Check out uncensored.co.nz and tell me are these guys for real or just a bunch of nut jobs??

Question

i recently purchased a copy of the latest edition of the magazine and it has me hooked im not a true believer but there is some good stuff in there.

Answer 1

These guy are real-also refer to                                          www.feedom force.org- Alex Jones may seem?????? but if you do yourself one favour in life -download Alex Jones -'The End of The Republic --AND WATCH ALL 3HRS--THENYOU WILL HAVE NO QUALMS OF REALITY                                                               Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release  1st of July 2010
Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: http://www.cecaust.com.au
  


Financial emergency pushes Germans to Glass-Steagall; LaRouche says two weeks to act!
As the late June/early July financial blowout predicted by LaRouche started to erupt this week, Germany, the country that suffered the last great hyperinflationary blowout in 1923, took concrete steps towards its own Glass-Steagall reorganisation.

The Angela Merkel-led coalition government in Germany has drafted a bank-restructuring bill premised on the core principle of Franklin Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall law: that the government has the responsibility to salvage necessary commercial banking functions, but does not accept responsibility for bailing out investment banking and speculation.

On 29th June, German media reported that the 111-page draft bill would empower the government to intervene as follows: if a bank gets in trouble, whose collapse could set off a chain reaction of bankruptcies throughout the banking system, the government bank rescue fund, SoFFin (Special Fund for Financial Stability), would step in and divide up the bank, separating off the commercial banking part from the rest. The commercial functions would either be sold to a solvent private interest, or, if none were found, would be put under state control and protected. The rest of the rotten parts of the bank could then be shut down through an insolvency procedure. The law is designed, German media report, to prevent the State from having to use taxpayer money in the future to bail out bankrupt banks.

The government wants the measure adopted as law before the summer recess.

Germany’s leading champion of a global return to Glass-Steagall principles in banking, Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität (BüSo) party chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche, characterised the bill as a giant step in the right direction, if the intention is actually implemented. The urgency is obvious, she added. The Spanish bank, BBVA, spent Tuesday selling shares like crazy, because, as of 30th June, they believe they will be unable to raise a penny. The German government will not bail out the Spanish banking system! French leaders may talk of “living with” inflation, but Germany cannot. The hyperinflation of 1923 is not forgotten.

Just hours before the news of Germany’s move became public, Lyndon LaRouche warned a 29th June election campaign meeting in Massachusetts, “It happens we’ve reached a point, where, if things continue exactly as they are now, you could say that in about two weeks, the whole U.S. system will collapse, and set off a chain-reaction in Europe, as well. We’re faced with the prospect of the worst depression in modern history, right now. It’s not just in the United States: It’s global. China, other parts of Asia, are not in so serious a situation, now. But, once Europe collapses, and the United States, and this includes South America, too, then the whole world will go down in a chain-reaction collapse.

“We still have the opportunity to deal with this problem … So therefore, we have to get up on our high horse, and defy the current President of the United States, who is making a fool of us—by taking the action to restore a Glass-Steagall reform of the U.S. system. If we do that, now, we can save the United States. If we do not do that, and we have about two weeks, as of now—it could change, of course; developments could change that—but as of now, it is safe to estimate that about two weeks brings us toward the limit of a chain-reaction collapse, throughout the United States, one which will also go off in Europe. And then, if Europe and the United States go down, at that point, then Asia will also go down, and other parts of the world.”

Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood today greeted the news of Germany’s move to Glass-Steagall, and called for the Gillard government to immediately follow:

“Australia’s banks have no Glass-Steagall restrictions, so all of our deposits are held by the same banks exposed to $14 trillion in dangerous derivatives speculation,” he said.

“The government can’t honour its guarantee on our deposits without bankrupting itself, unless it first forces the deposit banks to separate from the derivatives gamblers.

“PM Gillard lied on 24th November, 2008 when she said, ‘No-one twelve months ago was talking about a global financial crisis’, because she knew the CEC and LaRouche were talking about nothing but.

“If she doesn’t act to protect Australians with Glass-Steagall measures, she won’t be able to hide behind those kinds of lies when the system blows out,” Mr Isherwood warned.

To find out about the massive fight to introduce Glass-Steagall regulations across the globe, click here.

To find out more about Glass-Steagall regulations, click here for a free New Citizen and DVD.

To buy a copy of What Australia Must Do to Survive the Depression, click here.

Click here to join the CEC as a member.


Click here to refer others to receive regular email updates from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Enclosed is an extract one of many that can be found on www.Freedom Force.org I hope you will take the time to read --fairly easy reading and  more information can be found on www.realityzone.com. A similar movement which focuses on loss of Freedom in Australia and the world - and the great Carbon Swindle--Citizen Electorial Council of Australia www.cecaust.com.au --- Primary instuted by Laurouche -ex Presidential nominee in America --                               - very informed and interesting reading --I have DVD's which can send if you wish-Thirteen Predictions for the War on Terrorism

Astounding Accuracy is the result of knowing the collectivist agenda.

