October 17, 2001
Big Brother is Alive and Well: sTHINKs, SthinkS, sTHINKs
Something very important is in the offing: a gradual shift in focus in these compilations from the evildoings of the not-so-secret government manipulating world events to further its despotic aims, to co-creating all together and with the Forces of Light the new global field of loving awareness and spiritual kinship that will render their plots utterly irrelevant and smooth the way for the emerging evolvement of this world up towards a new dimension of Oneness and unified Intent in universal service for the One That Is In All Of Us.
In conjunction with this Shift in focus, you will exceptionally receive later on today a most important channeling received from Matthew through Suzy Ward which I emphatically recommend to your attention.
Love and shine - no matter what happens...
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
President Clinton once said to senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon:
"Sarah, there's a secret government within the government, and I have no control over it."
Sent by Claude Rifat <firstname.lastname@example.org>
1. Some Feedbacks
2. Bush's war at home: government censorship, secrecy, and lies
3. All M-1 Garands Must Be Destroyed
4. Slip through the net of government control
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001
From: Kalama Hawkrider <email@example.com>
Sounds like you are swamped with information and emails. A sign of success! We all appreciate your willingness to find and share the truth or at least as much of it as you can discern. Thanks and please keep it up.
Prior to this recent crisis, a lot of what I read re conspiracy, etc. I paid little attention to. I didn't believe nor disbelieve, lacking enough reliable information and not wanting to be paranoid or fearful about our lives here in the US. On Sept 11, after spending just a brief (10 min) amount of time watching the TV, I had an engagement I needed to keep. While in my car, driving through the city and countryside, I received an interesting psychic message that led me to appreciate the verification your site provides. The messages and dreams continue, disturbingly so at times, and yet are validated soon after, by your info, others, other sites, etc.
In addition about two weeks ago, I obtained an older book by Randolph Winters. He is an American who spent time with Billy Meiers, the Swiss farmer who received contact from the Pleiades. His book condenses much of Billy's contact information which was written in German. This material predicts our likelihood to fall prey to mind control of some kind and also indicates that the terrorists and world leaders are also subject to this by others. The information specifically related to visitors who are no longer here and also wove in with what I received. In addition, my memory of Jean Dixon's predictions indicated the likelihood of mind control also.
So I found recent material on Montauk Point very interesting and new to me. I am sure the protective measures given by those participants would be helpful for all of us regardless. When I am receiving similar messages from a variety of sources, without as well as with in, the inner being is able to relax a bit more.
AND MY REPLY WAS (in part)
This is especially important to me since hardly anyone cares to take a stand on this crucial issue - as if everyone was either in deep denial, too overwhelmed (or blasé!) to be able to have any kind of reaction, or simply afraid to stick their neck out and courageously state the obvious.
It is also possible that many people simply do not take time to actually read the material I send...
From: "Natalie Mannering" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001
Hi Jean, Do you have a website where the postings from days gone by are still viewable?
P.S. In response to the woman who sat with other religious officials and Pres. Bush in prayer, and the article listing Bush's political crimes, etc. prefaced by the question, "Or do you believe THIS?": I think we have to believe all of it, in light of what we know about the human spirit and evolution. Bush is not a wise old soul, obviously. He is like all of us, I believe, evolving through many, many lifetimes, making many mistakes, working through delusion and ignorance. I don't doubt that some part of him sincerely wants to be in accord with Spirit.
What we who can see the bigger picture must do is support the younger souls in their soul's journeys to the Light with prayer and love and wise guidance. Cynicism, sarcasm, bitterness will only serve to increase the polarity. One can be calm, loving and wise even knowing what terrible crimes are being committed. THAT is the task of the more mature souls who have evolved past naivety and the desire to be shielded from the realities of life.
