The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy: How the New World Order, Man-Made Diseases, and Zombie Banks Are Destroying America
Yüklə 1,85 Mb.
|
| HOW TO CONTROL ZOMBIES
The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government. —Franklin D. Roosevelt Once a nation of zombies has been created, the population must be kept docile and under control. This can be done through legislation and regulations, increasing police powers, and drugging the food and water supplies. But many commentators have written about how so many Americans become zombielike while sitting mesmerized before their TVs for more than eight hours a day. Between September 2007 and September 2008, the average household watched TV for more than 8 hours a day, a record high since the 1950s when TV viewer polls first began. In the third quarter of 2008, Americans watched more than 142 hours of TV a month, up 5 hours from the same period in 2007. What is most essential to control is that the zombies are unaware they are being controlled. This, of course, would require controlling the mass media. Could this be happening in the United States, home of the First Amendment, and with a proud heritage of a free press? MEDIA CONTROL AND FEARMONGERING
America's mass media is currently in the hands of only five major multinational corporations: AOL-Time Warner, the Walt Disney Company, Viacom, Vivendi Universal, and News Corporation. Media mogul Ted Turner once observed, "The media is too concentrated, too few people own too much. There's really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy." Not to mention Bertlesmann AG, which has become the largest English- language print publisher in the world and has roots in Nazi Germany. The face of the media has changed considerably since 1975, when cable TV served less than 15 percent of the viewing population and satellite TV and the Internet did not even exist as we know them today. More than thirty years later, less than 15 percent of American homes don't have either satellite or cable TV, and one-third of the population receives its news through the Internet. GOVERNMENT-DICTATED NEWS
Media reformist Robert McChesney agreed with Bogart, writing, "Professional journalism is now about currying close relations to the powerful so you have access to their news. When the powerful are entirely in agreement on an issue, for example, whether or not the U.S. has the right to invade another country (taken as a given by many people in power), the journalists don't ask questions. They reproduce the elite consensus, take it as a given. In fact, if a journalist were to question the right of the U.S. to invade a country, they would be regarded by the professional news community as un-professional. They would be seen as someone who was bringing their ideological agenda or axe to grind to the discussion. When a journalist dares to question the motives of those in power, they are framed as bringing their own personal political bias into news reporting. But when a journalist just reports and repeats what people in power say and doesn't try to weigh in with critical observations, they are regarded as professional, 'fair and balanced.'" Editors, particularly those in publicly held corporations whose executives are cautious about reactions on Wall Street, do not have to be ordered to kill stories or slant the coverage. They intuitively understand the views and interests of their bosses and act accordingly. This capacity to anticipate the owners' desires is why they are made editors. FEARMONGERING With their masters cracking the whip, the "watchdog" media have turned into lapdogs for their corporate (and political) owners, which in turn has allowed the government to manipulate the public through national fearmongering. One of the best examples of fearmongering came in early 2006, when President Bush—under fire for the unresolved wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of terrorist suspects, and unconstitutional spying on Americans—declared: "We cannot let the fact that America hasn't been attacked in four and a half years since September 11 lull us into the illusion that the threats to our nation have disappeared." Bush then went on to describe a thwarted terrorist attack on Los Angeles in 2002, revealing that the attack in California was planned by a man named Hambali, reportedly a key lieutenant of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Both Hambali and Mohammed were reportedly captured in 2003. According to Bush, al Qaeda leaders Hambali and Mohammed recruited Asian men who were supposed to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door of a commercial airliner and then crash the plane into the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles. Bush mistakenly referred to this building as "Liberty Tower," but was quickly corrected that its original name had been "Library Tower." Bush said the plot was foiled when a key Asian al Qaeda member was arrested. Bush declined to name the suspect or his nationality. Soon, this story filled the mass media airwaves as some stations aired scenes from the Hollywood alien invasion film Independence Day as graphic representation of the destruction of the U.S. Bank Tower. But even before Americans could let out their collective sigh of relief at being spared further carnage, serious questions arose over Bush's statement. Many thoughtfully wondered why Bush had not called attention to saving the Los Angeles building early in 2003, soon after the attacks were thwarted and the criminals behind the attacks were captured. If Bush had delivered this news in 2003, he might have helped calm or prevent the large and numerous antiwar demonstrations conducted prior to the invasion of Iraq. Public skepticism increased when Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told newsmen he knew nothing of the attempted attack and felt "blindsided" by Bush's announcement. Prior communication with the White House had been "nonexistent," despite the fact that the mayor had requested to meet with Bush at least two times over security issues. "I'm amazed that the president would make this [announcement] on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," Villaraigosa told newsmen. "I don't expect a call from the president—but somebody." Others