World Domination, Inc.

...

Bush is already preparing for the 2004 presidential campaign and has been able to collect $200,000,000 for it. The most active supporters of his campaign will be Zionist forces, the Christian fundamentalist movement and the Catholic right. Together they constitute a powerful electoral force buttressed by multinationals -- especially those involved in arms manufacturing, in oil, in the pharmaceutical industry and in the media -- as well as many higher levels in the armed forces in a country undergoing rapid militarisation. Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi based in Washington, DC and a member of the Iraqi National Council headed by Ahmed Chalabi, commenting on the projected war against Iraq a few months before it was launched, said "The removal of Saddam Hussein presents the United States in particular with a historic opportunity that I believe is going to prove to be as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the entry of the British troops into Iraq in 1917."

...

vice:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/666/focus.htm

Does al-Qaeda exist?

by Brendan O'Neill

Article28 November 2003Printer-friendly version


'Al-Qaeda bombing foiled' says the front page of today's UK Sun, reporting the arrest yesterday of 24-year-old student Sajid Badat in Gloucester, England, on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity. Other reports have referred to Badat as 'having links with al-Qaeda' and being a potential 'suicide bomber' (1).


Also this week, media reports claim that al-Qaeda may have developed 'car-bomb capability' in the USA, and that al-Qaeda has compiled a 'kidnappers' manual' and is plotting to snatch American troops from Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. Every day since the 9/11 attacks of 2001 there have been media reports about al-Qaeda - its leaders, members, capabilities, bank accounts, reach and threat. What is this al-Qaeda? Does such a group even exist?


Some terrorism experts doubt it. Adam Dolnik and Kimberly McCloud reckon it's time we 'defused the widespread image of al-Qaeda as a ubiquitous, super-organised terror network and call it as it is: a loose collection of groups and individuals that doesn't even refer to itself as al-Qaeda'. Dolnik and McCloud - who first started studying terrorism at the prestigious Monterey Institute of International Studies in California - claim it was Western officials who imposed the name 'al-Qaeda' on to disparate radical Islamic groups and who blew Osama bin Laden's power and reach 'out of proportion'. Both are concerned about the threat of terror, but argue that we should 'debunk the myth of al-Qaeda' (2).


There is a 'rooted public perception of what al-Qaeda is', says Dolnik, who is currently carrying out research on the Terrorism and Political Violence Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore; but, he says, such perceptions are far from accurate. Dolnik argues that where many imagine that al-Qaeda is 'a super organisation of thousands of super-trained and super-secret members who can be activated any minute', in fact it is better understood as something like a 'global ideology that has not only attracted many smaller regional groups, but has also facilitated the boom of new organisations that embrace this sort of radical and violent thinking'. Dolnik and others believe that, in many ways, the thing we refer to as 'al-Qaeda' is largely a creation of Western officials.


'Bin Laden never used the term al-Qaeda prior to 9/11', Dolnik tells me. 'Nor am I aware of the name being used by operatives on trial. The closest they came were in statements such as, "Yes, I am a member of what you call al-Qaeda". The only name used by al-Qaeda themselves was the World Islamic Front for the Struggle Against Jews and Crusaders - but I guess that's too long to really stick.'


So where did 'al-Qaeda' come from? Dolink says there are a number of theories - that the term was first used by bin Laden's spiritual mentor Abdullah Azzam, who wrote of al Qaeda al Sulbah, meaning the 'solid base', in 1988; or that it derives from a bin Laden-sponsored safehouse in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when he was part of the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet invasion, again referring to a physical 'base' rather than to a distinct organisation. But in terms of 'al-Qaeda' then being used to define a group of operatives around bin Laden - that, says Dolnik, originated in the West.


Al-Qaeda was used as a 'convenient label for a group that had no formal name'

'The US intelligence community used the term "al-Qaeda" for the first time only after the 1998 embassy bombings', he says, when suspected bin Laden followers detonated bombs at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people. Dolnik says al-Qaeda was used as a 'convenient label for a group that had no formal name'. Prior to the 1998 bombings, US officials were concerned about Osama bin Laden and the financial backing he appeared to provide to Islamic terror groups - but they rarely, if ever, mentioned anything called 'al-Qaeda'.


