very thing. They're predicting that a Sargent in the Army is going to rise to be the General of a whole new nation and anyone who thinks of himself as an American will be shot. So all of these politicians and Generals and Admirals and all of the personnel they command are pretty much irrelevant.

As to the point of continuity, nation's like ours work on the consent of the governed and absent active consent, there is the implied consent of the sheeple who will go along with whatever is the easiest route. In the event of a disaster of epic proportions, and depending on the characteristics of those who survive, I don't think that we can assume that pre-disaster leaders who emerge after all the smoke is cleared are going to automatically have the consent of the governed. They'll likely have a lot of weapons and soldiers at their command and so to rebuild a nation that is resisting their claim to power they'll have to go all warlord on everyone's ass.

All the while that the above is unfolding there will be Generals and Colonels who have their own ambitions of fiefdoms and will have the weaponry and troops at their disposal to impose their might on local populations.

I for one would have a very hard time automatically assigning legitimacy to a pre-war leader who emerged and claimed to be in control after a long period of absence. I won't rule out his leadership but he'll have to make a strong case for it.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> In the event of a disaster of epic proportions, and depending on the characteristics of those who survive, I don't think that we can assume that pre-disaster leaders who emerge after all the smoke is cleared are going to automatically have the consent of the governed. They'll likely have a lot of weapons and soldiers at their command and so to rebuild a nation that is resisting their claim to power they'll have to go all warlord on everyone's ass.
> 
> All the while that the above is unfolding there will be Generals and Colonels who have their own ambitions of fiefdoms and will have the weaponry and troops at their disposal to impose their might on local populations.
> 
> I for one would have a very hard time automatically assigning legitimacy to a pre-war leader who emerged and claimed to be in control after a long period of absence. I won't rule out his leadership but he'll have to make a strong case for it.


While I pretty much agree with Bobbb, I wonder if the trained soldiers 'protecting' the VIPs might not just use some of the handy C-4 to turn the bunkers into tombs.

My reasoning goes like this:
If military families are affected by a major die off event, it is likely there will be mass desertions by military personnel who go home to protect their families. I rather doubt that they'll go home empty-handed either. So there goes the 'extra' food and small arms. I figure the trucks, Humvees, and APCs will be used for transport home. That really only leaves fuel-intensive arms like tanks, copters, and planes....and the strategic missiles.

So what weapons can the VIPs use to project power? The remnants of the Army and Marines? Will the VIPs threaten mostly empty US cities with the missiles?

Never forget that if it's a man-made event, people will blame someone for doing whatever happens and/or for not protecting the US from it. To me, that means that whoever is in charge at the time will take the blame.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Remember also that CoG plans establish a heirarchy of leadership. In the event that the President, VP, and other high ranking officials cannot make it back to a bunker, leadership will go on down the chain. It is theoretically possible that the "president" who would emerge from that bunker could be the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. How legitimate would THAT seem? 

"Hello, you may not remember me after three years of hiding in an underground bunker, but I was once in charge of bus schedules in Washington DC. I am now your President." How well do you think that will go over?


----------



## UncleJoe (Jan 11, 2009)

Turtle said:


> It is theoretically possible that the "president" who would emerge from that bunker could be the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. How legitimate would THAT seem?
> 
> "Hello, you may not remember me after three years of hiding in an underground bunker, but I was once in charge of bus schedules in Washington DC. I am now your President." *How well do you think that will go over?*


Depends on whether the same $hit starts all over again or the guy subscribes to the idea that TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

I could see something like that old tv show Jericho happening; where 2-3 different regional groups form up and all claim to be the new government of the USA. One headed by the Secretary of Transportation, one by a Senator from California and one by a National Guard General (or something like that). Then of course civil war would break out and even more people would die.