© 2001 – 2009 by G. Edward Griffin

All text with numbers is exactly as written on 2001 September 14.

Epilogues were last updated on 2009 June 2.

It is always dangerous to make predictions – especially if they are put into print. If

they prove to be wrong, they can haunt you for the rest of your life. Nevertheless, here are

thirteen predictions I published three days after the 9/11 terrorist attack against the World

Trade Center and the Pentagon. I said then that I fervently hoped they would be wrong.

Nevertheless, some of my friends thought I had lost my mind. My detractors said I was

unpatriotic and should be locked up as a sympathizer of terrorism. Unfortunately, all of these

predictions have come to pass. Here they are exactly as written on September 14, 2001.

*****

1. The first prediction is that we will not be given genuine options regarding the war

on terrorism. We will have only two choices, both of which are disastrous. It will be similar

to the Vietnam War in which Americans were expected to be either hawks or doves. Either

they supported the no-win war or they opposed it. They were not given the option of victory.

Their choice was between pulling out of the war and turning the country over to the Vietcong

quickly – or doggedly staying in the war and turning the country over to the Vietcong slowly

– which is the way it turned out. Likewise, in the war on terrorism, we will be asked simply

to choose sides. Either we are for freedom or for terrorism. The necessity or wisdom of US

interventionism will not be allowed as a topic for public debate.

Epilogue: On October 8, 2001, President Bush announced the beginning of military

strikes against Afghanistan and said: “Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle

is broader. Every Nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral

ground.”1 On the day that Congress approved the first $20 billion to finance the war

on terrorism, Senator Hillary Clinton said that the government should make it clear

“to every nation in the world, you’re either with us or you’re not, and there will be

consequences.”2 Even so-called conservative spokesmen have succumbed to the party

line. On October 31, The Young America’s Foundation based in Hendon, Virginia –

an organization that promotes conservative issues on the nation’s college campuses –

found it alarming that some professors were questioning the wisdom of US

interventionist policy. One professor was quoted as saying such a horrible thing as

“We need to think about the resentment all over the world felt by people who have

been victims of American military action.” Another professor is quoted as saying

1 “In this conflict, there is no neutral ground,” USA Today, Oct. 8, 2001, p. 5A.

2 “Congress ready to pay the price to hit culprits,” by William M. Welch and Kathy Kiely, USA Today, Sept. 13, 2001, p.

5A.

2

“You can’t plant hatred and not expect to reap hatred.” Such statements are not

acceptable to the Young America’s Foundation, which views them as offensive and

harmful to the war effort.1

2. Most American political leaders are now committed to world government, so the

second prediction is that they will crow about how America will not tolerate terrorism, but

they will not act as Americans. Instead, they will act as internationalists. They will turn to

the UN to lead a global war against terrorism. They will seek to expand the capacity of

NATO and UN military forces. Although American troops will provide the backbone of

military action, they ultimately will operate under UN authority.

Epilogue: On March 11, 2002, President Bush gave an address marking the

passage of six months since the terrorist attack of September 11. He said with

satisfaction: “A mighty coalition of civilized nations is now defending our common

security…. More than half the forces now assisting the heroic Afghan fighters, or

providing security in Kabul, are from countries other than the United States.”

In the past, when speaking of American involvement in military conflict, it has

been customary for the President to conclude his remarks by asking for Divine

blessing upon the United States and its fighting forces. In this case, however, Mr.

Bush ended his speech with: “May God bless our coalition.”

When the US invaded Iraq, supposedly to prevent Hussein from using weapons

of mass destruction, countries at the UN that were aligned with the Leninist camp did

not support the action, but that made no difference to the globalist Bush

Administration staffed almost entirely by members of the CFR. They did not seek

Congressional approval to declare war, as is required by the US Constitution. Instead,

they said they were acting under authority of a United Nations resolution. In other

words, they were serving the UN, not the US

In 2004, as the new Iraqi government was being hand picked by the UN, the

Bush Administration asked Congress to provide funding for a permanent U.N army of

so-called “peacekeepers.” Called the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), the

proposal calls for Americans to pay $600 million for recruiting and training 75,000

soldiers primarily from Third World countries.

3. The third prediction is that the drive for national disarmament will be intensified.

This will not lead to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, but merely to the

transfer of those weapons to UN control. It will be popularized as a means of getting nuclear

and bio-chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The internationalists promoting this

move will not seem to care that many of the world’s most notorious terrorists now hold seats

of power at the UN and that the worst of them will actually control these weapons.

