by Jim Marrs
“The federal government is training its enforcers that people who don’t believe everything they see on Fox News, CNN or read in the New York Times are to be treated as a ‘threat’ and a potential violent domestic terrorist,” railed Internet commentator and author Paul Joseph Watson.
A pamphlet prepared by the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2004 and entitled “Terrorism: What the Public Needs to Know” was a recipe for paranoia and witch-hunting. It includes these pointers on how to spot a terrorist:
Will employ a variety of vehicles and communicate predominately by cell phone, e-mail, or text messaging services
Well prepared to spend years in “sleeper” mode until it is time to attack
In many cases, will try to fit in and not draw attention to themselves
May appear “normal” in their appearance and behavior while portraying themselves as a tourist, student, or businessperson
May be found traveling in a mixed group of men, women, and children of varying ages, who are unaware of their purpose
Trained to avoid confrontations with law enforcement and therefore can be expected to project a “nice-guy” image
Known to use disguises or undergo plastic surgery, especially when featured on police wanted posters
Another example of the emergence of a police state is the quiet but sudden appearance over the past few years of steel cables attached to metal posts in the medians on freeways in and out of major cities. When these concrete strips first appeared, many people thought they were bicycle or jogging paths. But the steel cables revealed their true purpose—a barricade to prevent anyone from making a U-turn. Such impediments have joined the thousands of concrete barriers already in place on most freeways and interstate highways.
But was there a huge problem with U-turning traffic to begin with? None that anyone could recall. Then what was the purpose of spending millions of dollars on major highways when the economy was at a low ebb?
Conspiracy-minded individuals believe that these barriers are in preparation for future roadblocks to prevent city dwellers from leaving town. Anyone caught in line for a checkpoint, similar to those already in use in Los Angeles and other major cities, will find they will be unable to turn around. No other purposes for these barricades have been publicized. Because local police do not have the personnel to administer this level of police state activity, it may be up to the military to take charge, despite the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting such action.
Very little national media coverage was given to the heavy-handed police reaction against protesters at the late September 2009 G-20 meetings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Frustrated at not being able to approach the meeting place, some two thousand demonstrators (called “anticapitalists” by one news report) clashed with black-clad helmeted police armed with dogs, gas, rubber pellet–filled shotgun charges called “beanbags,” and advanced technologies like long-range acoustic device (LRAD) sonic cannons. Allegations that violence at the G-20 was initiated by government agent provocateurs were supported by YouTube videos of a supposed black-clad “anarchist” posing for photos with grinning police officers. Officials later claimed the youth in the video was forced to pose by the men in riot gear.
During the same G-20 protests, two hundred people were arrested and dozens of bystanders, including passing students and journalists, were gassed near the Oakland Thomas Merton Center, a city center containing several universities, museums, and hospitals, as well as an abundance of stores and restaurants. Many complained that the crisis was akin to a military-style occupation.
“The police were beating people and gassing people who were wandering out of restaurants…wandering out of their dorms,” said Nigel Parry, a journalist with Twin Cities Indymedia. Another journalist, Melissa Hall, said police erased her video footage and damaged her camera.
“This was unjust,” complained twenty-three-year-old Nathan Lanzendorfer. “I was peaceful. I had done nothing wrong.” Lanzendorfer showed newsmen large purple spots on his legs and one arm where he said police shot him at close range with beanbag rounds.
Elizabeth Pittinger, executive director of the city’s Citizen Police Review Board, said her group had received fifty complaints about the police and that the board would conduct a comprehensive investigation of the police response. She was “very disturbed” over the arrest of journalists, including Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Sadie Gurman.
The country’s police-state mentality has trickled down to those who do not even hold status as actual police officers and at times even jeopardizes the public’s basic rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. For example, a video taken at an August 2009 town hall meeting in Reston, Virginia, and placed on the Internet shows an unnamed man being ordered to lower a sign depicting President Barack Obama with a clown face, presumably to make him look like the Joker, a character from the popular Batman franchise. Wesley Cheeks Jr., a school security officer, ordered the man to lower his sign. When the demonstrator argued that he was only exercising his constitutional rights, Cheeks threatened him with arrest.
“This used to be America,” the man groused.
