9-11: descent into tyranny : the New World Order's dark plans to turn Earth into a prison planet (10 page)

70

and even natural disasters," she wrote. "Why then does the administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack in history?"

After a week of wall to wall smear attacks in the press, where she was billed as a kind of Anti-Christ, the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
held a poll asking if the people thought there should be a Congressional investigation of government prior knowledge. A slim majority of 52% out of over 15,000 respondents said yes. The
Atlanta Journal-
Constitution
pulled the poll after posting it for only eight hours although they had originally planned to leave it up for three days. The poll was even promoted by talking head pundits on the national cable shows who would say things like, “Go to the
Atlanta
Journal-Constitution
website and vote to tell America what you think of this traitor.” But in the end the poll backfired on them. The puppet masters thought that the poll would show 75-80% of the American people declaring that they didn’t want an investigation. Instead, over half agreed with the Congresswoman. It is interesting to note that they pulled the poll after it climbed past the 50% mark.

The Motive

In order to be able to profile the elite and to understand what their plans are for the future, it is integral to refocus on their motive in carrying out their September 11th operation. The illuminati and its allied organizations, which represent the dominant power cartels of the world, are threatened by sovereign nations. They view sovereign nations as populations of human beings that are not under their control. The term that the New World Order mouthpiece media uses for sovereign nations is “rogue states.”

By carrying out September 11th, the globalists created a tailor-made excuse to invade and subjugate sovereign nations simply by labeling them as “those that harbor terrorists.”

They created a situation to get the people living in the heart of the empire to support endless wars of aggression.

71

Far too many people analyzing the activities of the ruling oligarchy think that the September 11 event was only about oil and pipelines. Others focus in on bloated record defense budgets. Still others only see it as a pretext for Big Brother to gain total control domestically with a high-tech Police State. In reality, all of these points are valid. Globalist planners have laid out long-term strategic goals and only make slight adjustments in their overall program when absolutely necessary.

When the New World Order moves in a big way, the event must always serve at least 90% of their main objectives. Out of the legion of reasons that the New World Order launched that attack the two biggest are: ushering in an Orwellian police state that would make the “Ministry of Love” feel second string, and the fuelling a worldwide neoimperial hyper-tyranny where the individual is completely dehumanized.

Putin Uses Terror

Back in 1999 Vladymir Putin was a rising young star in Russia who had just stepped down from his position of KGB (now known as the Federal Security Bureau (FSB) Section Chief of Saint Petersburg. Putin was Boris Yeltsin’s top deputy, and he had a problem on his hands. How was he going to get into office when the polls showed the people didn’t want him? Simple. Putin used the Hegelian dialectic. His secret police were caught blowing up three separate apartment buildings. Moscow police arrested his agents in an apartment building placing hexagen, a highly explosive plastique. Now, in 2002, members of the FSB have gone public with the information, as well as explosives experts and Vladimir Putin’s former associate, Boris Berezovsky (
The Guardian
, March 6, 2002, “Former ally links Putin to Moscow blasts”;
Moscow Times,
March 6, 2002,

“Berezovsky Says Putin Knew About FSB Role”). After Berezovsky reported that the government was behind the bombing, Putin ordered his media empire seized.

Back in 1999, desperate to apprehend whoever was responsible for the deadly bombings of three apartment buildings in which 350 people had died, Moscow police caught three members of the FSB in the act of planting bombs in a fourth apartment building. The

72

agents had carried out the attacks to create fear throughout the population. Now other top government officials have gone public, saying that they knew the government was actually preparing to bomb buildings in 1999 as a pretext for control.

The videotapes that prove Putin’s dastardly use of the Hegelian dialectic are being sought out for seizure by the Russian government (
Moscow Times,
March 11, 2002,

“Berezovsky Film Seized at Customs”). Boris Berezovsky has created a documentary about these events and has screened this film in Paris, London and Warsaw. The film contains testimony from members of the FSB, Moscow Police and Russian journalists who witnessed the hexagen plastic explosives that had been planted in the fourth Moscow apartment building.

[Note to publisher: insert picture:10_sergeant_comic]

The Bill of Rights – a Terrorist Manual?

In a political cartoon carried in the
Austin American Statesman,
we find the following words: “So, carrying one of those terrorists manuals, are we?” Pictured is Ashcroft standing over Uncle Sam, reading a book that says “The Bill of Rights.” Sound’s like a joke, doesn’t it? You are about to see the evidence that the government views the Bill of Rights and Constitution in just this way. They are teaching police that if you read the Bill of Rights, you are with the terrorists.

What has America come to? We are becoming more and more Sovietized every single day, and our new gracious homeland leader is George W. Bush. It’s a sick joke. Who really stands to gain from this terrorism? The evidence is clear. The forces of the New World Order. Now let’s talk about terrorism.

“Let’s talk now about terrorism, and about those who see violence against innocent civilians as a legitimate means, in their view, to achieve their ends.”

73

—Dan Rather, CBS news anchor

“This new law that I signed today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mail, the internet, and cell phones.”

—George W. Bush, President of the United States

“The answer is yes. It is a war we have to win if we are going to protect the people of this country. I think the real issue is, what do we sacrifice, what do we give up in the process? So there is going to be a continuing trade-off between security and liberty and freedom going forward into the twenty-first century.”