According to British journalist Jason Burke, in his authoritative Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, 'Al-Qaeda is a messy and rough designation, often applied carelessly in the absence of a more useful term' (3). Burke points out that while many think al-Qaeda is 'a terrorist organisation founded more than a decade ago by a hugely wealthy Saudi Arabian religious fanatic', in fact the term 'al-Qaeda' has only entered political and mainstream discussion fairly recently:


'American intelligence reports in the early 1990s talk about "Middle Eastern extremists…working together to further the cause of radical Islam", but do not use the term "al-Qaeda". After the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, FBI investigators were aware of bin Laden but only "as one name among thousands". In the summer of 1995, during the trials of Islamic terrorists who had tried to blow up a series of targets in New York two years earlier, "Osam ben Laden" (sic) was mentioned by prosecutors once; "al-Qaeda" was not.'


Like Dolnik, Burke points out that the name al-Qaeda entered the popular imagination only after US officials used it to describe those who attacked the embassies in Africa. 'In the immediate aftermath of the double bombings, President Clinton merely described a "network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Usama (sic) bin Laden"', writes Burke. 'Clinton talks of "the bin Laden network", not of "al-Qaeda". In fact, it is only during the FBI-led investigation into those bombings that the term first starts to be used to describe a traditionally structured terrorist organisation' (4). According to some experts, it was this naming of al-Qaeda by US officials that kickstarted the public's misunderstanding of Islamic terror groups. Dolnik points out that, while US officials talked up a structured group, this so-called al-Qaeda did not even have 'any sort of insignia - a phenomenon quite rare in the realm of terrorism'.


Having given bin Laden and his henchmen a name, Western officials then proceeded to exaggerate their threat. 'In the quest to define the enemy, the US and its allies have helped to blow it out of proportion', wrote Dolnik and Kimberly McCloud of the Monterey Institute in 2002. They pointed out that after 1998, US officials began distributing posters and matchboxes featuring bin Laden's face and a reward for his capture around the Middle East and Central Asia - a process that 'transformed this little-known jihadist into a household name and, in some places, a symbol of heroic defiance' (5).


Now, Dolnik says that Western officials have helped to blow al-Qaeda out of proportion in other ways, too - by 'the automatic attribution of credit to the group for disparate attacks; by making unintelligent and unqualified statements about the group's very basic "weapons of mass destruction" programme; by treating al-Qaeda as a super-organisation; by creating the impression that al-Qaeda can do just about anything'. As a result, al-Qaeda has been turned into something it is not. In the mid-1990s intelligence officials saw bin Laden as 'one name among thousands'; within a few years they had transformed him into a global threat who heads a ruthless, structured organisation that is capable of doing anything, anytime, anywhere.


Anybody can make an impact by claiming a link to the largely mythical al-Qaeda

This invention, or certainly exaggeration, of al-Qaeda is not only inaccurate; it also has a potentially destabilising effect, encouraging regional groups to act in the name of al-Qaeda in the knowledge that such actions will have a massive impact on our al-Qaeda-obsessed world. The talking up of al-Qaeda has created a kind of brand name, which can be invoked by small, isolated groups wishing to strike a blow beyond their means.


Consider the recent suicide bombings in Istanbul. Predictably, many in the West instantly attributed the attacks to al-Qaeda, though it has since emerged that the bombs were most likely made and detonated by local Turkish groups. However, at least three Turkish groups have claimed responsibility for the attacks in the name of al-Qaeda. The West's obsession with al-Qaeda has given terrorist outfits a convenient shortcut to grabbing the world's attention and scaring us senseless.


According to Dolnik: 'In a world where one email sent to a news agency translates into a headline stating that al-Qaeda was behind even the blackouts in Italy and the USA, anyone can claim to be al-Qaeda - not only groups but also individuals'.