They must work even harder to stay in the Light, because their responsibity is greater than the younger souls who do not yet understand the consequences of their actions. When the loving wisdom of the older, wiser souls is respected by the younger and more mature souls alike, then we will have true leadership and unity. When the mature souls remain locked in battle with the ignorance of younger souls and do not call on their higher wisdom for the sake of their own evolution, then there is only stalemate. I recommend to your readers the Michael teachings for better understanding of the roles we all play in the cosmic drama. I will send a few links.
AND MY REPLY WAS (in part)
Previous postings (for the last 3 years) are available at http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000 (scroll to the bottom to view the latest ones).
And for your convenience, here are the relevant URLs for all the 34 compilations (a total of 408 pages of material) sent since Sept 11 (plus 5 French compilations - 60 pages): CLIP
Thanks Natalie for sharing this important spiritual perspective. I wish you were right regarding the young Bush being sincere and open to his inner promptings to be in accord with Spirit - and this may be true indeed as I have occasionally been touched by his apparent sincerity when he is not reading his carefully crafted teleprompted speeches - or was it his improved reaganesque-like acting ability as he is growing on the job as pro-American media analysts are fond to say. However in most respects, I'm more inclined to view his Administration and the most adept handlers behind this facade as masters of deception and manipulative control over the message conveyed by the media - just as they do in electoral campaign mode - and thus over people's perceptions about their decisions and actions. Fortunately, and thanks to the Internet, more and more people are turning to other sources than the media to find out other unreported aspects and facts - see "Slip through the net of government control" below.
And under the guise of combatting terrorism, a wide range of of BigBrotheresque measures have been rammed through the US Congress and Senate without any careful analysis and debate, thus jeopardizing the very freedom the United States is supposed to stand for - see "Bush's war at home" below - and announcing a brutal clampdown on all dissenting voices in the current monolitic, almost dictatorial political landscape in the U.S. At least, in Canada (where I live) a similar anti-terrorist bill introduced this week defines more clearly what terrorism is and protects the rights of citizens to peacefully demonstrate and protest - allegedly!
Bush's war at home: government censorship, secrecy, and lies
By Patrick Martin
13 October 2001
The month since the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington has seen dramatic changes in the day-to-day functioning of the US government and the open emergence of powerful tendencies toward antidemocratic and dictatorial methods of rule.
The Bush administration has sought to impose greater secrecy than that which prevailed during World War II, pressured the media to censor coverage of opponents and targets of the war drive in Central Asia, and engaged in arbitrary arrests and detentions without trial on a scale not seen in America for more than 80 years.
The Democratic Party has been a willing partner in this onslaught on democratic rights. Last week the House Judiciary Committee voted 36-0 for a package of repressive measures sought by the Bush administration in the name of combating terrorism. The Senate approved a similar bill by 96-1 on October 11, and final passage by both houses is expected in the coming week.
The House bill significantly expands the power of the FBI to spy on wireless telephone calls and the Internet, to circulate the information obtained to other government agencies, and to detain immigrants on the orders of the attorney general, all without court review.
The Senate approved its version of the anti-terrorism bill after a series of overwhelming votes to defeat amendments introduced by Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, the lone dissenter on the legislation. Feingold said the measure would authorize FBI surveillance of vast areas of American life that have no conceivable relation to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
One provision authorizes FBI surveillance of Internet usage by anyone who accesses a computer "without authorization." The language is so broad that it would apply to any employee who uses a company or government computer to make an Internet purchase, or a teenager who uses a library computer to visit an unapproved site.
The Senate bill represents the effective militarization of the FBI and other federal police agencies. As Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, declared, "If there is a single goal of the intelligence components of this anti-terrorism bill, it is to change the focus from responding to acts that have already occurred to preventing acts that threaten the lives of American citizens. We cannot continue to use critical information only in a criminal trial." In practice, this means these agencies will no longer be engaged in "law enforcement," as conventionally defined, but will act as arms of the Pentagon in the "war on terrorism."
Both pieces of legislation bear Orwellian titles. The Senate bill is the "Uniting and Strengthening America Act" (USA), while the House bill, named the "Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," was so labeled because the acronym is "PATRIOT."
