911 - Decent into Tyranny Part 3
Insider Trading Also in early September, between September 5th and 10th, 4,744 record put options (a highly risky form of speculation where you bet against a stock that it will go down)were purchased against United Airlines' stock, compared to only 396 call options (speculation that a stock will go up in value). This was a highly abnormal level of put options that were purchased, and not against airline stocks in general, but against United Airlines.
Many of United Airline's put options were bought through Deutche Bank/AB Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current Executive Director of the CIA, A. B. "Buzzy" Kronguard (Sources: London Independent, New York Times, Wall Street Journal).
On September 10, 2001 a record 4,516 put options were placed against American Airlines compared to just 748 call options (source: London Independent, October 14, 2001, "Mystery of Terror "Insider Dealers"). Continuing the pattern, the put options were purchased only against American Airlines and United Airlines, not against airline stocks in general. The put options purchased on both airlines were 600% over normal. All of this activity took place at a time when airline stocks were doing well compared to other sectors (Reuters Business, September 10, 2001, "Airline Stocks May be Poised to Take off").
It is a known fact that intelligence agencies world-wide monitor stock trading with particular attention being paid to speculators, but, because insiders were running the put option scam, the public wasn't warned.
In late May of 2002 the Feds arrested some low-level FBI agents who were allegedly feeding off the CIA's table. Jeffrey Royer and Lynn Wingate were arraigned on charges they were involved in a stock trading racketeering conspiracy. The FBI agents were arrested along with an Arab man named Omar Elgindy. They were charged with pa.s.sing confidential intelligence information concerning the attacks of September 11 on to Elgindy, who allegedly set the puts for them. (Newsday, May 30, 2002)
Empty Offices and Schools There were stories in the New York Post, Newsday, and MSNBC after September 11 confirming that businesses and schools in a wide swath around the World Trade Center complex in lower Manhattan were, in many cases, half-empty on the day of the attacks. School children had been their teachers that the World Trade Center buildings were going to be knocked over in the next week.
Employees of one of the world's largest instant messaging corporations, Odigo, did not show up to their offices in the World Trade Center on September 11. Employees told the press that they had received warnings from their head office in Tel Aviv not to go into work that day because there would be a ma.s.sive attack on the towers. The Tel Aviv offices of Odigo are next door to the Inst.i.tute for Counter Terrorism (Ha'aretz, Sept 26, 2001; MSNBC, September 27, 2001).
Ashcroft Forewarned Certain VIPs and public officials were warned not to travel: Mayor Willie Brown, Solomon Rushdie... and John Ashcroft. CBCNEWS, on July 26, 2001, in an article t.i.tled, "Ashcroft Flying High" reported: "In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat a.s.sessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term."
Agents Sue Bush's Justice Department You've already read about one of the most overlooked smoking gun government prior knowledge/involvement stories: the story of the leaked top-secret doc.u.ment, W199-eye. Bush signed this doc.u.ment blocking U.S. intelligence and the FBI from stopping Al-Qaeda two months before the attacks of 9-11. Agents like Robert Wright with the help of Judicial Watch are suing his Justice Department over it.
You must realize that the Democrats are involved in the cover-up as well. The New World Order controls things at the top, and if we don't hold government responsible they are going to use this terror to get more control over our lives.
Now President Bush is seeking to restrict Capitol Hill probes. He had d.i.c.k Cheney call six separate congressional committees and threaten them, telling them not to investigate September 11 (Washington Post, January 30, 2002, "Bush Seeks to Restrict Hill Probes of Sept. 11"). Shocking many Americans, President Bush has also activated the secret government, going so far as to call it the "shadow government." For the first time in history, FEMA command bunkers are br.i.m.m.i.n.g with National Security Agency personnel. On top of that, Congress wasn't even advised of Bush's shadow government plans. Neither the Senate leader nor the Speaker of the House was even told about the shadow government, despite the fact that Const.i.tutionally they are in the direct line of ascension in the chain of power for the Presidency (Washington Post, March 1, 2002, "Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret"). Why isn't the President including elected officials in the "continuity of government" program?