Epilogue: On October 20, 2001, former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev,

announced that nuclear and chemical disarmament should become a top priority in the

war on terrorism.2 On November 13, 2001, US President Bush and Russian President

Putin announced that, as a means of fighting global terrorism, they agreed to cut their

1 “Professors blame US for terrorism,” by Jon Daugherty, WorldNetDaily.com, Article_ID=25137, Oct. 1, 2001.

2 “Gorbachev: Anti-Terror Coalition Should Become Coalition for New World Order,” Associated Press, October 20,

2001, FOXNews.com.

3

nuclear arsenals by two-thirds.1 These reductions will be monitored by the UN. Russia

has broken every similar agreement in the past, so there is no reason to expect that

pattern to change. It must be remembered that Putin is a former high-ranking officer

of the Soviet KGB, which created most of the international terrorist organizations.

4. The fourth prediction is that, if any terrorists are captured, they will be brought

before the UN World Court and tried as international criminals. This will create popular

support for the Court and will go a long way toward legitimizing it as the ultimate high

tribunal. The public will not realize the fateful precedent that is being established – a

precedent that will eventually be used to justify bringing citizens of any country to trial

based on charges made by their adversaries in other countries. Anyone who seriously

opposes the New World Order could then be transported to The Hague in The Netherlands

and face charges of polluting the planet or committing hate crimes or participating in social

genocide or supporting terrorism.

Epilogue: On November 14, 2001, President Bush announced that terrorists are to be

tried by US military courts. However, at the time of the attack on September 11, the

treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) had not yet been ratified by

enough nations to fully empower it. It was still thirteen short of the sixty nations that

the UN claims are required. The rate of new ratifications was accelerated after

September 11, and the required number was reached within a few months. The ICC

came into existence in 2002, and the stage was finally set for the fulfillment of this

prediction.

In the February-March issue of Policy Review, CFR members Abraham Soafer and

Paul Williams explained that, once President Bush’s military tribunals are established,

the next step “could be accomplished through a UN Security Council Resolution” to

expand the jurisdiction of the UN court to include terrorism. The problem, however,

was that the participating nations could not agree on a definition of terrorism, which is

understandable in light of the fact that any common-sense definition would include

many of the UN leaders themselves.

In spite of the fact that the United States had previously signed the ICC treaty, the

Bush Administration announced on May 6, 2002, that it had no legal obligation to

honor it. The reason stated was, not that the treaty endangered the rights of American

citizens and not that Americans might be hauled into foreign courts and judged by

magistrates who are hostile to American traditions, but because the UN Security

Council did not have sufficient supervisory authority in the process. In making the

announcement, Undersecretary-of-State Marc Grossman intimated that, if this

technicality can be worked out, the US would support it.

However, on June 19, 2002, the Bush Administration proposed a UN Security

Council resolution stating that its real objection to the ICC was that political leaders

and soldiers from the United States and other countries carrying out so-called peacekeeping

operations around the world might be brought to trial for terrorism or war

crimes as a result of those military actions. That is a valid concern, but there is an

equally valid concern that ordinary citizens might also be become targets of criminal

1 “US, Russia to sharply cut arsenals,” by Laurence McQuillan, USA Today, Nov. 14, 2001, p. 1A.

4

charges by governments that are hostile to free expression of opinion or political

activities they consider to be against their best interest. However, the Administration

expressed no concern about the rights of ordinary citizens. The sole concern was for

government officials and the soldiers who carry out their orders.

In early July of 2002, the Bush Administration vetoed an extension of the UN military

mission to Bosnia because it was concerned that US personnel there might be hauled

before the ICC on war-crime charges. It promised to reverse its vote if the US were

granted immunity from such action. On July 11, the Administration accepted a

compromise offer in which immunity was extended for a period of twelve months.

The important point is that, in spite of the widespread play in the media that the US

was opposing the ICC, the reality is that it was endorsing the ICC in principle while

only seeking to escape its authority for a little while longer. 1 In June of 2003, The UN

Security Council extended the exemption for another twelve months, but not without

strong opposition from other nations. It was clear that these extensions could not be

counted on indefinitely. Commenting on the event, Brigham Young law professor,

Richard Wilkins, warned that the Court “is without sufficient checks and balances. It

has the most powerful prosecutor ever with the vaguest criminal statute passed

anywhere. The I.C.C. leaves open to total discretion of the prosecutor and the court

the determining of what the ‘crimes’ mean.”2

On June 23, 2004, the UN Security Council, driven by the news of US soldiers

abusing Iraqi prisoners, refused to approve another twelve-month extension of the

exemption for US personnel, and the Bush Administration declined to pursue the

issue further. Technically, American soldiers in Iraq were still exempt from ICC

prosecution because the US was not yet a member of the tribunal, and the Court’s

jurisdiction is currently excluded from countries that prosecute crimes by their own

military.3 Nevertheless, the US was nudged another step closer to being subject to the

world court, and there can be no doubt about the ultimate goal.