Typifying the change in the attitude of police, who once considered themselves servants of the people, the officer responded, “Well, it ain’t no more, okay!”
OBAMA’S SCHOOL TALK
When kindergartners in B. Bernice Young School sang a medley of two short songs praising the president in February 2009, alarm bells went off among many who are concerned about the globalists’ control of media over what they perceived as undue worship of a public leader. Then, in October of that year, President Obama addressed the nation’s schoolchildren directly. Many school districts declined to broadcast President Obama’s remarks to America’s youth because they felt the president intended to use his office to politicize public school classrooms with “training materials.”
The training materials produced by the U.S. Department of Education’s Teaching Ambassador Fellows and handed out to prekindergarteners through twelfth graders stated:
“Before the Speech: Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions:
Who is the President of the United States?
What do you think it takes to be President?
To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking?
Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
What do you think he will say to you?”
Other topics of discussion in these materials included: “Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?”
Republicans argued over what they saw as political propaganda in the talk’s preparatory materials, such as the brochure’s suggestion for students to “Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” In this case, wording was changed to “Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.”
“We changed it to clarify the language so the intent is clear,” explained White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Nevertheless, a number of parents objected to a president having access to all schoolchildren. Regine Gordon of Tampa, Florida, and mother of a six-year-old student, told newsmen, “It’s a form of indoctrination, and I think, really, it’s indicative of the culture that the Obama administration is trying to create. It’s very socialistic…. It’s kind of like going through the children to get to their parents. Children are very vulnerable and excited. I mean, this is the president. I think it’s an underhanded tactic and indicative of the way things are being done.”
One Texas school district declined to make listening to Obama’s school talk mandatory. The superintendent sent a memo to all teachers explaining:
“The decision not to require all students
Pre-K to grade 12 to watch the speech together in school was based in the following concerns:
The Federal and State School Accountability systems are so demanding that it is difficult to defend stopping instruction for any reason. School districts, campuses, and now teachers are being compared based on student performance. The changing system and increasing demand for results requires everyone to focus on the instructional mission at all times.
It is difficult to comprehend that anyone could make a single presentation that was equally meaning for to Pre-K students and Seniors in High School.
The timing of a ‘first day’ speech two and a half weeks into the school year is less than ideal.
The time of day the speech was scheduled creates a number of potential scheduling issues for each campus. These challenges would have ultimately cost the district a full day of instruction.
School districts have not stopped instruction at all grade levels to watch a speech in the past.
Communication about the speech and lead time provided to school districts was less than ideal.
It is difficult to show anything to a classroom of students that you have not previewed prior to the demonstration. A one time speech is clearly different than a ceremonial event like an Inauguration.
The speech has been presented as an optional and not required event.”
But other school districts were not as lenient as the one in Texas. The superintendent of School District No. 3 in Tempe, Arizona, Dr. Arthur Tate Jr., stated parents would not be permitted to pull their children out of class during Obama’s speech. “I have directed principals to have students and teachers view the president’s message on Tuesday,” stated Tate. “In some cases, where technology will not permit access to the White House Web site, DVDs will be provided to classes on subsequent days. I am not permitting parents to opt out students from viewing the president’s message, since this is a purely educational event.”
The fact that a president, and one who was surrounded by so much controversy, would address all of the nation’s schoolchildren renewed the concerns of many Americans over the security of American values. For example, many saw Obama’s nationwide talk to children and his call for involuntary service as ominous signs of indoctrinating the youth. Many even compared all this to the Hitler Youth movement practiced in Nazi Germany.
The controversy over Obama’s talk to schoolchildren renewed the earlier criticism over songs about the president being taught to the B. Bernice Young School kindergarten children. As news about the song gained nationwide attention, the New Jersey Department of Education issued a mild rebuke. Spokeswoman Beth Auerswald said the department desired “to ensure students can celebrate the achievements of African Americans during Black History Month without inappropriate partisan politics in the classroom.” The teacher involved retired.
LEADER CONTROL
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
—WILLIAM J. H. BOETCKER, Presbyterian minister (Often Erroneously Attributed to Abraham Lincoln)
EARLY IN HIS PRESIDENCY, Barack Obama found himself caught in a tangle of misstatements and reversals of promises. His promise for a “change” in politics rang hollow, and many of his former supporters felt betrayed.