----------



## Resto (Sep 7, 2012)

Remember when regan got shot? I think 2 people besides the VP were claiming to be temporary President, I think one of them was Al Haig. It was a fiasco. If TSHTF during the current Presidents tenure, what do you think would happen if it was Obama who came up out of the bunker?
Something else I noticed about public reaction when Bush Jr went airborn on Sept 11th. I kept thinking "Coward". I dont think survivors will take too kindly to a President comming up out of a bunker when mostly preppers will be the survivors postSHTF. Besides...how will anyone be informed without cellphones and dishes or electricity? The Fed could claim anything I guess but I would guess the States would become the real Govt. 
Hey..down here in Arizona we have a problem recognizing the Fed as Authority right now, what do you think we will be thinking Post SHTF?


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

I truely doubt that whatever government officials tried to reclaim government authority would get a favorable response. After all, government policies and practices are what have put us in the position we are in NOW, let alone if the whole thing collapsed!! I would be more inclined to hold them responsible for the deaths that occured during the "troubles" of SHTF. 

I read in one of the links that whoever wound up being top dog would be there untill a properly elected pres was in.

I also think that CoG is a pipe dream if there was a complete collapse of society.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> After all, government policies and practices are what have put us in the position we are in NOW, let alone if the whole thing collapsed!!


If you're going to stick with that line, then you need to factor in that it was the people who continually elected the politicians to give the people what they wanted. People across the land are not forming a mass protest and refusing to accept social security, medicare, medicaid, and thousands of other government redistribution plums.

Other than Governor Palin, how many politicians worked to cut back earmarks? Who has run on the platform of "If elected I will work to not bring Washington money into this Congressional District."


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Bobbb, I'm figuring, after SHTF, those left to rebuild, for the most part, would not be the sheeple and entitlement types. MOST of them probably wouldn't be around anymore. Their voice probably wouldn't carry much weight either. I think post SHTF, those still alive would not welcome the policies that brought on the collapse in the first place. Just as we of the self reliant mind set already don't want these policies in place.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> Bobbb, I'm figuring, after SHTF, those left to rebuild, for the most part, would not be the sheeple and entitlement types. MOST of them probably wouldn't be around anymore. Their voice probably wouldn't carry much weight either. I think post SHTF, those still alive would not welcome the policies that brought on the collapse in the first place. Just as we of the self reliant mind set already don't want these policies in place.


I agree with that. I believe in the constitution, but lately Congress and the President seem to have lost focus that they are there for us, to serve and protect...

I figure this will happen, but i also think that you will have strong minded, strong willed people who will do their best to serve their own area for the betterment of all. If no one in my area starts to try to lead and regroup, I know I will jump up... I may not be prefect, no man is, but many will have to come together to rebuild our once great nation.


----------



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

UncleJoe said:


> Depends on whether the same $hit starts all over again or the guy subscribes to the idea that TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)


Or my favorite: JLMTFA...figure that one out!!
Warning, foul language included!!


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Most of us have probably heard the parable about the frog being placed in a pot of water which is then slowly brought up to a boil and the frog doesn't jump out. I think that that parable can be extended to society.

The US was formed in a period and under conditions where there was a high degree of similarity and a colonialist identity was formed. Once America was imagined and brought into being then the society which developed and modified alongside the national identity and national governance structure kind of went with the flow. The point here is that I think it was possible to forge a new national identity when the conditions were right, which means when there was a strong common bond and common identity amongst the people and that today, if we had to start from scratch, starting a new nation in this land, with the peoples and ideologies which make their home in this land, well, that would be impossible. It would be like trying to put together a scrambled egg.

There's no way on god's green earth that I would ever voluntarily give a leftist the means to enslave me again. There's no way that I'd ever join a community where it was apparent that one group within the community was going to prosper from the sweat of their brow and another group in the community couldn't meet the same standard and then would devote their energies to taking via political force the fruit of the other group's labor.