The play is not yet over. The CFR team that sets US policy is eager to expand the

authority of the UN, and that requires empowerment of the ICC. The possibility of

using captured terrorists as a means to that end must be very tempting to them –

provided only that they, themselves, are exempt. We shall see.

5. The fifth prediction is that the FBI will be criticized for failing to detect an attack as

extensive and well coordinated as this. In reply, we will be told that the FBI was hampered

by lack of funding, low manpower, and too little authority. Naturally, that will be followed

by an increase in funding, additional manpower, and greatly expanded authority.

Epilogue: Following the September 11 attack, there was hardly a day that didn’t carry

news about how the Justice Department and the FBI had failed because of inadequate

funding, manpower, and authority. On February 27, 2002, Attorney General John

Ashcroft testified before Congress and formally requested nearly $2 billion in

1 “International Criminal Court Sellout,” by William Norman Grigg,” The New American, Aus., 12, 2002, p. 29.

2 “US safe from global court – for now,” by Jon Dougherty, WorldNetDaily, June 7, 2003,

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33049.

3 “U.S. Drops Plan to Exempt G.I.s from U.N. Court,” by Warren Hoge, New York Times, June 24, 2004.

5

additional funding to expand FBI and other internal-security manpower. As for

expanded authority, see item seven, below.

In every session of Congress since 9/11, the FBI budget has been expanded. This has

been justified in the name of fighting terrorism, but most of the money and manpower

has been used to monitor American citizens who, increasingly, are being labeled

“potential” or “latent” terrorists because they have become angered over the growth of

homeland totalitarianism. In 2009, the FBI burst beyond its traditional national

jurisdiction and launched an international mission called “global justice” in which

FBI agents are authorized to interrogate suspects and prisoners held in other countries,

a role that previously had been the sole prerogative of the CIA.1

6. The sixth prediction is that, eventually, it will be discovered that the FBI and other

intelligence agencies had prior warning and, possibly, specific knowledge of Tuesday’s

attack; yet they did nothing to prevent it or to warn the victims. This will be a repeat of what

happened at the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City six years

previously.

Epilogue: The evidence of prior knowledge is now so extensive that it fills en entire

chapter entitled The War on Terrorism, which is available at the Freedom Force web

site, www.freedom-force.org. It appears in the Issues section as Part 4 of The Future

Is Calling.

7. The seventh prediction is that much of the war on terrorism will be waged against

Americans inside their own country. New laws, international treaties, and executive orders

will severely restrict travel, speech, privacy, and the possession of firearms. Americans have

consistently rejected these measures in the past, but there will be much less opposition when

they are presented in the name of fighting terrorism. Government agencies will demand to

know everything about us from our school records, our psychological profiles, our buying

habits, our political views, our medical histories, our religious beliefs, the balances in our

savings accounts, our social patterns, a list of our friends – everything. Any opposition to

these measures will be branded as disruptive of national unity and helpful to terrorism. This

will not be unique to America. The same program will be carried out in every nation in what

is left of the free world.

Epilogue: On October 30, 2001, the Center for Disease Control released what it

called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) and sent copies to

legislators in all fifty states. The legislators immediately began to incorporate its

provisions into their state laws. Under the banner of protecting Americans from the

effect of bio-terrorism, the original draft authorized governors to declare a state of

emergency without the approval of their legislatures. Under this emergency, the state

can confiscate personal property, including real estate, food, clothing, means of

transportation, and communications. It can control the distribution of food, clothing,

fuel, firearms, and most other commodities. It can also compel citizens to submit to

testing for disease. If a disease is identified or even suspected, or if a person refuses to

undergo testing, he can be quarantined in a government facility where, presumably, he

will be subject to compulsory treatment of whatever kind decreed by the state. The

1 “FBI planning a bigger role in terrorism fight,” by Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2009.

6

model act declares that state legislatures cannot even challenge their governors in any

of this for at least two months after the plan has been executed.

Also in October 2001, Congress adopted so-called “anti-terrorism” legislation

that was a classic example of “Doublespeak” right out of Orwell’s 1984. In Orwell’s

world, “war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.” In our world,

Congress passed a bill to expand the federal government into many areas forbidden by

the Constitution and unblinkingly called it the USA Patriot Act. The full title is the

“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to

Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” It could not have been named better

by Orwell, himself. In addition to putting the government in charge of airport security,

it requires private citizens to inform on each other. Anyone engaged in a trade or

business is now required to file a report with the government if any customer spends

$10,000 or more in cash. That is just the beginning. The bill easily can be amended in

the future to require a report of any “suspicious” or “anti-government” activity.1