Sajid Badat, the 24-year-old student arrested by British police in Gloucester yesterday, on suspicion of planning to carry out a terrorist attack, was immediately referred to in media reports as a 'suicide bomber' and 'al-Qaeda terrorist' - after it was revealed that he had boasted to college mates and neighbours: 'I'm in al-Qaeda.' Whatever the truth of the allegations against him, however, it is clear that anybody can make an impact today by claiming a link to the largely mythical al-Qaeda. The script for such claims has already been written, by fearful Western officials who have made 'al-Qaeda', whatever that might be, into an instantly recognisable, frightening, global phenomenon.


How can we challenge the widespread but warped understanding of what 'al-Qaeda' is? Dolnik worries that it might be 'too late', but he has some ideas: 'We could have a balanced assessment of the group's capabilities, including its embarrassing failures - some al-Qaeda plots were flat-out ridiculous. We could emphasise al-Qaeda's heretical nature within Islam, in order to decrease the overt support for the group among fellow Muslims who are forced to align "with us or against us". We could stop calling everything al-Qaeda does "new" or "unprecedented" - I am aware of at least 10 concrete plans to use aeroplanes to crash them into buildings and one actual successful attempt as far back as the 1976. And we could stop calling small amounts of recovered chemicals "chemical weapons" - without effective weaponisation, these are about as dangerous as bullets without a gun.'





Read on:

spiked-issue: War on terror

(1) Al-Qaeda bombing foiled, Sun, 28 November 2003

(2) See Debunk the myth of al-Qaeda, Adam Dolnik and Kimberly A McCloud, Christian Science Monitor, 23 May 2002

(3) Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, Jason Burke, IB Tauris, 2003

(4) Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, Jason Burke, IB Tauris, 2003

(5) See Debunk the myth of al-Qaeda, Adam Dolnik and Kimberly A McCloud, Christian Science Monitor, 23 May 2002

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DFED.htm

Bush’s Operation Clean Sweep: World War IV in 2004?

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/STA311B.html

WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT AL-QUAEDA REALLY EXISTS ?

Posted By: Rosalinda
Date: Saturday, 29 November 2003, 8:17 p.m.

I have yet to see "facts" showing that Al-Quada really exists,
and/or that Al-Queda is what the mass-media has claimed it to be

Until there are some facts or proof presented
i will think of "Al-Quaeda" as an intelligence-agency fiction
and/or an excuse for militarization
of the United States and the curtailment of traditional liberties
including the threatened suspension of the US Constitution.

What PROOF exists that Osama bin Laden is really
the author of the present terror bombing wave?

What PROOF exists that there were really Muslim extremists
involved in the 911 attacks (DNA evidence for example)?

What PROOF exists that this entire Al-Quaeda operation
is NOT a false-flag terror project designed to justify
military intervention in Iraq, Afganistan, Iran, etcetera?

My mind is open - I just want to see some PROOF - please!
Is that TOO MUCH to ask? - just some PROOF that this is real.

Two years after the 911 attacks and NO PROOF has been offered,
only cover-ups and of course the Cheney government has been
caught in all kinds of egregious LIES - so WHY trust Cheney Co?
some self-interested gangsters who tell brazen lie after brazen
lie in support of policy that is leading the nation to disaster!

Either the story of "Osama bin Laden and the radical Islamic
fundamentalist bomber network" is TRUE, or else this is all ERROR
and that Americans are being led by the nose to the police state.

Unless the folks can separate ERROR from the TRUTH in the matter
of the 911 attacks and the very suspicious "AlQuaeda" operation,
their nation will converge more and more upon fascist solutions.

I respectfully submit that these terror bombings are too-much
similar to the false-flag terrorism specialized in by Ariel
Sharon and the Likud going back to the Lavon Affair of the 1950s

I respectfully submit that Americans are being taken for a ride
because they are actually uninformed and innocent of synthetic
terror techniques and practices of synarchist political forces.