So, for a national political figure to re-emerge and try to rebuild what was, there's no way I'd voluntarily aid in the effort to inject cancer into the body politic. The forces that leftists have unleashed into society are slowly leading to societal collapse. Look at the recent free speech kerfuffle. Given a choice between maintaining support for a traditional enlightenment value of free speech or embracing multiculturalism, leftists are throwing free speech overboard. Anything and everything must be sacrificed in order to keep alive the impossible dream of multiculturalism. It is free speech that our political class should be defending without apology and here we see all political figures, every single one on the national stage, tip-toeing around the multiculturalism issue and instead seeking to moderate free speech rights. This signals to me that the same values being expressed today would be held dearly in a post-event world. No thanks. Why purposely build a society, or house, with a foundation of sand that you know will collapse the structure built on top of the foundation.

Frankly I can't see a path which leads to a reformation of the United States. I can see a number of smaller, more homogeneous political entities and can even some some merging of such entities because these entities would form through the same recipe which formed the US two centuries ago, but I can't see a process which brings us all back together again arising through willful choice, that only happens via the frog boiling process mentioned above.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Bobbb, I agree with your concerns, I also agree that small "governing bodies" would emerge. I also feel that our Constitution is a great basis for government. I DO however, think it would need tweaking to work post SHTF. 

I also would not willingly abide the same type of leftist policies of big government and government intrusion into EVERY FRIGGIN ASPECT OF OUR SUPPOSEDLY FREE LIVES!!!! 

I think the Mayans may have it right. Not the end of the world, but more of the end of an epoch. A new beginning, if you want. We are heading that way fast. Who knows how bad it will be? 

I have started thinking of the impending collapse as " The Great Purge".


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> Bobbb, I agree with your concerns, I also agree that small "governing bodies" would emerge. I also feel that our Constitution is a great basis for government. I DO however, think it would need tweaking to work post SHTF.
> 
> I also would not willingly abide the same type of leftist policies of big government and government intrusion into EVERY FRIGGIN ASPECT OF OUR SUPPOSEDLY FREE LIVES!!!!


I can't see how to reconcile your statement that the "Constitution is a great basis for government" with your observation about government intrusion. That clearly suggests to me that the Constitution is NOT a great basis for government for it is the Constitution which is permitting the lawful intrusion of government into all aspects of our lives.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Most of us have probably heard the parable about the frog being placed in a pot of water which is then slowly brought up to a boil and the frog doesn't jump out. I think that that parable can be extended to society.
> 
> The US was formed in a period and under conditions where there was a high degree of similarity and a colonialist identity was formed. Once America was imagined and brought into being then the society which developed and modified alongside the national identity and national governance structure kind of went with the flow. The point here is that I think it was possible to forge a new national identity when the conditions were right, which means when there was a strong common bond and common identity amongst the people and that today, if we had to start from scratch, starting a new nation in this land, with the peoples and ideologies which make their home in this land, well, that would be impossible. It would be like trying to put together a scrambled egg.
> 
> ...


I agree to the most part, but I can see the need to unite these same communities under on flag again, if only for protection. I don't think many would stand for putting up with the way things were pre-SHTF, instead I would hope to see a country where we all "worked" independently, but came together as one nation as planned by the original forefathers, splintering into 5-10-100 different nation states would not work in the long run. Just IMO


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> I can't see how to reconcile your statement that the "Constitution is a great basis for government" with your observation about government intrusion. That clearly suggests to me that the Constitution is NOT a great basis for government for it is the Constitution which is permitting the lawful intrusion of government into all aspects of our lives.


I disagree with you opinion on that. What our government has become today is a far cry from what the Constitution dictates. The Constitution doesn't grant the government the power to tell us what we can eat, grow, smoke, play with, rub on our faces, or to say that I am not allowed to own this or that. The Constitution was written to LIMIT government. The liberal/progressives have raped the Constitution and the mindless hand out lovers have supported the rape. The government is SUPPOSED to SUPPORT the GENERAL WELFARE, not PROVIDE WELFARE!!!


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

invision said:


> I don't think many would stand for putting up with the way things were pre-SHTF, instead* I would hope* to see a country where we all "worked" independently, but came together as one nation as planned by the original forefathers, splintering into 5-10-100 different nation states would not work in the long run. Just IMO


The operative word here is HOPE. You've probably heard of people who are forming retirement plans based on winning a lottery, well that's kind of where I see your sentiment. My question to you is what odds do you assign to your hoped for vision actually becoming the reality of the land in a post-event scenario?

Milton Friedman was at a conference once and some Swedish economist came up to him and told him that "In Sweden we don't have any poverty." Friedman replied "That's odd, in America we don't have any Swedes in poverty either." My point here is that what you want, the "working independently" while still being part of a community has only been shown to be possible in highly homogeneous groupings which help to curtail wide variance on social and economic metrics and thus reduce envy and inter-group battles.

I simply can't see a "I keep what I earn" system being long-term stable in a free-voting society made up of multiple groups each with different distributions of income earning and wealth retaining characteristics. You can't have free society, multiculturalism and free markets co-existing. Here's a terrific analysis from Yale professor Amy Chua - World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> I disagree with you opinion on that. What our government has become today is a far cry from what the Constitution dictates. The Constitution doesn't grant the government the power to tell us what we can eat, grow, smoke, play with, rub on our faces, or to say that I am not allowed to own this or that. The Constitution was written to LIMIT government. The liberal/progressives have raped the Constitution and the mindless hand out lovers have supported the rape. The government is SUPPOSED to SUPPORT the GENERAL WELFARE, not PROVIDE WELFARE!!!


The Constitution also provides a mechanism for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, so where you and I disagree in on what the Constitution means. The Constitution clearly makes reference to the Supreme Court as the mechanism by which we interpret the Constitution and there is not one word about Pandamonium interpreting the Constitution.

All of the faults you point to in government have Constitutional cover provided by the Supreme Court acting under authority granted them by the Constitution. If you don't like how things have played out then turn your eye to the Constitution for that is where the processes find legitimacy.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

JayJay said:


> Or my favorite: JLMTFA...figure that one out!!
> Warning, foul language included!!


In a post-SHTF era, JLMTFA will likely be enforced at the barrel of a gun or if the common folks are doing well, multiple barrels.


----------



## UncleJoe (Jan 11, 2009)

Bobbb said:


> I can't see how to reconcile your statement that the "Constitution is a great basis for government" with your observation about government intrusion. That clearly suggests to me that the Constitution is NOT a great basis for government for it is the Constitution which is permitting the lawful intrusion of government into all aspects of our lives.


Here's what you do. Take the Constitution and give it a good shake, kinda like snapping a wet towel. Keep snapping it until you've shaken out all the garbage that's been added to it and all that's left is The Bill Of Rights.

Now start over from there.


----------



## kejmack (May 17, 2011)

Everyone seems to be assuming that the SHTF will be a single event and that the leaders will be able to get to their shelter. I don't think it is that simple. 

As for active military going awol, most military dependents live on or close to their military post. They will be protected and the active military personnel will not abandon their duty. National Guard and Reserves will be different. Their families will be fending for themselves. They will be more likely to go awol.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Bobbb, please point out the article of the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to tell me what I am allowed to put in my body, or where they get the power to limit the type of firearm I am allowed to own. 

The Constitution is written in black and white. It is NOT a "living document" that should adjust to the times. The SCOTUS should not be "interpreting" the document, but deciding yes or no, constitutional or unconstitutional. If the answer is questionable or too close to call, or there is any question or doubt, the ruling should lean towards the peoples rights, not the power of the government. 
There is too much crap like , well the coma is HERE, that changes the whole meaning of the Article/Right. 

I'm on my phone at work so I am limited as to what I can look up.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> Bobbb, please point out the article of the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to tell me what I am allowed to put in my body, or where they get the power to limit the type of firearm I am allowed to own.


No sweat, man. Article III, section 1:

_The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court . . . _​
and section 2:

_The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, . . . . _​
The Constitution sets up the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what is permissible under the structure of the Constitution.