In this regard, Canada appears to have taken the lead. On November 8, 2001,

the Canadian parliament passed a bill allegedly to control money laundering related to

terrorism. It was similar to a law that existed in n**i Germany requiring all lawyers to

inform the government of suspicious anti-government activity on the part of their

clients. The Canadian law goes much further. Instead of involving only lawyers, it

requires bankers, realtors, investors, and other financial agents to report whenever

they suspect a client may be involved in money laundering. Money laundering is

defined by most governments today as any financial transaction that is not reported to

the tax collector, including cash sales, tips, and barter. With that definition, literally

everyone can be suspected of money laundering. If people fail to inform on each

other, they are subject to a fine of $2-million and a five-year jail sentence.2

On November 24, it was revealed that the Canadian National Defense Act was

amended in response to the terrorist attack against the US and now gives the Canadian

government power to close off any geographical area, to forcibly remove people from

their homes inside that area, and be exempt from any obligation to compensate them

for their loss. The justification for doing so need not be for national security. The

government can act in the name of furthering “international relations.” That means, of

course, that there are no definable limits on this power.3

By January, 2002 – back in the United States – Congress was on a fast track

rubber-stamping the following proposals emanating from CFR social engineers: (1)

conversion of the states’ National Guard units into a federal police force; (2)

establishing federal control over local law enforcement and crisis-response agencies;

(3) extending federal authority over medical services; (4) authorizing federal agencies

to use phone taps, open postal mail, and monitor email – without a warrant or even

probable cause; and (5) requiring all citizens to obtain a national ID card or

1 “New Federal Patriot Act Turns Retailers into Spies against Customers,” by Scott Bernard Nelson, The Boston Globe,

www.bcentral.com, Nov. 20, 2001.

2 Ottawa approach akin to n***s, judge charges,” National Post, Nov. 9, 2001, p. A4.

3 “Anti-terror law gives military too much power: experts,” by Ian Jack, National Post, www.nationalpost.com, Nov. 24,

2001.

7

nationalized driver’s license tied into a federal and international data bank. Many of

these measures were proposed long before September 11. Their origin is a series of

reports issued by a group created in 1998 called The United States Commission on

National Security/21st Century – usually referred to as the Hart-Rudman Commission

because its co-chairmen were former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman.

It appeared to be a government study group but, in fact, it was a front for the

Council on Foreign Relations. The Commission was sponsored by Congressman

Newt Gingrich, a member of the CFR. Both Hart and Rudman were members of the

CFR. The Commission based its findings on the work of futurist author, Alvin

Toffler, a member of the CFR. Executive Director Charles Boyde and Study Group

Director, Lynn Davis, were members of the CFR. Commissioners Lee Hamilton and

James Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense) were members of the CFR. One of

the better-known commissioners was Leslie Gelb, who was president of the CFR.

Altogether, twelve of the twenty-nine study-group members were from the CFR and

virtually all of the key positions were in their hands. The first report released by the

Commission, entitled New World Coming, said: “States, terrorists, and other

disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and mass disruption, and

some will use them. Americans are likely to die on American soil, possibly in large

numbers.” The report looked forward hopefully to a time when “the United Nations is

a chief instrument in solving transnational issues” and “assumes a central role in

conflict prevention and resolution.” A subsequent report, entitled Road Map for

National Security, laid out plans for creating a Homeland Security agency, converting

the National Guard into a federal police force, and most of the other measures

previously reviewed. The rush toward a national and international police state – in the

name of fighting terrorism – has been orchestrated by members of the CFR who,

incidentally, intend to manage it.

The FBI now is free to place wiretaps on telephones without a court order. On

November 21, 2001, the FBI announced its new eavesdropping operation called

“Magic Lantern” that allows it to secretly plant a program into anyone’s computer so

that every stroke made on the keyboard will be reported back. That means the

government now can capture a record of everything you create on your computer,

including private passwords, encrypted files, and even deleted files.1

The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 brought all intelligence agencies

under the control of a federal Director of National Intelligence, established national

standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses, initiated biometric screening

systems for airports, and extended the FBI’s authority to wiretap citizens' phones even

if they are not suspected of being connected with a terrorist group, such people as

dissidents and so-called lone wolfs.

While the government clamors to prevent citizens from having any secrets

whatsoever, it moves in the opposite direction for itself. President Bush issued

Executive Order 13223 that forbids public access to presidential papers, even those

from previous administrations. The only researchers who now have access to these

sources of historical data are those who are deemed to have a “need to know” – which

1 “FBI develops ‘Trojan horse’ software for better eavesdropping,” by Ted Bridis, AP, Sacramento Bee,

www.sacbee.com, Nov. 21, 2001.

8

means only those who support the CFR spin on important issues. Even Congress is

now outside the “need-to-know” category. White House briefings to Congressional

leaders on military operations in the Middle East have been greatly curtailed and now

contain little more than what is given to the press. In typical Orwellian fashion, we are

told that, if America’s elected representatives were to know what the President is

doing as Commander-in-Chief, it would be a threat to national security.