I respectfully submit that Osama bin Laden and AlQuaeda are both
intelligence-agencies "works of art" and that they were created
to provide an excuse for imposing the Patriot Act on the U.S.A.

I respectfully submit that the tower of Angloamerican financial
greed and the whole IMF neoliberal model is crashing as we speak.
911 is flight-forward response of what are likely to be white men

I respectfully submit that the Angloamerican mass-media has been
lying its head off since the Warren Commission and is lying now,
that Osama bin Laden is A PATSY, a latter-day Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Tavistock Institute did some interesting research after WW2,
showing that conditions of stress were conducive to operations
attempting to change belief-structures or world-view of society.

I respectfully submit that this entire War on Terror is a fraud,
and that the relative simplicity and provincial mentality of the
American people has been egregiously and shamelessly imposed upon

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=40635

America's Future: Endless Enemies, Endless Debt

by William Hughes
(Sunday 30 November 2003)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"After the horrific 9/11 tragedy, the “Wire Pullers” began shredding the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Congress then quickly passed the “USA Patriot Act” in the middle of the night, without a public hearing. Later, the draconian “Homeland Security Law” was enacted. And, on March 20, 2003, the Bush-Cheney Gang started, without any just cause, the war with Iraq."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


America is going to hell! After WWII, it began to be slowly taken over by wily intriguers, wearing pin stripe suits. These grasping men (some were women, too) have been using primarily our federal government, the U.S. Congress, the CIA, NSA, the IMF, the mass media, corporations, banking facilities and our foreign policy, to make us more foes around the globe, while serving their own greedy ends. In the process, these schemers have grown extremely powerful at the expense of the Republic. They rarely choose to hold any office and prefer to operate from behind the scenes. I call them, “The Wire Pullers” (See Jonathan Kwitny’s “Endless Enemies” for some examples of how this exploitation works.)

I suspect, but I can’t prove, that a cabal within the “Wire Pullers” clique ordered the hit on President John F. Kennedy. They were probably also involved in killing his brother Robert, and civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr. Part of their satanic plot involves dividing the country and splintering the people into balkanized, easier to dominate factions (Check out Dr. John Coleman’s “Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300” for more details on these shadowy connivers.)

After the horrific 9/11 tragedy, the “Wire Pullers” began shredding the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Congress then quickly passed the “USA Patriot Act” in the middle of the night, without a public hearing. Later, the draconian “Homeland Security Law” was enacted. And, on March 20, 2003, the Bush-Cheney Gang started, without any just cause, the war with Iraq.

Important questions concerning 9/11 are still being raised. One revolves around the five Israelis, who were caught over in New Jersey, in Liberty State Park, “celebrating, jumping up and down,” as the burning twin towers were collapsing (“Bergen Record” (09/12/01). They were acting like they knew exactly when the attack was going down! Even stranger, without conducting a full investigation, these smirking jackasses were permitted by the Feds to go back to Israel.

As for the national economy, many of our manufacturing giants are long gone, while others have moved overseas. Some are “out sourcing” much of their work. This means that components of their products are made in a “Third World” country. At that location, U.S. corporations don’t have to pay a living wage to workers or comply with any reasonable labor and environmental standards. Meanwhile, the U.S. trade deficit, (think NAFTA, GATT, etc.) is at $415 billion (tradealert.org) and soaring.

At one time, the U.S. had a thriving economy that was the envy of the world. It also had a proud middle class. Today, compliments of the “Free Trade” policy, the filthy rich have become even richer, while just about everyone else has to work longer hours, at less pay and at more menial jobs, with fewer benefits, too, just to keep their heads above water.

An unconscious puppet for “The Wire Pullers” is President George W. Bush, Jr. He’s a dangerous dude, who has embraced a super-hawkish persona. Some of his tough guy posing might have to do with his cowardly decision to head out to a Kansas bunker after 9/11, rather than to return from Florida to Washington (James Bamford’s “Body of Secrets”). After he decided to invade Iraq, people began to pay more attention to his svengalis, the “Neocons.” Bush claimed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, but that was a big lie. Now, he’s making noise, like he wants to invade Iran or maybe Syria. On Thanksgiving Day, in a cynical political act, he visited the troops in Iraq, but not any of Iraq’s towns or cities that he had ordered bombed back to the Stone Age.

