• 
  

  Click to enlarge. source

Which they link to this report:

The agency’s budget for the next fiscal year includes $4 million to start up a program called Silent Talk. The goal is to “allow user-to-user communication on the battlefield without the use of vocalized speech through analysis of neural signals.” That’s on top of the $4 million the Army handed out last year to the University of California to investigate the potential for computer-mediated telepathy.

The homeland security report added that "disgruntled military veterans" might be vulnerable to recruitment by right-wing extremist groups.

That warning was enough to make Rhodes feel paranoid.

"They're accusing anybody who opposes Obama of being a racist or a potential terrorist," he said. "What they're saying is, 'We're coming after you.'"

The motto of Oath Keepers: "Not on our watch!"

The message Rhodes hears from the government: We're watching you.

An incident earlier this year in rural Iowa, not inside the Washington Beltway, motivated Rhodes to start Oath Keepers.

He questioned why the Iowa National Guard planned to use residents of a small town to participate in training on door-to-door searches for weapons.

"Let them say what they want to say, but April 19 has very much become a day for the extreme radical right," Potok said.

Rhodes couldn't disagree more.

Some of his responses to questions have turned would-be allies against him.

"I've been accused of being a traitor or a CIA operative because I'm not coming out and declaring that the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine is a biological weapon," he said.

Still, according
to PBS journalist Robert MacNeil -

"... anybody would have to be a fool, nowadays, to dismiss [the] conspiracies
[of America's 'government within a government' as merely the mutterings of
a fool].  But perhaps we live in a fool's paradise ..."

For some time now, America's "government within a government" has
been deliberately involved in a plan to destabilize this entire region. Speaking
concerning this effort, British journalist Andrew Marshall - commenting on
a series of bombings in New Delhi on September 13, 2008 (2 months prior to
the recent terror attacks in Mumbai) - writes:

"Recent terror attacks in New Delhi on September 13, 2008, raise the questions
of who was responsible and for what reason these attacks occurred.
Terror attacks in India are not a new phenomenon; however,
in their recent past, they can be largely attributed to the
actions, finances, training and resources of one organization:
The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). These new
bombings bare the same relationship with the ISI as has occurred
in the past, and so it must be asked: what is the purpose
of the ISI both in Central Asia as well as South Asia? [Please
see our article, "Promoting Chaos
in the Interests of the American New World Order System."]

Marshall answers his own question:

"The ISI appears to play the role of a force for the destabilization of Central
Asia, India and the Middle East. It acts as a Central Asian
base of operations for the CIA to carry out American imperial
aims." [Again, please see our article, "Promoting
Chaos in the Interests of the American New World Order System."]

He elaborates on this by describing what he has
learned about the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai:

"The Mumbai terror attacks were part of a carefully planned and coordinated
operation involving several teams of experienced and trained gunmen. The operation
has the fingerprints of a paramilitary-intelligence operation [meaning the
CIA].

"In chorus, both the Western and Indian media are pointing fingers at Pakistan
and its alleged support of Islamic terrorist organizations. The Washington
Post reports:

'Strategic gurus and security analysts in the US and from across the world
are examining Pakistan's role in terrorism following yet another terror
episode in India ending with fingers pointed at its widely-reviled neighbor
...

'The US media has centered its attention on the links between the Mumbai
attacks and the "resurgent terrorist groups [which] enjoy havens in
Pakistan's tribal areas as well as alleged protection or support from elements
of Pakistani intelligence'."

Chossudovsky continues:

"According to the media, the enemy is Al Qaeda, the illusory 'outside
enemy' which has its operational bases in the tribal areas and North West
Frontier Province of Pakistan. Washington's self-proclaimed holy mandate under
the 'Global War on Terrorism' is to take out bin Laden and extirpate Islamic
fundamentalism."

Chossudovsky explains what's happening here: That the Mumbai attack
is an attempt by the same people who got the United States involved in the
War in Iraq to wrap up what's happening in Pakistan under the mantle of the
"War on Terror," thus giving the U.S. the right to intervene (and destabilize)
Pakistan:

"America's right to intervene militarily inside Pakistan in violation of
Pakistan's sovereignty is therefore upheld. Bombing villages in the tribal
areas of North West Pakistan is part of a 'humanitarian endeavor', in  response
to the loss of life resulting from the Mumbai attacks."

He explains:








"The media reports point, in chorus, to the involvement of Pakistan's Military
Intelligence, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), without mentioning that
the ISI invariably operates in close liaison with the CIA. The US media
indelibly serves the interests of the US intelligence apparatus. What is implied
by these distorted media is that:




1. The terrorists are linked to Al Qaeda. The Mumbai attacks are a "State
   sponsored" operation involving Pakistan's ISI 

2. The Mumbai gunmen have ties to terrorist groups in Pakistan's tribal
   areas and North West Frontier Province.

3. The continued bombing of the tribal areas by the US Air Force in violation
   of Pakistan's' sovereignty is consequently justified as part of the 'Global
   War on Terrorism'."

However, this is nonsense! Chossudovsky elaborates:

"Were the ISI to have been involved in a major covert operation directed
against India, the CIA would have prior knowledge regarding the precise nature
and timing of the operation. The ISI does not act without the consent of
its US intelligence counterpart."