Both bills define terrorism so broadly that those engaging in many forms of peaceful political activity, including picketing and civil disobedience, could be targeted for electronic surveillance, Internet spying, indefinite detention and secret court proceedings.
Repression and cover-up
What the new anti-terror powers of the federal government will look like in practice can be judged by the experience of thousands of Arab- Americans and Muslim people over the past month. More than 600 (now the total is over 700 according to CNN - Oct 14) people have been arrested or detained by the FBI and other police agencies, under conditions of a systematic denial of civil liberties.
Only a handful of those arrested or detained have obtained legal counsel, an indication that these prisoners have either not been informed they have the right to a lawyer or have simply been denied the exercise of this right. One lawyer, Mitchell Gray, described to the Washington Post a Catch-22 situation in which federal jailers demanded that he presents an authorization form, signed by his client.
"I talked to the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] several times, and nobody would tell me where he was," said Gray. "They said, `Do you have a G-28 signed by this man? We can't let you see him with without a G-28.' Well, how can I get a G-28 signed unless I see him?"
Police officials have kept virtually all information about those arrested under seal. Only a few names have been released, and families are not being told where the prisoners are being held or what charges have been lodged against them, if any. One fact is clear: not a single one of the more than 600 has been charged with any offense tied to the September 11 suicide hijackings. Most are being held on technical violations of immigration law or traffic charges that would never have led to jail time before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
With a series of vague and ominous warnings about further terrorist attacks, the Bush administration is seeking to create a popular hysteria to support, not only short-term repressive measures, but the creation of an entirely new institutional framework for targeting domestic political opponents of American military intervention in Central Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere.
The newly established White House Office of Homeland Security is to be one focal point of this police-state buildup. By installing Governor Ridge as a White House aide, Bush bypassed Congress entirely - there will be no Senate confirmation of the appointment and no congressional oversight of his activities.
At the same time, the Pentagon has been instructed to create, for the first time in US history, an office of Commander-in-Chief USA, a headquarters for controlling all military operations in the western hemisphere, focusing on the continental United States. This would integrate four existing military commands, including the Southern Command, responsible for Latin American operations and notorious for fomenting of military coups, and the Strategic Command, which controls US nuclear forces.
The political implications of this military reorganization were spelled out by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who told a congressional committee last week that he favors reexamination of the legal doctrine of posse comitatus, adopted after the American Civil War, which bars the use of the armed forces for domestic policing.
Already the Bush administration has approved the stationing of National Guard troops at airports-a measure that does little to increase the security of air travel, but accustoms the general public to armed soldiers as an everyday sight. The next step will be the deployment of regular military forces in domestic operations for the first time in more than a century.
These moves are not merely in response to the September 11 attack. They were worked out as part of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, a long-term planning effort on which Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have focused since they took office early this year. This underscores the fact that the Bush administration has seized on the terrorist attack to bring forward an anti-democratic political agenda of long standing.
Whipping the press into line
An integral part of the buildup of repressive forces is the curbing and disciplining of the press. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer gave the signal with his well-publicized declaration that Americans should "watch what they say" about US military, intelligence and police operations. The White House campaign to whip the press into line has met little or no resistance from the giant corporations that control the television networks and daily newspapers.
In comments reported by the New York Times October 7, Fleischer claimed that the public was up in arms, not over excessive government secrecy, but over undue inquisitiveness by the press. "It's not what government officials are saying that's the issue," he said. "It's the type of questions that reporters are asking that's the issue. The press is asking a lot of questions that I suspect the American people would prefer not to be asked, or answered."
On October 10 National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice held a conference call with executives of the five networks to urge them not to broadcast taped statements produced by Osama bin Laden, or to air them only in heavily censored form. Rice told them that airing propaganda by bin Laden would undermine the US war effort, while other White House officials claimed that the tapes might contain coded messages to terrorist cells.