If Congress is no longer entitled to know what the Executive branch of

government is doing, it is certain that mere citizens will have even less access to

information. Government agencies have been instructed by President Bush to reject

public requests for documents under the Freedom of Information Act, and Justice

Department lawyers have been assigned to defend those rejections. The excuse, of

course, is that this action is necessary for national security against terrorism.

During a press conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, President

Bush was asked why the newly appointed Director of Homeland Security, Tom

Ridge, had refused to testify before a bipartisan group of Congress. The President’s

reply clearly revealed the new face of American government. It is no longer

comprised of three branches, each to check and balance the power of the others. It is a

throwback to the Old World concept of supreme power in the hands of one man who

rules from the top. The purpose of Congress now is primarily to give advice to the

President – which he is free to ignore – and to authorize funding for his programs.

The President said: “He doesn’t have to testify. He’s part of my staff. And that’s part

of the prerogative of the executive branch of government, and we hold that very

dear…. We consult with Congress all the time. I’ve had meaningful breakfasts with

the leadership in the House and the Senate. I break bread with both Republicans and

Democrats right back here in the Oval Office and have a good, honest discussion

about plans, objectives, what’s taking place, what’s not taking place…. We

understand the role of Congress. We must justify budgets to Congress…. [But] I’m

not going to let Congress erode the power of the executive branch.”

In mid-November, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order authorizing

terrorists to be tried in secret military tribunals without any of the due-process legal

protections afforded in civilian courts. At the end of World War II, n**i war criminals

were tried in public, but now, anyone deemed to be a terrorist can be tried in secret,

even when the death penalty is involved.

Who will be classified as terrorists? The disturbing answer to that question was

given by Congressman Ron Paul as he addressed the House of Representatives on

November 29, 2001:

Almost all of the new laws focus on Americans citizens rather than

potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of “terrorism,” for

federal criminal purposes, has been greatly expanded. A person could now be

considered a terrorist by belonging to a pro-constitutional group, a citizen

militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests against the government

could place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal surveillance.1

1 “Keep Your Eye on the Target,” by the Honorable Ron Paul, Congressional Record, Nov. 29, 2001.

(www.house.gov/congrec2001/cr112901.htm.)

9

By the end of November 2001, approximately 1,200 people had been arrested

as terrorist suspects or as sources of information regarding terrorism. Formal charges

were not brought against them. They were not allowed to have legal representation.

They were not brought before a judge or given a hearing or trial. They were simply

arrested and imprisoned without any Constitutional authority to do so. Furthermore,

no one outside of government even knows who they are. Their names have been kept

secret. This, allegedly, was to protect their privacy. Incredible! These people were

thrown into prison and denied due process of law; yet we are expected to believe that

the government is concerned about their privacy?

All of these encroachments against freedom have been high-agenda items

among CFR-controlled government agencies for many years – long before September

11. Most of them were originally promoted as instruments for punishing tax evasion

or controlling political unrest. No one seriously believes that these measures would

have prevented the September attack. The war on terrorism has merely been an excuse

to put them into effect.

On February 27, 2002, the Federal Trade Commission ordered US cell-phone

companies to adopt technology enabling government agencies to track the location of

all phones. Since most customers carry their phones with them, this allows the

government to know their exact location at all times. The official explanation was that

this will help locate victims of crime who make emergency 911 calls and also locate

stranded drivers who don’t know where they are. The companies announced they

would be 95% compliant by the year 2005.

8. The eighth prediction is that those who speak out against these measures will be

branded as right-wing extremists, anti-government kooks, or paranoid militiamen. The object

will be to isolate all dissidents from the mainstream and frighten everyone else into

remaining silent. It is always possible to find a few genuine crackpots; and, even though they

will constitute less than one percent of the movement, they will be the ones selected by the

media to represent the dissident viewpoint. A little bit of garbage can stink up the whole

basket. In spite of that, responsible dissenters will still be heard. If they begin to attract a

following, they will be accused of hindering the war effort, committing hate crimes,

terrorism, tax evasion, investment fraud, credit-card fraud, child molestation, illegal

possession of firearms, drug trafficking, money laundering, or anything else that will

demonize them in the public mind. The mass media will uncritically report these charges,

and the public will assume they are true. There is nothing quite so dramatic as watching

someone on the evening news being thrown against the wall by a SWAT team and hauled off

in handcuffs. TV viewers will assume that, surely, he must be guilty of something. His

neighbors will shake their heads and say “… and he seemed like such a nice person.”

Epilogue: It was the notorious n**i, Hermann Goering, who explained the

strategy this way: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.

