Not a chance, but there are many groups out there that are pushing hard to make us believe that it is.  I am not sure what motivates some people, but what we know is that it is dangerous when the public is  not told the truth. 

This was on "Ask a money expert".  What possibly makes this guy a money expert when he is this far off? 

The video is short and does not completely reflect the viewpoints we wanted to make in the interview.  For a short piece, they got pretty close.  King 5 does a good job and trying to tell this whole story and let people know what they can do in such a short time is almost impossible.

The incorrect story attached to this video is actually interesting. What the president is now proposing is that FHA will refinance a  couple million of the 16 million underwater homes in America. This would have been a much better idea three or four years ago. Now it is too little, too late.

He is not going to get congress to go along with this idea because he is planning to put the American Taxpayer on the hook for even more mortgages that will ultimately go into default and foreclosure which just adds more to the federal debt and increases the balance sheets of the major banks.

What he really wants is for you to pay about 5% interest (3.9% interest plus 1.1% FHA mortgage insurance) on a 20 year loan. Your payments won't go down much and you will be paying the principle on the loan down faster. In effect, you will be paying your own underwater amount back to the banks and investors, but you will be doing it faster.  With this plan you might be able to sell your underwater home for what you owe in 8 years instead of 10 or 12. 

Again, they are trying to get more money to the banks, all with a guarantee from the taxpayers this time using the Federal Housing Administration.

If you believe it is only the Republicans that are protecting the banks, THINK AGAIN!

I subscribe to Rasmussen Reports.  If you are not familiar with Rasmussen, they are a polling company.  They take polls on a wide variety of topics but most of their polls are on the economy and politics.  Here is what one of their recent polls says about the housing market. 

Looking ahead over the next year, is the value of your home likely to go up, go down, or

21% Believe their homes will be worth more a year from now.

27% Believe their home will be worth less

51% Believe it will be about the same

What about over the next five years? Is the value of your home likely to go up, go down, or remain about the same?

45% Believe their homes will be worth more five years from now now.

17% Believe their home will be worth less

31% Believe it will be about the same

Is the value of your home worth more than the amount you owe on your mortgage?

56% Believe their house is worth more than they owe

33% Believe they are upside down

11% Don't know

Are you kidding me!  11% of the homeowners polled earlier this month don't even know if they are upside down in their homes or not.  These are the people who are following option #1 in our "Nine Options for Underwater Homeowners".  They are going to Stay and Keep Paying no matter what.  These are also the people who are going to get whatever is left over when the housing collapse finally bottoms out.  We think the bottom will be in late 2014 at the very earliest. 

What this also says is that 1/3 of homeowners polled know they are underwater and believe overwhelmingly (78%) that housing values are not going up in the next year.  If you are underwater and are willing to keep making your payments, we are about 50/50 that your house will be worth more five years from now. 

At the Financial Revival Group, we believe people should know where they are and be prepared to take action to preserve what you have left.  Knowing where you are at with your house value and your mortgage is critical to surviving the economic challenges that are still coming. 

Don't wait to do a little research.  You can download our free EBook on right of the page to help you get started.  

What do you think about these poll results?  You can comment down below.  I want to know what you think too.

One of the goals of the mainstream media is to get the president re-elected.  We know that they will do and say whatever they have to in order to make this happen.  The government agencies themselves are also on a campaign to make sure that things look as bright and rosy as possible.  Is that for their own jobs or Obama's?  I don't know the answer to that but I do know that there are a lot of influential people who take these questionable statistics and quote them as gospel.  Watch your local news and you will see what I mean.

Don't believe them.   They don't match up and here is why.

There are three different groups that make predictions on what the unemployment statistics will look like. 

1. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)     This report is the official government report that is quoted throughout the media.  BLS is a government agency that determines the upcoming unemployment figures by doing a survey of 60,000 households.  By the way it takes 2,200 government census workers to do this.  They call each person in the survey monthy to determine which of the 3 categories below each of these people fit into. 

• Employed -  People that worked the week they were interviewed
• Unemployed - People that didn't work that week but were able and looking for work
• Not in the work force – People that were not able to work or didn't work and quit looking for work

When they issue the report to the public and the media, it is usually only about 70% complete so they have to make educated guesses.  That is why they are constantly going back and revising their numbers.  For a description of this process straight from the BLS, CLICK HERE.