As for the Congress, it’s an expensive whorehouse! It is for sale to the highest bidder. You can count the true patriots on Capitol Hill with one hand. It likes to put on a show. It will stay up all night debating, with the C Span cameras rolling, whether John Doe would make a good federal judge or not. Then, when a Bill is put in, like the “USA Patriot Act” was, that posed a substantial threat to our civil liberties, Congress didn’t have the decency to even warn the public, who pays their salaries, about its lethal provisions. Skunk is too charitable a word to describe some of its more venal members.

Then, there is the mass media. It is truly pathetic and mostly controlled. What it puts out reflects the harmful influence of “The Wire Pullers.” For example, pop star, Michael Jackson, recently got into trouble. His case has already received more publicity than Hurricane Isabel! Meanwhile, the casualty count from our military’s involvement in Iraq continues to climb, along with the cost. Over 43% of the annual federal budget presently goes for warmongering. The deficit for this year is $531 billion, but if one factors in the Social Security surplus that they are surreptitiously using, it would be $630 billion (“NYT,” (11/23/03).

Talking about debt, the nation is in hock for $6.9 trillion (uwsa.com/uwsa-usdebt.html). The interest payment alone on that staggering total is about $330 billion a year. The international bankers are having a feeding frenzy on us. On top of all that, the Euro is now selling at $1.20 against the dollar (“AP,” 11/29/03). All of the above is just some of the terrible price we are paying for permitting our Republic to be taken over by the predatory “Wire Pullers.” I’m afraid, too, that what recently happened in Miami at the anti-FTAA demonstrations is an ugly example of the state sponsored violence that may be in our future.

“The Wire Pullers” have created for us endless enemies and endless debt. Americans rightly get upset when some nut case burns the flag. When are they ever going to react to ruthless opportunists dragging their Republic through the mud?


Source: by courtesy & © 2003 William Hughes

William Hughes is a Baltimore attorney and the author of
"Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order" http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?sourceid=00382595888985508614&ISBN=0595193684&bfdate=12-01-2003+08:33:21

(Authors Choice Press), which is available online. He contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from Maryland, USA.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/2575/?PHPSESSID=dc849c7169bb6f725c318e9d96f459f7

FEMA? US Police? Where is this going and......what does FEMA have planned for you?

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FEMA CAMP IMAGES

http://www.c0balt.com/egg/insane.shtml

NAZI GERMANY’S WAR ON TERRORISM


Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag (Parliament) building by a deranged Dutchman to declare a “war on terrorism,” establish his legitimacy as a leader (even though he hadn’t won a majority in the previous election).



“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. “This fire,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion, “is the beginning.” He used the occasion – “a sign from God,” he called it – to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their “evil” deeds in their religion.



Two weeks later, the first prison for terrorists was built in Oranianberg, holding the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the nation’s flag was everywhere, even printed in newspapers suitable for display.



Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation’s now-popular leader had pushed through legislation, in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it, that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people’s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.



To get his patriotic “Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack on the Reichstag building was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained.



Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. Instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as The Fatherland. As hoped, people’s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was “the” homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands.



Within a year of the terrorist attack, Hitler’s advisors determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, including those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist sympathizers. He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the Fatherland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single powerful leader.



Most Americans remember his Office of Fatherland Security, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and Schutzstaffel, simply by its most famous agency’s initials: the SS.



And, perhaps most important, he invited his supporters in industry into the halls of government to help build his new detention camps, his new military, and his new empire which was to herald a thousand years of peace. Industry and government worked hand-in-glove, in a new type of pseudo-democracy first proposed by Mussolini and sustained by war.

http://www.c0balt.com/resources/terror/terror.shtml

Megiddo Project

What is supposed to be a "strategic assessment of the potential for domestic terrorism" gets scary when it names Christians who believe in a second coming of Christ and those who believe in a secret shadow government as well as a new world government being ushered in, as possible terrorists. Time to persecute the Christians in this new Rome.