That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the

pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same

in any country.”1

1 G.M. Gilbert, Nuremberg Diaries (New York: Farrar, Straus and Co., 1947), pp. 278, 279.

10

Indeed it does. On December 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft spoke

to the Senate Judiciary Committee and said: “To those who scare peace-loving people

with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists – for

they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to

America’s enemies.”1

9. One of the few remaining obstacles to the New World Order is the Internet,

because it allows the public to bypass the mass media and have access to unfiltered

information and opinion. Therefore, the ninth prediction is that laws will be enacted to

restrict the use of the Internet. Child pornography has long been the rallying cry to justify

government control. Now, the specter of terrorism and money laundering will be added to

the list. The real object will be to eliminate the voices of dissent.

Epilogue: The Public Safety and Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2001 offers a

long list of valid concerns about genuine Internet crimes and then proposes vast

power to the federal government to access private email messages without even

having to show probable cause. All that would be required is to claim that the action

is for the purpose of public safety or national security, and this could be done by any

government agency, not just law enforcement. It is now increasingly common for

Internet Service Providers to terminate the service of customers who are strong critics

of government policy, apparently under the assumption that they are potential

terrorists. At present, such terminations typically appear as a sudden breakdown in

service that, for some mysterious reason, cannot be restored by technicians. Most ISPs

are not willing to reject the requests of government agencies, especially when the

claim is being made that the action is in the interest of national security.

10. The tenth prediction is that the war on terrorism will be dragged out over many

years or decades. Like the war on drugs after which it is patterned, there will be no victory.

That is because both of these wars are designed, not to be won, but to be waged. Their

function is to sensitize the population with fear and indignation, to provide credible

justification for the expansion of government power and the consolidation of that power into

the UN.

Epilogue: On October 21, 2001, General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the US Joint

Chiefs of Staff, said: “The fact that it could last several years, or many years, or

maybe our lifetimes would not surprise me.” Shortly after that, Secretary of Defense

Donald Rumsfeld wrote an editorial appearing in the New York Times in which he

said: “Forget about ‘exit strategies’; we’re looking at a sustained engagement that

carries no deadlines.” On March 13, 2002, President Bush emphasized this theme

again when he told reporters at a White House press conference: “This is going to be a

long struggle. I keep saying that. I don’t know whether you all believe me or not. But

time will show you that it’s going to take a long time to achieve this objective.”

11. The eleventh prediction is that it will take a long time to locate Osama bin Laden.

A TV reporter can casually interview him at his mountain stronghold, but the US military

and CIA – with legions of spies and Delta forces and high-tech orbiting satellites – they

1 “Justice defends Ashcroft’s Congressional testimony, CNN, Dec. 7, 2001,

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/07/inv.ashcroft.testimony.

11

cannot find him. Why not? Because they do not want to find him. His image as a mastermind

terrorist is necessary as a focus for American anger and patriotic fervor. If we are to wage

war, there must be someone to personify the enemy. Bin Laden is useful in that role. Of

course, if his continued evasion becomes too embarrassing, he will be killed in military

action or captured – if he doesn’t take his own life first. Either way, that will not put the

matter to rest, because bin Laden is not the cause of terrorism. He is not even the leader of

terrorism. He is the icon of terrorism. If he were to be eliminated, someone else would only

have to be found to take his place. So it is best to give each of them as much longevity as

possible. That is why terrorists like Arafat, Hussein, Qadhafi and Khomeini, not only are

allowed to remain in power, but receive funding and military aid from the US government.

They are the best enemies money can buy.

If that sounds far-fetched, consider the words of Fareed Zakaria, Managing Editor of

Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. (The goal of the

CFR is the creation of world government, and the great majority of US foreign-policy

planners – from the President on down – belong to it.) In the September 16, 1996, issue of

Newsweek magazine, Zakaria said:

If Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would have to invent him. He is the

linchpin of American policy in the Mideast…. If not for Saddam, would the Saudi

royal family, terrified of being seen as an American protectorate (which in a sense it

is), allow American troops on their soil? Would Kuwait house more than 30,000

pieces of American combat hardware, kept in readiness should the need arise? Would

the king of Jordan, the political weather vane of the region, allow the Marines to

conduct exercises within his borders?… The end of Saddam Hussein would be the

end of the anti-Saddam coalition. Nothing destroys an alliance like the disappearance

of the enemy.1

Epilogue: On November 15, 2001, USA Today reported: “Several hundred

Army commandos have been posted at road blocks outside Kandahar to help prevent

Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters from escaping. The US soldiers are interviewing

captured Taliban commanders and setting up surveillance gear, such as radar, heat

detectors and cameras. … Teams of two to 12 men are searching abandoned caves,

tunnels and buildings for maps, documents or computer disks that could lead to bin

Laden, officials said. From the skies, pilots are using heat detectors to locate warm

bodies in cold Afghan caves. CIA agents are using cash to bribe sources for

information about bin Laden’s whereabouts, officials said.”2

On November 26, the first strong signal was given from the White House that,

eventually, bin Laden might be replaced by Saddam Hussein as the icon of terrorism.