were even less considerate when characterizing Bush's breaking news. Doug Thompson, a writer for the Internet's oldest political news site, Capitol Hill Blue, said he was contacted by members of the U.S. intelligence community who disputed Bush's claim. Thompson said he was able to confirm the credentials of at least four of the persons who contacted him. All of those who contacted him asked not to be identified for fear of reprisals. "The president has cheapened the entire intelligence community by dragging us into his fantasy world," Thompson quoted a longtime C A operative as saying. "He is basing this absurd claim [regarding the Los Angeles attack] on the same discredited informant who told us al Qaeda would attack selected financial institutions in New York and Washington." Suspiciously enough, during the heat of the presidential election in August 2004, the Bush White House tried to increase the terror alert level by claiming attacks were imminent on major financial institutions. This alert was later withdrawn after administration officials admitted it was based on old information from a discredited source. It has not always been the case that American leaders with a strong siege mentality broadcasted warnings of imminent attack to the public. In a prophetic testimony before joint hearings of the Senate Armed Services Appropriations and Intelligence committees in the spring of 2001, Colin Powell, then secretary of state, explained why Americans should not give up their freedoms in search of security. "If we adopted this hunkered-down attitude, behind our concrete and our barbed wire, the terrorists would have achieved a kind of victory," he declared. This type of reasoned rhetoric changed completely after constitutionally questionable laws and regulations were put into effect after the terrorist attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon later that year. Within days of the 9/11 attacks, President Bush declared a "war on terrorism." PATRIOT ACT SINCE 9/11 THE GOVERNMENT has used nationalism as cover for implementing measures to control the population. Secret evidence, closed trials, false imprisonment, warrantless searches, involuntary drugging, the seizing of private property—all seem like something from a 1930s totalitarian regime, but fear has pushed many Americans into a zombielike passiveness to authority. A shining example of fear-based legislation is a dreadful piece of legislation entitled the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, more commonly referred to as the PATRIOT Act. The name is reminiscent of Hitler's 1933 "Enabling Act" legislation passed hurriedly following the burning of Berlin's Reichstag (its Parliament building) in 1933. This law, which founded Hitler's Third Reich, was called "The Law to Remove the Distress of the People and State." Similarly, the PATRIOT Act was 342 pages long and made many changes to more than fifteen different U.S. statutes, most of them enacted in the wake of previous misuse of surveillance powers by the FBI and CIA. It was hurriedly signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, a little more than one month following the 9/11 attacks. According to some congressmen, many lawmakers had not even read the entire document when it was passed. The ACLU also reported that some members of Congress had less than one hour to read the extensive changes of law contained within the act. The speed with which this legislation was presented to Congress caused some observers to believe that it had long been prepared and simply needed some provocation to put it into effect. Civil libertarians felt those two facts alone should be cause for wholesale dismissals of the obliging members of Congress. Representative Ron Paul, who ran for president in 2008, confirmed rumors that the bill was not read by most members of the House prior to their vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote—at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." Paul added he objected to how opponents were stigmatized by the name alone. "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what was in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it— therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting." Provisions of the original PATRIOT Act that most concerned civil libertarians were the following:
After later reviewing the act further, Representative Ron Paul said, "The worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." This section of the PATRIOT Act, entitled "Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant," is commonly referred to as the "sneak-and-peek" provision. It allows authorities to search personal property without warning. Congressman Paul pointed out that the act's supporters were flawed in thinking that the government would act in a restrained and responsible manner. "I don't like the sneak- and-peek provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced...and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen." Since the ratification of the PATRIOT Act, many critics have argued that the surveillance portions are unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Award-winning investigative reporter Kelly O'Meara spent sixteen years working as a congressional staffer to four members of Congress prior to working as an investigative journalist. She holds a BS in political science from the University of Maryland and makes her home in Alexandria, Virginia. O'Meara wrote, "With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated." Such perversion of the Constitution was aggravated on March 4, 2010, with the introduction of a bill called the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. This legislation expanded the Bush-era term "enemy combatant" to "enemy belligerent," defined as any individual, including American citizens, suspected of any affiliation with terrorism or supporting "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." Such suspects, under this law, must be turned over to military authorities and can be detained without charge, denied the Miranda warning of self-incrimination and legal representation, and held for "the duration of the hostilities." Despite Obama's earlier voiced opposition to Bush's Military Commissions Act, he was expected to support