Obama was caught in one falsehood after another, backing down on his campaign promise to dismantle the U.S. missile defense system. Then, in late 2009, he reversed his promised reversal, putting the system back on track.
As mentioned earlier in “Manufactured AIDs,” in a statement revealing the ongoing reach of the globalists, Obama’s national security adviser, General James L. Jones, told attendees at the Munich Security Conference, “As the most recent national security adviser of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.” Kissinger is one man widely viewed as the architect of a U.S. foreign policy that has turned foreign extremists into implacable enemies.
Strangely enough, Obama was selected to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2009. The corporate mass media, which thirsted for good news during a bad economy, publicized the announcement widely.
But as Nancy Gibbs, writing for Time magazine observed, “The last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise.” She noted that “when reality bites, it chomps down hard.” Because none of Obama’s political goals had been accomplished a year after his election, Gibbs said “a prize for even dreaming them can feed the illusion that they have.”
Gibbs compared Obama’s failed promises with the accomplishments of another Nobel Prize candidate, Greg Mortenson. The son of a missionary, Mortenson is a former Montana mountaineer and was nominated by the U.S. Congress for his humanitarian work in building 130 schools for girls in Muslim countries hostile to education for women. “Sometimes the words come first. Sometimes, it’s better to let actions speak for themselves,” mused Gibbs.
The prize especially angered those who saw Barack Obama as a “peace candidate” when he only increased spending in Iraq after being elected. In late 2009, the Obama administration announced plans to send an additional thirty thousand troops to Afghanistan. In fact, Obama’s total military expenditures have grown at a greater rate than those under George W. Bush, almost universally considered a “hawk” president.
Obama’s reversal of his campaign pledge to dismantle the U.S. missile defense system meant that the United States would continue to aim nuclear missiles at Moscow from Poland, Ukraine, and perhaps Georgia. It should be noted that the Obama administration waffled several times over the controversial missile system. In 2008, the Obama campaign stated its opposition to a program that many saw as merely a continuation of the old “Star Wars” program of the Reagan years. But in early 2009, Vice President Joe Biden told a European audience the United States would continue the missile defense system after consulting with NATO countries and assuring Russia the weapons are only meant for Iran. Russia has long perceived the program as a threat to its security. Later that year, both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama backpedaled in an attempt to use the missile defense system as an incentive for Iran to discontinue its nuclear program. They suggested that the missile system might be shelved depending on Iran’s actions.
But by the fall of 2009, it seemed as if the missile defense system was doomed. Despite news that a stockpile of nuclear weapons had been discovered in Iran, on September 17, the White House announced it was scrapping the strategic missile defense system in favor of smaller SM-3 interceptors capable of intercepting Iranian missiles. According to the New York Times, the decision was “one of the biggest national security reversals of [Obama’s] young presidency.”
The reversal created both confusion among eastern European allies and anger from conservatives who accused Obama of caving in to objections from the Russians.
Typically, Obama appeared to be trying to placate both sides, saying, “President Bush was right that Iran’s ballistic missile program poses a significant threat. This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European missile defense program.”
The brouhaha over the missile defense system presents a small glimpse into the power struggles taking place between globalists eager for higher defense budgets, and hence more defense profits, and those who are trying to push their one-world socialist agenda by merging the nations.
A COUNCIL CABINET
> TO ANALYZE THE TRUTH about the Obama administration, it is instructive to look behind his rhetoric at the individuals and groups that shape his administration. Many believe that Obama’s cabinet members have ties to secretive societies that may have orchestrated the present economic recession.
People in Obama’s cabinet who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations include: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson, UN ambassador Susan Rice, national security adviser General James L. Jones, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, economic adviser Paul Volcker, and director of the National Economic Council L. H. Summers.
Many of these same names plus others appear on the roster of the Trilateral Commission, cofounded in 1973 by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller Sr. Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, both of whom went on to head the Federal Reserve System, also were founding members of the commission. Brzezinski, a former chairman of the commission, was Obama’s principal foreign policy adviser during the 2008 campaign, and it was generally accepted that Trilateral members groomed Obama for office. The Trilateral Commission is generally considered a spin-off organization of the Council on Foreign Relations that was designed to include Asian nations.