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is a complex person. While she has a history in Congress as a tax and spend liberal, she has also given a speech on the floor of the House detailing how, as Head of UN Peacekeeping, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan personally oversaw the ma.s.s murder of 800,000 Rwandans.
In April of 2002, McKinney granted an interview with a radio station in Berkeley, California. During the interview she pointed out that the Bush family had a long relationship with the bin Ladens and with Osama bin Laden specifically. She said that Bush stood to gain politically on the domestic front from the attacks and in Central Asia with the Unicol oil pipeline. She called for an investigation of the facts.
What most Americans don't realize is that the social architects that steer the ma.s.s media structure were very concerned as more and more prominent Americans like David Schippers and FBI Agent Robert Wright began to go public with doc.u.mented evidence of government prior knowledge and involvement. The media chose to focus in on Congresswoman McKinney's obscure radio interview as a way to politically polarize the debate, while subtly playing the race card.
Now anytime someone heard someone talking about government prior knowledge and involvement, the thought would automatically pop into their mind that the comments were coming from the extreme left-wing of the Democratic party and that it was just partisan mudslinging. The whole thing was a set up from the beginning. The establishment chose to publicly "whip" the Congresswoman in the kangaroo court of big media controlled public opinion.
Senator Zell Miller from her own party issued a statement castigating McKinney and saying that her comments were dangerous and irresponsible. McKinney's response to the demonization was, "We hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane crashes 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-Const.i.tution 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-Const.i.tution 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-Const.i.tution 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.
Far too many people a.n.a.lyzing 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 a.s.sociate, 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 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 doc.u.mentary 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 Const.i.tution 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."
-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 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-FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-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. Const.i.tution 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. Const.i.tution, and people who make numerous references to the U.S. Const.i.tution.
We were all raised to be defenders of the U.S. Const.i.tution and the Bill of Rights. Elected leaders, police and firemen have all sworn an oath to protect and defend the Const.i.tution 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: "Abby Newman claims the checkpoint was unconst.i.tutional. State Police say the stop was legal and Newman took it too far when she a.s.saulted 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.
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: Trooper: Newman: You just proved to me you don't have probable cause because you don't . . . Shut your ignition off for me. Pardon?
Trooper: Newman: Trooper: Newman: Turn your car off for me. Why do I have to turn my car off? Because I'm asking you to turn your car off. You are violating my United States Const.i.tutional rights. Any laws that go contrary to the United States Const.i.tution Trooper: Newman: 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 . . . 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? No, sir.
Trooper: Newman: You're not going to tell me who you are? 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
speed. I have done nothing wrong, and this is absolutely Trooper: wrong. [The trooper then reaches into the vehicle]. Don't reach inside my vehicle. I'm going to place you under arrest for obstruction of Newman: Trooper: justice. What am I obstructing? Sir!?! Step out of the car for me. [The officer then begins to pull Newman: Trooper: Newman: Mrs. Newman from her vehicle]. Step out of the car for me. You are physically forcing me out of . . . [Pulling Mrs. Newman from vehicle] Step out of the car. No, sir . . . don't you touch any of my personal belongings in this car. You're right, I recorded this conversation. Yes, I did.
Trooper: Newman: [Handcuffing Mrs. Newman] Resisting arrest. It is not a.s.sault.
Trooper 2: Newman: I'll get the car Don't you take one single item out of my car, sir. I'm not Trooper: Newman: fighting you. You're under arrest for resisting arrest, obstruction of justice, and a.s.sault on a police officer. I did not a.s.sault you.
Note: Think about our priorities in America. At a warrantless, Fourth Amendment-violating checkpoint, they pull over a housewife with no criminal record. When she simply doesn't want to get out of her car, they grab her and charge her with a.s.saulting them.
Trooper: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You have the right to speak to an attorney and have him present while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you without any cost to you if you desire one. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you? [She doesn't answer.] Do you understand your rights as they have been read to you? [She still does not answer, and is then led to the police car and taken into custody.]
Note: They are not concerned with our borders being wide open or the tens of millions of containers coming in each year that aren't even searched. Instead, they are worried about a woman on the side of the road and what she's reading, thinking, and doing. This is the first-generation thought police right here in the United States. This type of activity is un-American. These officers should be ashamed of themselves.