Both the political and the military arguments for this act of self-censorship are absurd. No one can claim that the tape-recorded comments of bin Laden, hailing the destruction of the World Trade Center and the killing of more than 5,000 innocent people, will arouse any significant political support in the American viewing audience. As for the suggestion of coded messages, US television censorship would have no effect. Anyone interested in receiving such messages can get bin Laden's statements on the Internet and through the broadcasts of Arabic-language and other overseas media.
When a member of the White House press corps asked Fleischer if there was any evidence to back up the claim that the tapes might contain coded messages, Bush's press spokesman admitted that the supposed threat was based on mere "suspicions."
On Thursday morning, October 11, executives of the five networks issued a joint decision essentially capitulating to the government demand. One network executive told the New York Times that the action, the first time in the history of the television medium that all the networks agreed to a common limit on news coverage, was a "patriotic" decision. A CNN official said the all-news network would "consider guidance from appropriate authorities" in deciding what news to broadcast about the war.
There have been a number of previous acts of self-censorship:
* Knight-Ridder refused to publish a report-later made public by USA Today - that US special forces were on the ground in Afghanistan well before the start of the bombing campaign. The newspaper chain acceded to a Pentagon request to withhold the information from the American people, even though it was no secret to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
* In response to phone calls from Fleischer, officials at all five television networks, as well as the wire services, agreed to stop reporting in advance on the schedule and appointments of Bush and Cheney, on security grounds.
* Some 17 US news organizations had advance knowledge of the beginning of bombing raids on October 7, and all agreed to withhold any reports until after the strikes began.
* The media has for the most part placidly accepted the refusal of the Pentagon to provide any description of bomb damage or casualties in Afghanistan. This follows the precedent of the Persian Gulf War, where the US never made an estimate of Iraqi losses, believed to have numbered in the tens of thousands.
These measures add up to a systematic effort to block any expression of opposition to the US military intervention, and to accustom the media and the American public to more overt measures of government censorship.
Bush censors Congress
The Bush administration is seeking to withhold information, not only from the public at large, but also from Congress. On October 5, Bush instructed the entire national security apparatus to limit classified briefings to only eight of the 535 members of Congress-the Senate majority and minority leaders, the House speaker and minority leader, and the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
White House aides said congressmen were guilty of leaking classified information from a briefing by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who told them there was "100 percent likelihood" of further terrorist attacks on US targets. Ashcroft had made similar statements in television interviews during the week, but that did not stop the administration from using the reports on the congressional briefing as a pretext to halt further disclosures. Bush virtually accused congressmen of treason, declaring, "I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk."
The Bush administration only agreed to less sweeping restrictions on the dissemination of classified information after Republican members joined Democrats in opposition, citing the legal obligation of the executive branch to be accountable to the legislature for its administration of laws and handling of appropriated funds.
A secret government
One of the most sinister features of the new regime is the virtual disappearance from public view of Vice President Dick Cheney, who was said to have been removed to "a secure location" on October 7, when US bombing raids on Afghanistan began.
The following day Cheney did not appear at the ceremony swearing in Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge as the director of the new Office of Homeland Security, held in the White House East Room. Cheney had been scheduled to officiate, but Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas substituted for him.
The vice president was evacuated from his official residence, and he reportedly participates in daily meetings of the National Security Council by secure videoconference, rather than in person. By Friday, October 12, Cheney had not been seen in Washington for six days.
This is especially significant given Cheney's prominence in the Bush administration. The vice president has been described as playing the role of CEO to Bush's chairman of the board. He is the man in charge of day-to-day operations, and a particularly influential figure in national security issues, given his history as secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.
When Cheney was absent from the usual vice presidential position, seated behind the president on the speaker's rostrum, during Bush's nationally televised speech to Congress September 20, White House officials declared that he had been sent elsewhere because of the security threat facing the government.