FBI's J.T.T.F. Pamphlets

As seen with The Megiddo Project, this scan shows both sides of a pamphlet that was printed for the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. This one comes right out and shows that any of the suspects who would "Make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution" are possible terrorists as well as people who "defend the United States Constitution" Welcome to Amerika...



Northwoods Document

The US is no stranger to creating terrorism. As an excuse to invade Cuba, the great old United States Government had drawn up plans to create a false terror campaign. In their own words, "Casualty lists in US Newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." All this as a way to gain support to invade the island of Cuba.

http://www.c0balt.com/docs.shtml

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:26 pm Post subject: YOU COULD BE A TERRORIST IF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU COULD BE A TERRORIST IF ... Could you be a full-blown terrorist and
not know it? Should you turn yourself in to the authorities right now? Take
the following quick quiz and find out. Answer "True" or "False" to each of
the following questions:

01. You believe in the Constitution.
02. You believe in the "Rule of Law."
03. You believe in gold as real money.
04. You believe in silver as real money.
05. You believe in limited government.
06. You believe in a free market system.
07. You believe in abolishing the Federal Reserve System.
08. You believe in balanced budgets.
09. You believe in the right to possess property.
10. You believe the income tax is misapplied.
11. You believe in God.
12. You believe there is a 9/11 WTC conspiracy to suppress facts and
evidence.
13. You believe in the Family Unit.
14. You believe welfare is unconstitutional.
15. You believe the financial markets are corrupt.
16. You believe the judiciary is corrupt.
17. You believe the body politic is corrupt.
18. You believe the Warren Commission findings were corrupted or covered up.
19. You believe the Educational System is failing.
20. You believe the U. S. Government is bankrupt.
21. You believe the "War On Terrorism" is a fraud perpetuated to enrich oil
companies.
22. You believe the dollar is a fraud.
23. You believe that fractional banking is a swindle.
24. You believe that government officials possessed prior knowledge of
'9/11'.
25. You believe that Social Security is bankrupt.
26. You believe in a gold cartel suppressing the price of gold.
27. You believe in privacy and the right to be left alone.
28. You believe in the New World Order conspiracy.
29. You believe the CFR operates as a shadow government on foreign policy.
30. You believe in your sovereignty as a Citizen.
31. You believe there is too much government regulation.
32. You believe the United Nations should be abolished.
33. You believe the stock market is a rigged scheme.
34. You believe the economy is likely to collapse.
35. You believe that many government statistics are false and/or
deliberately corrupted.
36. You believe the media is controlled.
37. You believe that Home Land Security is a threat to your constitutional
liberties.
38. You believe in gun ownership and the right to protect yourself and your
family.
39. You believe "innocent until proven guilty."
40. You believe there are too many laws, lawyers, prosecutors and judges.
41. You believe there are to many prisons and prisoners.
42. You believe that Law Enforcement wields too much force and authority.
43. You believe the "War On Drugs" is a dismal failure.
43. You believe the Patriot Act should be abolished.
44. You believe in term limits for Politicians.
45. You believe America is becoming a Police State.
46. You believe lobbying and lobbyists should be banned.
47. You believe immigration is out of control.
48. You believe the government lies routinely.
49. You believe corrupt politicians should be incarcerated.
50. You believe the system is broken and may only be fixed by adherence to
the Constitution.

GRADING SCALE: How many of the above statements do you believe to be true?

5 or Less: You are a Model Sheeple. Please bleat in the affirmative.
6 to 10: Hmmmm .... you could be considered unstable and in need of
political re-education.
11 to 20: You are seriously unstable and likely under occasional
surveillance by the ABC agencies!
21 to 30: You are most likely under 24-hour surveillance by the
Authorities!!
31 or More: Hide, the Black Suburbans are coming!!!


http://forum.c0balt.com/viewtopic.php?t=546

If This Is Freedom, What Exactly Is Dictatorship?

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:14 pm Post subject: If This Is Freedom, What Exactly Is Dictatorship?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jacob G. Hornberger


Let me see if I have this right. In the United States of America:

1. The president now has the unrestricted power to declare war against a country that has not attacked the United States, wreaking death and destruction on both sides of the conflict.

2. The president now has the unrestricted power to round up unlimited numbers of American citizens within the United States and incarcerate them in military brigs or concentration camps for the rest of their lives and keep them from ever again communicating with friends, families, and attorneys, simply on the president’s certification that the incarcerated Americans are “terrorists,” as he has done with Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi.

3. The president now has the unrestricted power to seize American citizens abroad and remove them to its military base in Cuba, where they can be kept for the rest of their lives and kept from ever again communicating with friends, family, and attorneys, solely on the basis of his certification that the imprisoned Americans are “terrorists,” as he initially did with Yaser Esam Hamdi.

4. The president now has the unrestricted power to kill American citizens abroad solely on the basis of his certification that the killed Americans are “terrorists,” as he did to Ahmed Hijazi, the American who was killed with a U.S.-fired missile in Yemen.

Pardon me for asking the following two indelicate questions:

First, if all this is freedom, what exactly is dictatorship?

Second, after the Iraqi people are freed from dictatorship, would it be asking too much to do the same for the American people through the adoption of the following two amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

“The Congress shall have the power to declare war, and this time we really do mean it.”

“No person shall be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and this time we really do mean it.”

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.


http://forum.c0balt.com/viewtopic.php?t=552

GORG: Omen IV - American congress ;))

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=LWJFAQTRML4XACRBAEOCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=3885936

ty voe.. to je z Omen IV, ne? :) kde si to vzal...co je to za typky?

here we go...

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.

....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

JAXXE: Nevyhrabal bys plís někde odkaz na nějaký umučený vězně v Guantanamu? Mám pocit, že jsem někde něco čet a nemůžu to najít... (nacházím jen umučený na jinejch základnách v Afghanistánu, ale konkrétní případ z Guantanama nic....)

nevim

Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy

Poll: 57% reject government's lone-gunman explanation

Posted: November 14, 2003
3:40 p.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

With the 40th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy days away, a new poll indicates a majority of Americans don't believe the government's official version of how he was killed.

Only one in five likely voters polled by Zogby International, or 22 percent, said they believe the Warren Commission's determination that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, committed the crime.

In contrast, nearly three in five, or 57 percent, believe a conspiracy of at least two or more gunmen was responsible for the slaying. Another 10 percent had another theory, and 11 percent were not sure.

The poll involved 1,103 adults called at random across the country. It has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent.

...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35618

Tesco RFID Rollout Starts in April

http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/658/1/1/

Cameras Trace Students' Every Move

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/17/eveningnews/main584085.shtml

Is RFID Technology Easy to Foil?

By Mark Baard | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 2 next »

02:00 AM Nov. 18, 2003 PT

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts -- You may need to read the following sentence twice: Aluminum foil hats will block the signals emitted by the radio tags that will replace bar-code labels on consumer goods.

That is, of course, if you place your tin-foil hat between the radio tag and the device trying to read its signal.

Makers of RFID (or radio frequency identification) tags, along with the retailers and suppliers who plan to use them, are saying the technology they spent millions of dollars developing is too weak to threaten consumer privacy. Metals, plastics and liquids, they say, all block radio signals before they reach RFID reader devices.

"Any conductive material can shield the radio signals," said Matt Reynolds, a principal at ThingMagic, which develops RFID systems. "There are all kinds of ways to render the tags inoperable."

That means Coca-Cola, which eventually wants to put an RFID tag on every can of soda it sells, will have a hard time getting around the metals, plastics and liquids that block the radio signals from the tags.

...

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61264,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1