—Gary Hart, co-chair of the U.S. Commission on

National Security in the 21st Century

“Security is having this discussion right now with the political leaders. We are probably going to be asked to do some things that many people may not like because it is going to call into question some of the freedoms that we have had.”

—Dan Quayle, former Vice-President of the United States

The Politics of Terror in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries
Examine most major terrorist events and you will find governments financing terrorist organizations to get a desired political outcome, and to condition their population to accept higher levels of control. You seen despotic control-freaks like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. You’ve seen them use these techniques throughout the twentieth century. Now in the twenty-first they are telling us it is going to be the century of terror and the century of a New World Order.

Look at the U.S. government. They tell us to give up our rights, while they stubbornly demand that our borders stay wide open, allowing tens of millions of people to pour

74

across our borders, come in through our ports, and to fly in on airplanes. The globalists have the nerve to tell American citizens that we must accept a national ID card in the name of safety. What twisted logic: The government tells us to leave the borders open even after September 11, but subjects the American people to unprecedented police state measures. That doesn’t make any sense, unless you are the ruling oligarchy that is hoping for more terrorist attacks to generate more fear, as well as to balkanize the United States along ethnic lines.

Police State USA

[Note to publisher: insert pictures: 8-FBI-TerroristFlyer-front and 9-FBIMCSOTerroristFlyer-Back]

The government has declared patriotic Americans to be the terrorists. Examine this FBI flier—they have gone out nationwide—where the FBI actually states that Christians, conservatives, and gun owners are part of terrorist organizations. Defenders of the U.S. Constitution are listed as terrorists. If police encounter them, they are instructed to call the FBI Anti-Terrorism Hotline immediately . . . and this includes both defenders of the U.S. Constitution, and people who make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution.

We were all raised to be defenders of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Elected leaders, police and firemen have all sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In the new “Amerika,” the Homeland Security Bureau is taking over our local police and demonizing those who believe in the principles this Republic was founded on. Face the facts, America. The government sees you as terrorists because you stand in the way of worldwide serfdom here on the global plantation.

Marya Jones, a reporter for WDBF-TV in Virginia reported the following concerning the abuse of police power in the United States:

75

“Abby Newman claims the checkpoint was unconstitutional. State Police say the stop was legal and Newman took it too far when she assaulted them. You can take a look from the video from the trooper’s car, taken here from the website
infowars.com
and judge for yourself.”

The reporter then showed a tiny computer screen superimposed on the television screen so no one could tell what was actually happening. Here’s a transcript of what really happened when a conservative-looking woman tried to invoke her rights at a warrantless checkpoint.

Trooper:

I need to know who you are.

Newman:

No, you don’t.

Trooper:

Yes, ma’am, I do.

Newman:

I’m not speeding. I’m not intoxicated. I have given you no

reason to stop me. And this irritates me. And I would be

very happy to go into town and talk to the supervisor. [The

trooper then opens her door.] This is my vehicle. Sir, you

cannot . . .

Trooper:

Step out of the vehicle.

Newman:

No, sir. You cannot reach into this vehicle.

Trooper:

Sure I can.

Newman:

You cannot reach into this . . .

Trooper:

I need to know who you are.

Newman:

You do not.

Trooper:

I must know who you are before you can go down the road.

Newman:

I have not broken any laws.

Trooper:

I have not accused you of breaking any laws, ma’am.

Newman:

You have just reached into this vehicle and opened my door

and . . .

Trooper:

I have no idea who you are.

76

Note: The officer admits she has done nothing wrong, but she still must present her
papers. This is all part of being guilty until proven innocent
.

Trooper:

I need to know who you are. Do you have a driver’s

license?

Newman:

You just proved to me you don’t have probable cause

because you don’t . . .

Trooper:

Shut your ignition off for me.

Newman:
Pardon?

Trooper:

Turn your car off for me.

Newman:

Why do I have to turn my car off?

Trooper:

Because I’m asking you to turn your car off.

Newman:

You are violating my United States Constitutional rights.

Any laws that go contrary to the United States Constitution

are null and void (Marbury v. Madison), and I do not have

to submit to them. I am not intoxicated. You have already

stated you don’t know who I am. So therefore . . .

Trooper:

That’s the whole point. I don’t know who you are. I have

told you who I am, okay. This is an approved checking

detail site. Are you going to tell me who you are?

Newman:
No,

sir.

Trooper:

You’re not going to tell me who you are?

Newman:

You have not charged me with anything. You have not told

me I have done anything wrong, and I don’t owe you that,

sir. Because I don’t serve you, you serve me. Because when

you take one, you take another, you take another, and

before you know it, we can’t go anywhere without our

papers. And that’s what this is. May I see your papers,

please? You can’t travel down this road, ma’am, unless you

show me your papers, please. . . . You’ve already told me

that the stickers are in order. I wasn’t traveling at undue

77

speed. I have done nothing wrong, and this is absolutely

wrong. [The trooper then reaches into the vehicle]. Don’t

reach inside my vehicle.

Trooper:

I’m going to place you under arrest for obstruction of

justice.

Newman:

What am I obstructing? Sir!?!

Trooper:

Step out of the car for me. [The officer then begins to pull Mrs. Newman from her vehicle]. Step out of the car for me.

Newman:

You are physically forcing me out of . . .

Trooper:

[Pulling Mrs. Newman from vehicle] Step out of the car.