Here's where things really get interesting as they begin to dig through her car and find what they consider subversive material: Trooper 1: [Searching car] Strategies of Submarine Warfare. Hidden Agenda. Trooper 2: Man, she's into this weird c.r.a.p. Trooper 1: Power Plays. Ruthless.com. The Bear and the Dragon.
Patriot Games. Trooper 1: I might as well get a record started. Trooper 2: Do you want to ask her, or do you just want to get the next one? Trooper 1: Just get the next one. She's invoked her right to remain silent, even though she don't believe in our laws.
"Even though she don't believe in our laws." No, trooper, it's you who doesn't know our laws. You're the one who is overthrowing our Const.i.tution and our Bill of Rights. Our country was founded on people not being stopped like criminals and being searched. The Fourth Amendment States: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated, an no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Trooper 1:You won't believe all this paraphernalia in here. I mean, look at this clipboard right here. Comment Upon Voluntary Nature of Social Security. It's a whole riot act about why you don't have to have a Social Security card.
Trooper 2:She's just anti-government, isn't she?
Trooper 1:She apparently belongs to some kind of Klan, or something. Dixieland Law. General Const.i.tution Society. I mean, . . .
Anti-government? A member of the Klan? For knowing her Const.i.tutional rights? For being a member of the Const.i.tutional Society? The att.i.tudes and statements of these police officers show that the FBI training of our police has really paid off.
Note: As you read this conversation between troopers discussing anti-government paraphanelia in Abby newman's car, be aware they are referring to its contents, which include several pocket Const.i.tutions, one of my Police State 2000 videos, the Harrison Ford movie, Patriot Games, and more.
Trooper 1: I mean . . . this is . . . Trooper 2: She's definitely studied on it, hasn't she?Trooper 1: I'm telling you. What is the truth? Trooper 2: I'm wondering if we can keep that for any reason. Trooper 1: Is it evidence of a crime? You know, is it evidence of a crime? If it relates back to obstruction of justice, I would say yes. Trooper 2: I would think obstruction of justice is . . . Trooper 1: That would be the appropriate charge, and that relates to it.
Trooper 2: That's why she did it. I mean, she may be the one that would want to bring that to court. I don't know . . .
Trooper 1: I don't know either. It would probably be fine reading, but I'm not sure if I can seize it or not. I don't know that this is illegal.
Trooper 2: Exactly.
Trooper 1: I think she can read it all she wants to.
Trooper 2: Now, if they've actually outlawed that, that is . . . and I think they have.
Abby Newman was vindicated by a jury of her peers and found not guilty of a.s.sault on a "royal" police officer and of resisting arrest. They still tried to get her for simply invoking her Const.i.tutional rights. Digging through her goods they are heard to say, "Oh, look, anti-govenrment paraphanelia. What are we going to do?"
In another case we have video shot by a news helicopter of one of my listeners at a checkpoint. The police pulled Ferrell Montgomery over, and the SWAT team attacked him. Despite the fact that he was unarmed and that they had rendered him unconscious with three taser guns, the police released a dog on him, and allowed it to savagely tear at his body for over three minutes. They then tried to frame him by holding up two jumper cables and saying that they were "pipe bombs." Of course, a month later they admitted all the charges were false. Still, that didn't stop them from having a little fun, a little manhunt.
America, it is time to wake up to what is happening. We are being treated like animals. Ferrell Montgomery was just pulled over, attacked for no reason, shot with three taser guns, then mauled by a police dog for simply pointing out his Fourth Amendment right to not be searched without a warrant.
The Register-Herald, a mainstream newspaper in West Virginia on September 2, 2001, ran a story with the headline, "Christians a 'hate group.'" They found out the FBI and law enforcement schools across the state-and across the country-are teaching police that Christians, all Christians, period, are hate criminals, and are all part of a terrorist group if they believe in a second coming of Christ. Note that all this propaganda originates from the Justice "Project Megiddo" report, where they list as terrorists: *.
home schoolers
gun owners