Some press reports have suggested that Bush political aides sought to lower Cheney's profile out of concern that his greater experience in foreign policy, and more serious demeanor, might prove an embarrassing contrast to Bush. But much more than symbolism or petty jealousy are involved in Cheney's disappearance. By removing him from view, the Bush administration is shielding its chief decision-maker from any public scrutiny or accountability. Cheney heads what is, in effect, a secret branch of government.
In attacking Afghanistan, the United States is positioning itself in one of the most strategically critical and resource-rich regions of the world, Central Asia. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, American imperialism had virtually no access to this region. In the decade since the dissolution of the USSR, the Pentagon, CIA and State Department, and the giant oil companies whose interests they protect, have moved in aggressively. The mass murder at the World Trade Center became the pretext for the unfolding of a long-planned and long-prepared military intervention in the region.
In a similar fashion, the domestic side of the Bush administration's war represents the culmination of a protracted assault on constitutional principles and democratic procedures in America. Throughout the 1990s, the Republican Party, increasingly dominated by extreme right-wing elements, laid siege to the Clinton administration, using fabricated charges and bogus investigations in an attempt to bring down his administration.
This campaign produced the impeachment of an elected president for the first time in American history, and though it ultimately failed to remove Clinton from office, it revealed the impotence and paralysis of the Democratic Party. The impeachment drive created the conditions for a fundamental breach with democratic processes in the theft of the 2000 presidential election, in which the US Supreme Court intervened to halt vote-counting in Florida and installed George W. Bush in the White House.
A man who was elevated to the presidency despite losing the popular vote is now leading the American people into a war of unknown dimensions and duration, and claiming that this war, allegedly for "freedom and democracy," requires the suppression of basic democratic rights at home.
World Socialist Web Site
Bushs economic plan: a wartime gift to corporate America
US Supreme Court Justice OConnor says personal freedom will be curbed
Why we oppose the war in Afghanistan
Nearly 600 detained - Widespread violations of civil liberties in US dragnet
NOW WHY WOULD THEY SUDDENLY DECIDE TO DO THIS NOW?... THINK!!
From: "Kerry" <email@example.com>
Subject: All M-1 Garands Must Be Destroyed
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001
First remove these from the people. Then the others...
All M-1 Garands Must Be Destroyed - Government Orders
From Illinois State Rifle Association
Posted By S. Jackson 10-11-1
This week, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1438, the Department of Defense (DoD) annual authorization bill, which contains a provision that is of grave concern to hunters and sport shooters.
Section 1062 of this bill provides the Secretary of Defense with the authority to require "demilitarization" of any "significant military equipment" that has ever been owned by the DoD. This would include all firearms (such as the venerable M1, M1 Carbine, and Model 1911, as well as all Civilian Marksmanship Program rifles, even "sporterized" surplus bolt-action Springfields!); firearm parts such as barrels, bolts, triggers, firing pins, sights, etc.; ammunition and ammunition components; and firearm accessories such as cleaning rods, oilers, and even cleaning brushes.
"Demilitarization" is the term for rendering such items permanently inoperable, and Sec. 1062 allows for this action to be carried out either by the owner or a third party, with the owner paying the cost, or by the DoD.
However, if the DoD determines it should perform the demilitarization, it can also determine that the cost of returning the demilled item is prohibitive, then simply keep the item, and reimburse the owner only for the fair market scrap value of the item.
Furthermore, this new authority would require private citizens to determine for themselves if an item they own is subject to demilitarization, and face criminal penalties for non-compliance. The DoD would be under no obligation to notify law-abiding citizens that items they have lawfully owned for years, and perhaps that their families have owned for generations, are suddenly subject to forced demilitarization.
This becomes extremely significant when one considers that U.S. military surplus has been "regularly and legally" bought, sold, and traded for centuries. Countless Americans own items that could be subject to Sec. 1062. It is likely millions of law-abiding Americans would be affected, and could unknowingly become criminals overnight without having done anything or having ever been informed.