this bill, which was introduced by Democratic senator Joe Lieberman (CFR) and Republican senator John McCain. Constitutional attorney and author of the New York Times bestseller HowWould a Patriot Act? Glenn Greenwald called the Enemy Belligerent Act "probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the horrendous habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act." LASER OR TASER Under statues within the PATRIOT Act, David Banach of Parsippany, New Jersey, was accused in 2005 of using a laser beam to temporarily blind the pilot and copilot of a jet plane passing over his house on December 29, 2004. Banach denied any evil intent and said he was simply using the laser to point out stars for his seven-year-old daughter. Though the airplane landed safely and without incident, and though the FBI found no terrorist connection and acknowledged Banach's actions were simply "foolhardy and negligent," Banach faced a twenty-five-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine. Banach was eventually released from jail after posting $100,000 bail. But then in early 2006, Banach was found guilty of violating a portion of the PATRIOT Act having to do with interfering with pilots of commercial aircraft. He was given a two-year probated jail sentence. This probation sentence may be understandable since it was learned that the government was testing a laser system in the same area as Banach when he was arrested. In early 2005, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced that the U.S. military would activate the ground- based lasers to warn off pilots whenever unauthorized or unresponsive aircraft entered restricted zones in the Northeast. During testing of this system, pilots began to report incidents of lasers being shone into their cockpits. Mineta's announcement came on January 12, 2005, the same day that technical testing of the laser warning system was completed. This means the U.S. government made the public believe that terrorists were testing laser beams to bring down aircraft when, in fact, it was the government testing lasers. Another energy device being widely used by the government is the Taser, an electroshock weapon that disrupts voluntary muscle control. Police too often use electric Tasers in situations that don't require it, even though some 129 people nationwide have died in connection to the device. The medical examiner in Tarrant County, Texas, Dr. Nizam Peerwani, told the media he believes that Tasers are safe. But following three deaths in Fort Worth, he said he would like to see more studies done on the Taser being used on people who are high on drugs, agitated, or suffering from heart problems. Peerwani said that in at least one case, the death of seventeen-year-old Kevin Omas, who died after being Tasered three times by police, he believes the use of the Taser was a contributory factor in the death. POLICE TACTICS AND FEMA
Beginning in 2008, public fears were further heightened when stories appeared on the Internet concerning stockpiles of cheap plastic sealable coffins discovered in the country. The stories were documented with photos. One such place, reportedly containing some half a million coffins, was in middle Georgia near the town of Madison, just east of Atlanta, home of the Centers for Disease Control. Then rumors spread about plans for roadblocks, mandatory vaccinations, and quarantine holding centers for those who resisted relocation. Apparently, some rumors were based on information about the changing role of law enforcement. Greg Evensen, a former Kansas state trooper. recalled, "Our nation's police forces prior to. Richard Nixon were centered on community policing. Most of their time was spent on looking for, identifying, and monitoring criminals, and responding to unusual or dangerous events that were beyond the control of ordinary folks. "As government began its sickening expansion, policing became a meaner and nastier job. It was made that way by badge-wearing thugs who didn't hesitate to do whatever they were told by the S.A.C. (Special Agent in Charge) of the FBI, BATF(E), U.S. Marshal's Office, right down to armed poultry inspectors—yes, they have them and they are really tough on criminal chickens. The 'us against them' mentality and the 'mission essential' attitude justified SWAT teams, 'dynamic entries,' and later use of Mace, Tasers, flashbang grenades, and 'routine' use of submachine guns—all in the name of 'taking down' the accused—no matter the charge.. Now we have become eaves-dropping, roadblock-setting, door-crashing, face- grinding, arm-breaking, pursuit-driven bastards that have sold their asses to the government masters, hell-bent on establishing the true reincarnation of the dreaded SS. That is no overstatement.. "There are significant numbers of officers at all levels that simply detest the forced training at FEMA centers, the requirements to stop Patriots and others simply because they 'look' dangerous, and are exercising free speech statements on their vehicles," Evensen added. Evensen referenced stories from other officers who turned whistleblowers and warned, "Have you been made aware of the massive roadblock plans to stop all travelers for a vaccine bracelet (stainless steel band with a micro chip on board) that will force you to take [a vaccine] shot? Refuse it? You will be placed on a prison bus and taken to a quarantine camp. What will you do when your children are not allowed into school without the shot? What will you do when you are not allowed into the workplace without the vaccine paperwork? Buy groceries? Go to the bank? Shop anywhere? Get on a plane, bus or train? Use the toilet in the mall? Nope. Police officers will become loathed, feared, despised and remembered for their 'official' duties." Certainly, most Americans, lulled by the corporate mass media, must assume Evensen's predictions are paranoid delusions. Yet these Americans should examine the evidence around them. Though many claim fearmongering is a tactic reserved only for the Bush administration, President Obama did nothing to stop the fearmongering following his election. In fact, in March 2009, he announced America's new regional strategy in the "Afpak [Afghanistan-Pakistan] theater." Yüklə 1,85 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|