In other words, the Constitution tells us all that if we have a question on what is permissible that we should ask those guys on the Supreme Court for the Constitution gives them the authority to decide.

If you don't like how things have played out then look to the Constitution as the problem for it enabled these issues to develop under Constitutional protection and legitimacy.



> The Constitution is written in black and white. It is NOT a "living document" that should adjust to the times. The SCOTUS should not be "interpreting" the document, but deciding yes or no, constitutional or unconstitutional.


I happen to agree with this point but the Constitution doesn't SAY THAT! It leaves interpretation up to the Justices.



> If the answer is questionable or too close to call, or there is any question or doubt, the ruling *should *lean towards the peoples rights, not the power of the government.


SHOULD is different than IS. The text of the Constitution doesn't forthrightly declare what you WANT it to declare.

You know how leftists say that they're patriotic - they hate America but they sure love what it could be if it was run according to their Leftist wet dreams, well your position on the Constitution is just like that - you dream of a great Constitution which would be all that you image it could be and you ignore what the Constitution has provided for us.

If you don't like the state of affairs in present society, then you really have no leg to stand on when you claim that the Constitution is grand.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> No sweat, man. Article III, section 1:
> 
> _The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court . . . _​
> and section 2:
> ...


I knew you were gonna grab my "should"! With the entire pretext of the Constitution outlining the limits of the federal government, that "should" should be understood. That is why they wrote the constitution in the first place!

I disagree with the statement that the SCOTUSs job is to "interpret", but to "rule on". Like I said about the coma.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

pandamonium said:


> I knew you were gonna grab my "should"! With the entire pretext of the Constitution outlining the limits of the federal government, that "should" should be understood. That is why they wrote the constitution in the first place!
> 
> I disagree with the statement that the SCOTUSs job is to "interpret", but to "rule on". Like I said about the coma.


The Constitution has many moving parts and you're focusing no only one and ignoring the parts that are causing you heartache. The parts that are causing your problems indicate that the Constitution is flawed in terms of delivering to you the type of society you want to live in.

In a post-event scenario if you grab the Constitution as-is and implement unchanged, then you'll very likely get the same outcome over time.

If you want a different outcome, then learn from the mistakes of this Constitution and close down the parts that are producing the bad outcomes for you.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

pandamonium said:


> I also feel that our Constitution is a great* basis* for government. I DO however, think it would need* tweaking* to work post SHTF.





Bobbb said:


> The Constitution has many moving parts and you're focusing no only one and ignoring the parts that are causing you heartache. The parts that are causing your problems indicate that the Constitution is flawed in terms of delivering to you the type of society you want to live in.
> 
> In a post-event scenario if you grab the Constitution as-is and implement unchanged, then you'll very likely get the same outcome over time.
> 
> If you want a different outcome, then learn from the mistakes of this Constitution and close down the parts that are producing the bad outcomes for you.


Which is what I said earlier.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

kejmack said:


> Everyone seems to be assuming that the SHTF will be a single event and that the leaders will be able to get to their shelter. I don't think it is that simple.


Barring an EMP event or natural disaster of significant magnitude, you're likely correct.



> As for active military going awol, most military dependents live on or close to their military post. They will be protected and the active military personnel will not abandon their duty. National Guard and Reserves will be different. Their families will be fending for themselves. They will be more likely to go awol.


True, most military dependents live in close proximity to bases. But I was thinking more of the young folks far from their homes and their families (E-1 to E-3.)

Also consider the probable locations of the bunkers - DC region. Likely most bunkers aren't co-located with bases due to NBC threats. The bunkers are probably in less densely populated areas away from civilian and military nuclear targets (up in the mountains somewhere.) So they'll be somewhat isolated from support by military bases if there are any transportation issues. *That's problem #1.*

If the NCA is able to exercise adequate command and control, military units will likely be sent to guard strategic assets (oil refineries, chemical plants, electrical plants, etc.) which tend to be far away from military bases. So they'll have to leave their dependents behind. *That's problem #2.* If the deployments stretch out for months while things don't get better, those deployed will begin to wonder about their dependents. *That's problem #3.* A few stupid orders will make those deployed wonder about the mission and the competency of the NCA. From there, it'll go downhill really quickly especially if *any* base is raided or any military dependents are harmed.