In other words, it's not so much the Pakistani government that is
involved here as it is the CIA. Chossudovsky goes on to say:








"Washington (meaning America's "government within a government") is intent
on using the Mumbai attacks to:




1. Foster divisions between Pakistan and India and shunt the process of
   bilateral cooperation and trade between the two countries;

2. Promote internal social, ethnic and sectarian divisions in both India
   and Pakistan;

3. Justify US military actions inside Pakistan including the killing of
   civilians in violation of the country's territorial sovereignty; 

4. Provide a justification for extending the US led "war on terrorism"
   into the Indian sub-continent and South East Asia.

In October of 2006 I wrote in an article entitled, "An American Coup d'Etat" the following:

"In the April 2006 edition of Harper's Magazine, the editors of Harper's
pulled together a panel of distinguished experts to discuss the possibility
of an American coup d'etat - one carried out by the American military
in the interest of the American "military-industrial complex" and
those who support the further expansion of the American New World Order System.

"Bill Wasik, a senior editor at Harper's and the panel's moderator,
introduced the subject by suggesting:

'Eternal vigilance being the price of liberty, Americans - who spent decades
wargaming a Soviet invasion and have taken more recently to daydreaming about
'ticking bomb' scenarios - should cast at least an occasional thought toward
the only truly existential threat that American democracy might face today.

"To the ultra-rich, the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution were
anything but champions of equality; they were, rather, the fervent defenders
of inequality. Indeed, Richard J. Herrnstein, who held the Edgar Pierce Chair
in Psychology at Harvard University before his death in 1992, and Charles
Murray, who is a Bradley Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
wrote:

'The Founders wrote frankly about the inequality of men. For Thomas Jefferson,
it was obvious that ... (people) were especially unequal in virtue and intelligence.
He was thankful for a 'natural aristocracy' that could counterbalance the
deficiencies of the others, an 'aristocracy of virtue and talent, which
Nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society'
...

"They continued:

'The other founders, including Madison, Hamilton, and Washington - ruminated
in the same vein (as Jefferson) about the inequality of men and the political
implications of that inequality ... The perversions ... (implicit) in the
egalitarian ideal that began with the French Revolution and have been so
plentiful in the twentieth century are not accidents of history ... Egalitarian
tyrannies, whether of the Jacobite or the Leninist variety, are worse than
inhumane. They are inhuman'.

Moreover - according to Edward Luttwak, a senior
advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a second
member of the Harper's panel - even if the ultra-rich could get the
upper echelons of the military to go along with their coup attempt
-

'You [i.e., the perpetrators of the coup] would sit in the office
of the Secretary of Defense, and the first place where you wouldn't be obeyed
would be inside your office. If they did follow orders inside your office,
then people in the rest of the Pentagon wouldn't. If everybody in the Pentagon
followed orders, people out in the military bases wouldn't. If they did
as well, Americans citizens would still not accept your legitimacy'.

"Luttwak continues:

'It just wouldn't work ... You could go down the list and take over this
headquarters, that headquarters, the White House, the Defense Department,
the television, the radio, and so on. You could arrest all the leaders,
detain or kill off their families. And you would have accomplished nothing'.

"Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University
and a third member of the panel, agrees with Luttwak:

'That's right. What are you going to seize that, after seizing it, gives
you control of the country'?

"Luttwak goes on:

'You could shut down the media [in an effort to further your cause], but
even if you did shut down the media, you still wouldn't be able to rule.
Because, remember, in order to actually rule, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCEPTANCE.
Think of Saddam Hussein: he was not a very, you know, popular leader, but
he did have to be obeyed at the very minimum by his security forces, his
Republican Guards. SO THERE IS A MINIMUM GROUP THAT ONE NEEDS IN ORDER
TO CONTROL ANY COUNTRY. In this country ... [you have never had such
a group]'.

Indeed, so much have things changed in this direction that Bacevich
wonders:

'... whether, in fact, we're not already experiencing what is in essence
a creeping coup d'etat'.

"This does not mean, however, that a MAJORITY per se (or even
a plurality of differing and competing factions) in the country would ever
support such a coup - after all, a coup would not be necessary
if that were the case. Coups become necessary precisely and only because
such majorities (or even pluralities) do not exist. A coup d'etat implies
that the use of military and police power are necessary to impose the will
of those who support the coup on the rest of the population. But even
here - as Luttwak suggests - there still remains the necessity of a -

'... a minimum group [in the population] that one needs in order to control
any country'.

All this brings us back to what we indicated in the opening
paragraph of this article:

"Forty-five years ago President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was assassinated in
Dallas, Texas. He was targeted to be killed by 'a government within a government'
that was concerned that he didn't 'have the balls' to be president; that he
was unprepared to use America's immense military strength to carry out the
wishes of America's 'elite of power'. Now Obama is in danger of running
afoul of this same "elite of power" if he is not very, very careful."

This is no time for complacency! Use the time you have been given
wisely. Arm yourself with "THAT SURE WORD OF PROPHECY" -

"... whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth
in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts."
(2 Peter 1:19)

Andrew
C. Wallace is a former Kentucky State Trooper, Kentucky Native, Korean
War Veteran, Commercial Pilot in Alaska, University of Kentucky Undergraduate
in Business, Four years of Graduate School in Economics and Marketing
at University of Kentucky and University of Iowa., Assistant Professor,
Thirty years as Director of Marketing Firm developing and implementing
national Marketing programs for manufacturers and now retired doing research
and writing.

E-Mail: natlmktg@gte.net

“But at the same time, I do feel people should be held accountable and people should know this is what is going on over there.”