“Saddam is evil,” said President Bush, and he hinted that, after the conquest of

Afghanistan, the war on terrorism may be carried to Iraq.3 Meanwhile, bin Laden

remains the preferred focus for hate.

1 “If he didn’t exist, we would have to invent him,” by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, Sept. 16, 1996, p. 43.

2 “Bin Laden hunt escalates as US aid workers freed,” by Barbara Slavin, Jonathan Weisman and Jack Kelley, USA

Today, Nov. 15, 2001, p. 1A.

3 “Bush turns America’s fury towards Saddam,” by Stephen Robinson, News Telegraph, http://news.telegraph.co.uk,

Nov. 26, 2001.

12

On December 19, 2001, USA Today reported: “One defense official claimed a

bin Laden escape could benefit the war on terrorism because popular support for

continued military action in other regions would remain strong.”1 Please re-read that

statement.

To justify the US attack on Iraq, Hussein was essential as a hated enemy icon.

After the occupation, however, he no longer served that function, so when he was

discovered cowering in a hole, there was no reason not to take him into custody. Bin

Ladin, however, is another matter. Even though his name has faded from the daily

news, he still is remembered as the symbol of the terrorist attack on 9-11. A rumor

was circulated in the Spring of 2004 that he already had been captured and hidden

away by US forces pending a spectacular announcement to be timed with the

November elections. That, of course, would be a big boost for the Bush campaign and

conceivably could get him re-elected in spite of voter dissatisfaction over the Iraqi

occupation. It will be interesting to see if this rumor proves to be true.

12. The twelfth prediction is that, when the Taliban is toppled in Afghanistan, a new

government will be established by the UN. Like Kosovo before it, a so-called UN

“peacekeeping” military force will remain behind, and the country will not be independent.

There will be talk about how it will represent the Afghan people, but it will serve the agendas

of the internationalists who will create it. The sad country will become just another pin on

the map showing the location of yet one more UN province.

Epilogue: Even before the Taliban had been toppled in Afghanistan, the

wheels were set in motion for a coalition government to be organized under UN

supervision. On November 28, on the first day of the UN-sponsored negotiations to

that end, representatives of the Northern Alliance agreed to most elements of the UN

plan. Even at that early date, UN spokesmen announced that they intended to install a

“temporary” multi-national military force, under its control, after the fighting is over.2

After nine days of negotiations, representatives of the various Afghan factions agreed

to the UN blueprint. The agreement specifically specified a multinational

“peacekeeping” force to be stationed in Kabul and provided for its future expansion

into the rest of the country.3

On December 19, it was learned that a dozen countries were preparing to

contribute military forces to a UN “peacekeeping” force in Afghanistan.4

On January 11, 2002, the peacekeeping force, under the lead of British troops,

was busy recruiting and training an army made up predominantly of Afghans.

Funding, supply, and command were under tight UN control.5

On January 28, 2002, the new Afghan leader Hamid Karzai, who was brought13

multinational military force, not just to remain in Kabul, but to expand throughout all

of Afghanistan.1 Two days later, he addressed the UN Security Council and, once

again, called for UN military forces.2

After the US occupation of Iraq, the pattern was exactly the same in that

country. In June of 2004, when the US turned over power to an alleged independent

government, it was UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi who appointed its Prime

Minister, its chairman of the National Congress, its two deputy presidents, and all of

its thirty-three cabinet members.

On November 8, 2005, the UN Security Council voted to extend the US-led

military occupation of Iraq another year beyond its previously announced withdrawal

date.

13. The thirteenth prediction is that, while all this is going on, US politicians will

continue waving the American flag and giving lip service to traditional American sentiments

in order to placate their constituency who must never be allowed to know they are being

delivered into slavery.

Yes, actions have consequences, and the long-range consequences of this act of

terrorism are even more devastating than the loss of life and property that has been the focus

of the media so far. Behold the Grand Deception: The action is in the reaction. The war on

terrorism is a war on freedom.

1 “Bush Rejects US Peacekeepers,” by George Gedda, Associated Press, Yahoo News, Jan. 28, 2002,

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20020128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_afgh…

2 “Afghan Leader Asks UN for Bigger Security Force,” by Irwin Arieff, Reuters News Service, Jan. 30, 20

into power by pressure from the US, announced that he wanted the present

1 “Bombs halted; search continues,” by Jonathan Weisman, USA Today, Dec. 19, 2001. p. 1A.

2 “Deal near in Afghan talks,” by Elliot Blair Smith, USA Today, Nov. 28, 2001, p. 1-A.

3 “Afghan factions sign landmark deal,” BBC News,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1692000/1692695.stm, Dec. 5, 2001.

4 “Bombs halted,” op. cit.

5 See “Afghanistan working to build national army,” by Tom Squitieri, USA Today, January 11, 2002, p. 10A.

13 Read These and see whether you now question --Paul