2. ADP   This report comes from ADP, one of the largest managers of company payrolls in the country.  Their report is derived from data collected from the payrolls they prepare for over 400,000 small businesses covering 23 million employees.  A much better representation of the number of people working than the BLS statistics because it covers actual payrolls and a much larger sampling.  For a description of how their process works. CLICK HERE.

3. Trim Tabs    This report comes from the daily withholding of taxes out of 130 million wage earners in America.  This is a much broader representation of the working population and the population in general. 

So here is why this is important.  This week Trim Tabs shows that employers added 35,000 new jobs in the month of December while BLS is saying we added 150,000 and ADP says 325,000.  The differences are huge.  If we only added 35,000 new jobs in December the unemployment rate would have increased to 8.9%.  But since THEY decided to use 200,000 THEY can show a lowering of the unemployment rate to 8.5%.  We are being duped.  They spend 10's of millions of dollars to come up with these numbers and they still just publish whatever they want to. 

Here is some more food for thought if you believe these numbers are real because the government says they are:

1. Last year our population grew by 1,695,000, yet the labor force grew by only 274,000

2. Since 2008 our labor force (the number of people counted as able to work) has shrunk by over 1 million people.  How does that happen if our population grows at  almost 2 million people per year.  Shouldn't the work force have grown by at least 4 or 5 million people in those three years? 

3.  THEY are simply not counting many people who could work but cannot find a job.  If all of those people who were actually unemployed were counted, our unemployment rate would be in the neighborhood of 16%.  For example in November THEY removed 194,000 people from the workforce.  In December is was 50,000

That is why THEY are cooking the books.  For more information on the actual numbers CLICK HERE to go the US Debt Clock.org.  Look at the right hand column and run the number for yourself. 

4. The private sector has only recovered 36% of all of the jobs lost since January 2008. 

My point here is that you cannot trust the numbers that are being fed to you.  I'll bet your instincts don't believe them anyway.  Trust that, Not what you are told.  These numbers are important because until we see a real decrease in the unemployment rate which is actually about 16%, there is no way we can see any kind of recovery in the housing market. 

Our prediction for the housing market still stands.  The housing market will not bottom out until late in 2014 at the very earliest.  2015 or 2016 is more likely.  We expect to see an additional 15 – 20% drop in prices and those values could stay flat for a decade after we hit bottom. 

The market may see slight movement for a short time based on the made up numbers that you hear in the media.  It will only make real improvement based on the real numbers that are being hidden from you. 

You are on your own.  Do your homework and take bold action…

This could be great news for many homeowners because Freddie Mac says that the bank that is servicing your loan can offer this option in six month increments without approval from Freddie Mac.  So if your loan is owned by Freddie Mac and you are out of work, make the call to your servicer and tell them that you want your forebearance. 

To see if your loan is owned by Freddie Mac, CLICK HERE  and you can find out in seconds. 

The story behind the story

Both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have too many houses already.  They don't want any more and are starting to show cracks in their wall of strength.  Formerly, all they would say is that you pay or you will be foreclosed on.  I guess enough people took them up on the offer that they are now starting to understand that the homowners of America are wising up to the game and are not going to play anymore. 

What they are going to find is that people are going to use this one year of deferred payments to increase the time they get to stay in their houses before a foreclosure.  If you can stay in your house for a year free becuase you are unemployed, it is not a bad deal.  If you could use that year as an extension on the time you would normally get in a foreclosure/ strategic default, that is even better.  Using this new strategy could help you recoup even more of the money you have lost as a result of the bad policies and policing by these groups.  This ineffectiveness has led to the collapse in the housing market. 

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of these people stealing our money and giving it to their buddies.  At some point we are all going to stand up and rebel against all of the corruption in our government and our system.  Honestly, I am a little scared to say that in this post because since Obama signed the new National Defense Authorization Act, I could be arrested as a terrorist and put away forever without a trial or any charges ever being levied against me but that is for another post.   

Here is the full article…

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts
unelected.org

The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the right), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.

What was revealed in the audit was startling:

$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious – the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." - Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.

Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation

Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696

FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

Senator Sander’s Article: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

In many states in our country, banks have the right to sue Underwater Homeowners for all of the money they lose on the foreclosure of a home.

The banks already received taxpayer bailouts for their losses, they also get tax breaks and additional backend money from we the taxpayers too after the foreclosure.  Many states allow the banks to go back after the foreclosure and sue homeowners to get what is called a "deficiency judgment". 

The media is touting that the banks are not suing foreclosed homeowners.  That is not accurate.  In some states the banks have up to 16 years to sue for a deficiency judgment.  Are they going to do it now while people don't have any extra money or even a job?  Of course not.  The media is mistaking the banks inaction up till now when the truth is that the banks will blind side these former homeowners in the future AFTER they get back on their feet.  This is a business decision that the banks are making that will destroy even more families than the foreclosure crisis itself will. 

On December 6, 2011, HR 3566 was introduced in the Congress of the United States by Ed Towns (D) of New York and Luis Gutierrez (D) of Illinois.  They deserve our support on this bill but they need to make one addition.

HB 3566

Is a bill to ensure uniformity and fairness in deficiency judgments arising from foreclosures on mortgages for single family homes.

         Here are the highlights of the bill:

• The banks will have to take action within 12 months of the foreclosure.
• They can only sue in states where deficiency judgments are allowed.
•  If they don't act within 12 months, you are off the hook.
• The value of the property is based on the greater of the price the banks sells it for or an  appraisal provided by the homeowner.  
• They cannot report a deficiency to any credit bureau.
• They cannot ever sue anyone who is considered "low income".  This is based on your income during a 30 day period either immediately before or immediately after the date of the foreclosure.

There is a lot of protection for underwater homeowners in this bill but it is lacking one thing. Even if the banks are stopped from coming after you for the money they lose, they will issue you a 1099 and you will have to pay income tax on the full amount.  You see, if the banks lose money, the IRS sees this as a gift from the bank to you and the IRS says you should have to pay income tax on that amount. 

For more information on how this works, please see our previous post, Lose money on your house in a foreclosure or short sale and you could get a tax bill from the IRS.

The addition to this bill that must be included is an extension of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act (MFDRA).  This act expires on December 31, 2012.  If it is not extended, the banks may not be able to come after you but the IRS will.  By including an extension of this bill in HR 3566, it would be the first real help that underwater homeowners have received in the whole housing collapse. 

This bill will be a great help to underwater homeowners and needs to be supported by all of us.  It is about time that homeowners get some help from congress to level the playing field.  The banks have received bailouts and payoffs, tax breaks and legal protection.  Now it's time for us to get some help.

You can help.  Contact your Representatives and your Senators and let them know that you support HR 3566 but it has to include the extension of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act to it to protect Americans.  Please tell them that the Underwater Homeowners of America need their help and cannot wait until we get close to the expiration before they act.

Please forward this post to your Congress person and your Senators.

CLICK HERE to reach your congress person.

CLICK HERE to reach your Senator. 

If income equality is the new political religion, occupied Zuccotti Park was its Mecca. Liberal journalists traveled there and spewed forth torrents of ink on the value of protest, the creativity and spontaneity of the occupiers, the urgency of redistribution, and the gospel of social justice. Occupy Wall Street was compared to the Arab Spring, the Tea Party, and the civil rights movement. Yet, as many a liberal journalist left the park, they lamented the fact that Occupy Wall Street wasn’t more tightly organized. They worried that the demonstration would dissipate without a proper list of demands or a specific policy agenda. They suspected that the thefts, sexual assaults, vandalism, and filth in the camps would limit the occupiers’ appeal.

CLICK HERE to read the rest of the article from The Weekly Standard

To add insult to injury, our government continues to operate in the "Business as usual" mode which is only  fueling the anger.  

If you think that civil unrest cannot happen in this country, you need to take a more objective look.  The warning signs are in place only needing a spark to turn the heat into flames.  I found this article at www.backwoodshome.com that I found interesting. 

You will find it published here in its entirety…

Preparing for Civil Unrest

By Claire Wolfe    

 The most remarkable thing about civil unrest is that there hasn't been more of it.

Politicians are making a hash of this country—and much of the rest of the civilized world. We know it. They know it. They know we know it. But we don't feel we can do anything much to stop them.

That right there is the pre-condition for civil unrest—when people are frustrated and politicians are nervous.

Worse, that was how things stood before last fall's crash. Before pols on both left and right launched the biggest mass transfer of wealth in history—transferring our wealth (what we had left of it!) to their friends on Wall Street and in the banking industry. In other words, that's how things were before things got bad!

Now everybody's talking about the ongoing catastrophe (even if we are in a momentarily sunny mood). But almost nobody is talking about the logical—maybe even inevitable—consequences of cynical or desperate politicians abusing an already fed-up populace: civil unrest.

I mean people taking to the streets. Or mass resistance. Or crackdowns because the government fears we might do something to upset its apple cart. It's going to happen. Somewhere. At some time. It's going to.

One of the few VIPs to mention the matter openly was Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor and the ultimate insider's insider. He commented on the millions of unemployed or soon-to-be-unemployed and the "…public awareness of this extraordinary wealth that was transferred to a few individuals at levels without historical precedent in America." He told "Morning Joe" Scarborough, "Hell, there could be even riots." I'd say that's an understatement. 

Although few in power are talking about it, rumors abound that governments at many levels are planning for civil unrest. One rumor is about a document supposedly being circulated right now among top federal officials. It's called the "C&R Document"—with C&R standing for "conflict & revolution." The much-storied paper is said to be a plan for controlling the American people when we get out of hand. True? Who knows. But the very rumor tells us a lot about these times. 

Other things are not mere rumor. When the federal government established a North American Army command in 2002, its purpose wasn't to repel foreign invaders. It was domestic operations—something long and rightly forbidden by the Posse Comitatus Act. In February of 2009, when military commanders in Canada and the U.S. signed a pact allowing their armies to operate inside each other's country they didn't even bother to get authorization from Congress—an illegal and unprecedented move. And once again, the purpose was handling "domestic civil emergencies." 

For several years, the Centers for Disease Control tried to get states to adopt something called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA). This act would allow state governments to become police-state dictatorships in event of any ill-defined health emergency—vaccinating people by force, destroying or seizing property without compensation, and rationing medical supplies, food, and fuel. To their credit, most state governments rejected the act. A few adopted portions of it before a fervent opposition campaign caused the CDC to back off. However, the concept of a health dictatorship hasn't gone away. Not hardly. Within days of the news that a new strain of swine flu had arisen in Mexico in April 2009, states were again considering legislation to give themselves martial-law powers in event of an epidemic. 

And what of the dozens and dozens of federal agencies that now have SWAT teams? Seriously, what justifies the Bureau of Land Management or the Department of Housing and Urban Development having paramilitary units? 

Now maybe you like the idea of an Army that watches over its own citizens. Maybe it makes sense to have a government seize total dictatorial power in event of a health emergency. Maybe you believe SWAT teams will never be used except against bad guys. But do you really trust these people? 

After all, these are the same folks, and this is the same mentality, that not only spent $325,000 to produce a souvenir photo of a presidential 747 zooming low over the Statue of Liberty, but ordered the New York Police Department, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the New York mayor's office not to tell the public. Never mind that they realized full well that passenger jets and military planes plunging low over Manhattan would evoke panic. 

Still, peace reigns. Mostly. At least here in North America. But not everywhere. Not long ago, France was brought to its knees by night after night of rioting. In that country it's become almost common for workers to hold their bosses hostage in hopes of winning economic concessions. Greece, too, saw its normal life and business shut down by days of rioting. So did Iceland—a country that's normally the picture of civility. 

Can the U.S. be forever immune? 

It might not take much—and it could be something out of the blue, something impossible to anticipate—to set us against each other and against the "Trust us; we'll fix it" political crowd. 

In a way, this national silence on a matter so many people are afraid of is similar to the silence about general preparedness issues before 9-11 or Hurricane Katrina. Only Mormons and us wingnuts spoke of preparedness way back when. Since then, of course, advice on preparedness is mainstream and common. 

In another sense, this silence is different. Because when unrest finally erupts, it's not going to be us merely taking care of ourselves. It's going to be "us against them." It might be workers against bosses. Or the poor against bankers. Or blacks against Hispanics. Or little folk against Big Men in public office. Or farmers against the USDA. Or xenophobes against xenophiles. But however it happens, the implications aren't as Boy-Scoutish as just taking care of ourselves in an emergency. 

Defining civil unrest

Look up "preparations for civil unrest" on Google and…What's that echo I hear?—you'll find nothing that's going to help you. In fact, you won't even easily turn up a good definition of what civil unrest is. 

Like "indecency," the definition seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

I wouldn't consider a peaceful anti-war march to be civil unrest, for instance, but a police chief might. Similarly, I wouldn't consider acts of localized non-violent lawbreaking (like environmental activists chaining themselves to a tree) to be civil unrest; but a timber company official probably believes otherwise. 

Civil unrest occurs when anger, frustration, or fear turn disruptive on a mass scale. Or when government officials crack down because they anticipate such disruptions. Crackdowns can lead to further frustration, leading to further crackdowns and so on—especially when the crackdowns look unwarranted and tyrannical. 

In other words, civil unrest can arise from the anger of people or the folly of government or both together. 

Anger over an unpopular policy, a new war, a collapse of the currency, panic over a pandemic, a food shortage, a bank run—anything like that could cause civil unrest, especially in a population that's already on edge and no longer trusts its authority figures. 

Another thing you won't find via Google is how various types or levels of unrest are likely to affect us and how we should respond, if we're affected. Again, although the men and women at the top are quite concerned for their own sakes, they (and their media mouthpieces) would rather not talk about what we should do in event of civil panic. 

But that's not good enough for we independent-minded people, is it? 

Here are my definitions of levels of civil unrest and a little bit about how they might affect us: 

LEVEL ONE: The lowest level of civil unrest is when people turn on their own neighborhoods—as happened during the race riots of the 1960s and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Level One civil unrest can be deadly and destructive, but primarily to people who live, work, or must travel in the immediate area. Level One unrest is spontaneous, Dionysian, is confined to a narrow geographical zone where the protestors live. Police response may be harsh, but it's localized. Unless you're in the middle of it, you're unaffected. 

LEVEL TWO: Level Two civil unrest may also be focused on a single area. But in this case, rioters or protesters have deliberately targeted a business district, a facility, a transportation system, or an organization to impose maximum disruption. One example: the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999; young people with violence in mind and rage in their hearts attacked an entire downtown, affecting hundreds of businesses and tens of thousands of workers who hardly knew what hit them. Another example: This spring, protesters in Thailand shut down the Bangkok airport, affecting who knows how many individuals and businesses. Level Two unrest is usually planned or semi-planned. The target is chosen deliberately. Although still focused in one area, Level Two can disrupt normal life and business in a whole region or country. 

LEVEL THREE: Level Three comes when mass unrest or authoritarian crackdown causes disruption at state or regional level. Then, no matter what the original cause or location of the trouble, everyone in the region is affected. Effects might include travel restrictions, random ID checks, mass arrests, food and fuel rationing, controls on money and banking, roadblocks, and other harsh "emergency" restrictions. 

LEVEL FOUR: Level Four is Level Three—but on a national or even international scale. It's martial law. If things ever get this bad, it's likely that the government itself will be a far bigger threat to everyone's well being than whatever the original cause of the clampdown was. 

And of course, any level of civil unrest can lead to laws, regulations, and harsher police policies that end up affecting everybody in the long run.

Yes, it can involve us.   

We make a mistake if we think civil unrest is strictly an urban phenomena. It can happen anywhere. 

When 400 government agents and soldiers descended on one isolated family in the Idaho mountains, the roadblocks, helicopters, Humvees, media presence, and furious protestors surrounded the Randy Weaver family and brought the normal life of Boundary County, Idaho, to a halt. The siege against the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, wasn't conducted in the inner-city, either. Yet both of these were large scale catastrophes with all the hallmarks of civil unrest—individuals or groups resisting, government insisting. 

I can easily envision strictly rural-based unrest that urban dwellers will never even hear about (except perhaps in highly distorted reports). What happens, for instance, if farmers, 4H families, owners of saddle horses, and holders of small chicken flocks decide to resist en masse the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)? It's easy to imagine, in these crazy days, USDA SWAT teams descending on the countryside to make arrests, forcibly register or destroy non-compliant animals, and burn down non-registered facilities. 

The future could see rural resistance to invasive census-taking, forced vaccination programs, land takings, water-rights policies, or the destruction of herds for real or bogus health reasons. As country people increasingly see governments as foreign organizations driven by the interests of city dwellers, pharmaceutical companies, and mega-agri-business, it wouldn't surprise me. 

If we ever have serious food shortages, expect rural areas to be besieged. 

Even when civil unrest confines itself to the cities, airports, or highways it can affect us in crazy ways. Here's a funny example of unpredictable (in this case mild) consequences. A friend was due to have her first book published in Canada. She was very excited—then disappointed when weeks dragged by and the book didn't appear. Turns out that a band of Indians was blocking a highway bridge the printer's truck had to cross. The union truckers, in solidarity, refused to route around the protest. Just one small consequence. But you can see the unpredictability. 

The simple truth is that we don't know what kinds of unrest to anticipate. We don't know when, or if, we'll see civil unrest. But thinking about the problem and preparing ourselves mentally and physically to deal with it should be just another aspect of our personal preparedness. 

What we can do

1. Keep standard emergency preps up to date. First thing to do is make sure all our typical household preparedness supplies and plans are current. As BHM readers know, backup food, water, and other supplies are our mainstay for everything from bad storms to long-term unemployment, from power outages to social breakdowns. During civil unrest, especially at Level Three or Four, we might not be able to get out to buy things we need—or we might consider it more prudent to stay at home. On the other hand, if we ourselves are part of the unrest, we may need those supplies to sit out a siege. 

2. Don't fall into foolish complacency. We who live in the country tend to have an "it can't happen here" attitude toward political violence or social upheaval. We see those things as urban pheonomena. And mostly, they are. But there's no ironclad rule that says they have to be. If anything disrupts the supply chain, for instance, rural areas could be the first to be cut off from food, medicines, fuel, or other necessities. If government breaks down to the point where it can't deliver food stamps, housing vouchers, social security, or bureaucrats' pay, the rural poor and unemployed could become just as restive as their urban counterparts. 

3. Watch your health. As I write this, the airwaves are shrilling about swine flu. This outbreak may fizzle; after all, perfectly normal flu kills many every year without causing panic, martial law, or incessant media coverage. On the other hand, it's certain that one day some illness will rampage across the globe. Few things inspire public panic more quickly than contagious disease, and once again rural areas are not immune. Take all the standard recommended precautions like frequent handwashing. Make sure your preparedness kit includes surgical masks and disposable gloves as well as a selection of frequently updated medications. And be ready to lay low at home for a long time in the event a serious plague gets loose. 

4. Make common cause with your neighbors. I've said it before, but establishing a strong bond with people in your community—right now—is vital to every sort of emergency preparedness. In event of a Level One or Two emergency, these are the folks who could come to your house to make sure you're okay. They might give you a ride out or a place to sleep if you accidentally end up in a "hot zone" of riot or protest. In a deeper or more long-term emergency, they could pool resources with you to make supply runs. They can advise you if they've spotted a roadblock. They might let you cross their land to avoid a route that has become dangerous. 

5. If you grow crops or raise food animals and the unrest is due to a food shortage (or something has driven city people out into the countryside), prepare to protect your resources day and night. Here again neighbors can do each other valuable services, like taking shifts guarding fields, barns, private roads, and gardens. Yes, this is an apocalyptic scenario. Not a likely one. But if it happens, it's a Level Three or Level Four emergency—delivered to your own front yard. 

6. Get advance word on local conditions when traveling. We're used to hopping into our vehicles or onto airplanes and going wherever we want to go. But as the worldwide economy deteriorates, it's wise to keep an eye on our destination. Right now, this warning pertains more to overseas travel than jaunts within the U.S. If you plan to go abroad, visit online sites like Travelfish.org. They'll have bulletins about adverse conditions in areas you plan to visit; you may even be able to receive alerts via email that will warn you about anything from political protests to disease outbreaks in places you plan to go. 

7. Watch for signs of trouble when in an unfamiliar area. Sometimes the only advance notice you get is the notice your own senses give you. When walking, driving, biking, or otherwise traveling in unfamiliar places, stay in what gunfolk call "condition yellow." This is different than the meaningless colored threat levels the Department of Homeland Security puts out. It just means "be alert!" Never simply allow yourself to slouch along obliviously. Always be aware of who's nearby and what's going on around you. If you spot trouble developing, turn. Avoid it if at all possible. 

8. If you stumble into a "hot zone" of unrest, be prepared to think on your feet. Not many people are qualified to give you advice about how to behave if you unavoidably find yourself in the midst of trouble—a riot, a mass protest that suddenly engulfs your familiar downtown, a spot where police are bashing heads or hurling tear gas seemingly at random. That's because not many people have ever been there and every catastrophe is different. If street-level chaos surrounds you, do your best to keep a cool head, move away from the worst of it if you get the chance, and get inside if possible. 

9. If you're swept up in mass arrests during a riot or demonstration, the officers probably aren't going to be listening to your protestations of being an innocent bystander. You'll only tick them off and possibly get a charge of resisting arrest. The best advice I've received from my friends who've been busted during out-of-hand protests: Go along as best you can. Usually, all charges in such cases are either dropped or reduced once calm is restored. Only if we've reached the extreme point where police are rounding people up and throwing them into detention camps or "disappearing" them is fighting cops on the street likely to be worth it; then…fight like a demon. 

10. Have a good lawyer and carry his or her card with you. Once again, in the heat of chaos it may not do you much good. But that card will come in handy later. Besides, if you and a police officer have an encounter in calmer circumstances, a lawyer's card, along with your calm assertion of your legal rights, will help you to be taken seriously. Police officers are like anybody else; they're more likely to go after easy targets than ones who are obviously knowledgeable and prepared. My lawyer has a helpful little list on the back of his card of the things you should do—and not do— when accosted by a police officer.1 I'd trust that more than my own nerves in a tight situation. 

11. Be careful of roadblocks. This is a hard one. If we reach Level Three or Four of unrest, we may not only see the obnoxious police "checkpoints" we're burdened with today. We might also see two other things. One would be expanded police roadblocks, with warrantless searches, harsh questioning, and possibly mass arrests. Another could be "freelance" roadblocks—roadblocks set up by anybody from political protesters to highwaymen. (Just as gangs of home invaders now masquerade as SWAT teams, highwaymen might masquerade as government officials to rob the unwary.) If it's humanly possible, avoid roadblocks. It's not illegal to turn away from them, as long as you don't disobey any traffic laws. Police do consider it suspicious behavior and may come after you, even if you've done nothing wrong; but in a time of civil unrest, avoiding a roadblock could save your skin. Of course, both police and freelancers will set up their blockades to make them as hard as possible to avoid—all the more reason to be alert, know where roadblocks are likely to be, and have a mental map of alternate routes. If, in a time and place of unrest, you're in a line approaching a roadblock, watch what happens to the people ahead of you. If you see any sign that the motorists ahead are being abused, get out of there.  

So far, we've talked mostly as if civil unrest is something apart from us—something we might have to be wary of, something we might stumble accidentally into. But the fact is that as our country becomes less free, we might of course be the civil unrest.

We might resist having our premises tagged for NAIS or having our herds slaughtered for real or bogus health reasons. We might end up fighting evictions (as farmers and many rural dwellers have for centuries during hard times). We might be the ones who say, "Hell no, we won't go!" when the mobile vaccination van comes to town, or the ones who try to keep our neighbors from being rounded up and sent to camps. Times are uncertain. We simply don't know. 

But in every case, preparedness, foreknowledge, and a cool head will come in handy. 

Some of us already have lines in the sand that would inspire us to resist abuses of authority. And that, right there, is something our would-be masters fear—our disobedience. What will happen? And when? Nobody has a crystal ball. But the combination of public frustration and governmental apprehension is an explosive one. Someday, somebody will light the match.  

Here's the copy on the lawyer's card (capitalization his):

IF YOU ARE ARRESTED OR CONFRONTED BY THE POLICE: 

1. FIRST, ask to call your lawyer. 

2. Be courteous; do not resist. 

3. Do not consent to search or entry. 

4. Do not talk about anything; do not admit OR DENY anything. 

5. Ask if you are free to go. If you are, GO. 

I've had several different lawyer's cards over the years that say similar, but slightly different things. Another great source of information on how to handle yourself when confronted by police is the DVD Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters. It's great because it shows very realistic scenarios and coaches you vividly on how to navigate them. Clips from "Busted" are online at the link above.