At that point, the NCA will cease to exercise command and control as units choose to return to their bases to protect their own.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Look up "Greenbrier resort bunker" or "Project Greek Island". 

In the '50s, the government built a huge underground bunker for CoG under a resort in West Virginia. It's been declassified and is now open for tours. This, of course, begs the question that since that one is only sixty years old and has been out of use for decades.... how often are they building these things? How many billions of dollars have been spent on this? 

Since that location is about four hours away from DC, that gives you some perspective as to the locations.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

pandamonium said:


> Here is some info.
> 
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21089.pdf
> 
> ...


After all the anarchy people will welcome the return of the government.


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

BillS said:


> After all the anarchy people will welcome the return of the government.


 I agree people will want/need some form of government. Not too sure they will welcome the same gov/people/policies that destroyed their world.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Absolutly*



pandamonium said:


> I agree people will want/need some form of government. Not too sure they will welcome the same gov/people/policies that destroyed their world.


When that first military , "rescue" collum rolls through , passing out medical supplies and MREs and they are flying the flag, the people will cheer!

Happy days are here again ! :wave:


----------



## pandamonium (Feb 6, 2011)

I can see that happening, but, knowing how inefficient our gov is, I wonnder if they would have it together enough to rescue anyone! :scratch

I guess it would all depend on how bad and how long it lasted.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Turtle said:


> Look up "Greenbrier resort bunker" or "Project Greek Island".
> 
> In the '50s, the government built a huge underground bunker for CoG under a resort in West Virginia. It's been declassified and is now open for tours. This, of course, begs the question that since that one is only sixty years old and has been out of use for decades.... how often are they building these things? How many billions of dollars have been spent on this?
> 
> Since that location is about four hours away from DC, that gives you some perspective as to the locations.


I knew of Greenbrier (from 60 Minutes) when I made my comments. It's existence was revealed by an article in the NY Times (while it was still classified) in the early 90s. These are the same folks who revealed that the US was listening in to the cell phones of terrorists in the Middle East. Now they don't communicate over cell phones any more. Revealing sources and methods used by american intelligence agencies makes me really hope those folks bug in when the SHTF (rats gotta eat, same as bugs and worms.)


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

The Obamas are preppers. Micheal is growing a garden on the White House lawn.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Marcus said:


> I knew of Greenbrier (from 60 Minutes) when I made my comments. It's existence was revealed by an article in the NY Times (while it was still classified) in the early 90s. These are the same folks who revealed that the US was listening in to the cell phones of terrorists in the Middle East. Now they don't communicate over cell phones any more. Revealing sources and methods used by american intelligence agencies makes me really hope those folks bug in when the SHTF (rats gotta eat, same as bugs and worms.)


Right on. You know, I had forgotten about the NY Times article.

What really blows my mind about that place is that it wasn't stripped when it was abandoned; think of the billions of dollars worth of equipment that was simply left behind!

If I were a betting man (which I am not), I would guess that whatever new location they built is in the hills of Pennsylvania somewhere. From DC, they can't go south, as most of NoVA is overpopulated and lacking defensive ground. Western MD is a possibility, but there is only one decent route leading out there.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Turtle said:


> If I were a betting man (which I am not), I would guess that whatever new location they built is in the hills of Pennsylvania somewhere. From DC, they can't go south, as most of NoVA is overpopulated and lacking defensive ground. Western MD is a possibility, but there is only one decent route leading out there.


I was given to understand (from where I'm trying to remember) that there's no longer a single site but multiple sites to disperse the elected officials to reduce the chance of a decapitating blow.


----------