The DoD already has the authority and responsibility to demilitarize any item it sells as surplus, so there is absolutely no reason to seek new authority to confiscate and destroy lawfully sold and lawfully owned items that are now the property of private citizens.
Be sure to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge them to strike Sec. 1062 from S. 1438, the "National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002." the "National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002." Act Today - Or Lose Your Heritage
From: "Mark Graffis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Slip through the net of government control
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001
This war is as much a media war as a military one. The west's success in this conflict will not be determined just by its military action in Afghanistan, but rather by the way it keeps world public opinion on its side. But a large chunk of the public, both in the west and the rest of the world, are not forming their opinions solely by what they see and hear on TV and read in their national newspapers. Instead, they are turning to the internet to find out what is "truly" going on. For many the internet is the only form of media that is free of government control - a belief shared in the west and the rest of the world. The popularity of websites such as Urban 75 and Zmagazine has never been so great.
Surfers are scouring them for news and views about the war on Afghanistan, which might give another perspective on the whole crisis. Whether these websites are as politically subversive as people perceive them to be is another question. But what their popularity shows is the level of distrust people now have of the conventional media. A lot of people - white and non-white - to whom I have spoken believe television is extremely susceptible to state control during times of crisis. The fact that there were rumours last week that Condoleezza Rice may have influenced a meeting of American TV company bosses to reduce air-time given to Bin Laden speeches lends the belief plausibility.
The report that America - ever the champion of press freedom - asked the emir of Qatar to request the producers of the independent news channel al-Jazeera to tone down the anti-US sentiments of its panellists is further proof of the way the state steps in to control the media on the grounds of so-called national security. It was the irony of ironies when Qatari officials reminded the US of the importance of media freedom. This particular conflict is to al-Jazeera what the Gulf war was to CNN 10 years ago. But if the success of CNN paved the way for 24-hour news channels, the success of al-Jazeera may open doors to greater press freedom in the Middle East. So it is important that no state, especially the US, tampers with the only independent news channel in the Arab world.
The internet - because of its unregulated nature - is perceived to be outside such state interventions, hence its popularity in this war in providing the exchange of free news and views. Since the war began on September 11, there has been an increase of popularity of Arab and Islamic websites in Britain. People are visiting the sites to hear opinions other than the sanitised ones on TV and in the newspapers about the conflict. Another reason may be that people genuinely want to know what is happening in the Islamic world, and how people over there are thinking about this war. This shows a genuine interest in another perspective on the war, another world view - something the internet has made possible.
A lot of Muslim youths I have spoken to say that the internet offers them not only news of the war directly from regions such as the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East, but it also offers the facility for exchange and dialogue, which to them is truly liberating. Most websites, whether Islamic, leftist, or even extremist, offer noticeboards and chatrooms, which give people the rare opportunity to hold a dialogue with people from different parts of the globe, with different world-views and perspectives.
One of the reasons Muslims are turning to the internet for news and views is probably because of their distrust of the ability of conventional western media to tell the truth. This distrust has developed because of the way the media covered the Gulf war. It was made out to be a clean, sweeping, hi-tech battle in which lives were not being lost - even though the allies were carpet-bombing Baghdad night after night. The true human cost of the war came out only gradually after it was over, when the crisis was no longer the focus of the news. Many Muslims are concerned that this war might be the same, where what is genuinely happening in Afghanistan may be different from what is being reported. Also, Muslims are suspicious that the west's motive may be different from what it claims.
Whether this genuinely is a war on terrorism or on the Islamic world is a hot topic in the chatrooms of Islamic and Arab websites, where the debates are totally unrestrained and unregulated. This is the first real global conflict that we have encountered since the internet became a global phenomenon - and it has already come of age. It truly is the medium where we can experience and understand something from many perspectives - something we need to do, especially in a war that is the clash of two different ways of looking at the world, one of freedom and one of extremism.
BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE