FAST-TRACKING THE GLOBAL AGENDA UNDER THE COVER OF WAR

WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF
October 12, 2001
Copyright Joel M. Skousen
Quotations with attribution permitted.

On a number of fronts, the Bush administration is taking advantage of the war fervor engendered by almost non-stop media propaganda to advance the globalist agenda. In Congress, anti-terrorist legislation that undermines American liberties is rolling through without a roadblock. Besides the normal expanded authority to snoop on Americans' mail, telephone conversations and email--without a warrant--the dangerous new law creates a definition of terrorism that can be used to suppress almost all civil protest of government wrongdoing. According to Section 803 of this bill, a crime of terrorism is defined as any act dangerous to human life that violates the laws of the United States or any state within the US and appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population [overly broad]; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [excessively broad: any pressure could be construed as intimidation of a public official], or (iii) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping [OK]. This language could easily be used to suppress future civil dissent.

Fast Track authority for the President to clinch global trade agreements is also being steamrolled over muted Democratic opposition. Fast Track authority transfers a large portion of Congress' authority over treaties and trade agreements that affect US sovereignty to the Executive Branch. This is a violation of the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution. The Bush administration intends to use this authority to proceed without debate in formalizing a hemisphere-wide free trade agreement, to accelerate the administration's "global obligations." What obligations? According to the President's agenda, they start with partial implementation of Mexico's demands for more open borders and immigration amnesty. The Republican leadership is maneuvering behind the scenes to bypass any opposition. They used the current terror crisis to cancel hearings last Friday but then brought the bill up before the whole House on Monday morning for mark-up without any consultation with the Democrats on the committee or with the Democratic House leadership. The Democrats were justifiably enraged. While I am no defender of the Democrats' socialist agenda on environment and labor issues (their only points of opposition to Fast Track authority), they are the only opposition in Congress to this dangerous and unconstitutional procedure. Shame on the conservative Republicans for failing to oppose this issue in defense of our national sovereignty. What else will fall in the name of this "war?"

I listened to the president's press secretary Ari Fleischer instructing the White House press corps to censor any future tape recorded message from Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. Some of the press became a little testy at the suggestion of censorship--even though Fleischer carefully avoided the word. Fleischer responded that "we have the power, but this is only a request" (an interesting veiled threat). They spent the next 10 minutes sparring over what he meant. Fleischer refused to elaborate on his warning, "we have the power..." and kept skirting the issue, emphasizing the voluntary nature of the request. This is typical of the Bush administration approach. They have declared a national emergency which gives them totalitarian powers, but they are avoiding using them at all costs, in order to get people used to living with them. Naturally all the major media agreed to comply. Fleischer kept quoting a briefing by National Security Advisor Condi Rice stating that they suspect these pre-recorded messages may contain coded wording or messages used to trigger terrorist events. The press went into great detail probing Fleischer about whether the government had any concrete evidence to back up those assumptions. He was evasive. As they pressed him further, he kept reverting back to a tell-nothing quote from Rice.

Daily the FBI, CIA and Justice Department have been warning about imminent terrorist attacks. But nothing on any scale happens, day after day. Pretty soon, the government is going to look like they are crying wolf and the public will go back to sleep. Worse for the government's other agenda in the "war," the US might lose interest in supporting this continued meddling in other nations if more terror doesn't happen.

What is really suspicious is that evidence keeps mounting that the FBI and CIA had some prior knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack before Sept. 11, and suppressed the information. Here's the evidence so far:

(I am indebted to the research of Dr. Stan Montieth for many of these findings. Hear his radio broadcasts at www.radioliberty.com or order his September Radio Liberty Report and other fine materials at 1-800-544-8927.)

Numerous sources in Jerusalem and the UK published reports from Israel that the Mossad had sent a major warning to the CIA a week prior to the 9/11 terror attack that "large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent." The CIA claims they get these all the time and didn't take it seriously. Now the CIA is issuing daily warnings and they expect us to take them seriously!

According to the LA Times, the FBI was tracking at least two of the hijackers prior to the event and failed to notify airlines. If the names of Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhamzi had been passed to the airlines, they would not have been able to buy tickets on that fateful day.

The New York Times reported the findings of Ernest Welteke (German Bundesbank) that "There have been fundamental movements in these markets (airline stocks) and the oil price rise just ahead of the attacks is otherwise inexplicable." The US government claims to be investigating who placed these massive short positions, but have not reported any findings. Experts say it would take less than 1 hour to track these transactions down. Why the silence?

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Mayor Brown was called eight hours before the attack and warned that "Americans should be cautious in their travel." (I consider this a general warning only since none of the planes involved were on the West Coast). Author Salman Rushdie (who has written anti-Islamic works) was warned by the FAA on Sept. 3 not to fly to Canada and the US, according to the London Times.

The Defense Language Institute in Monterey was put on alert prior to the attacks, as well as some overseas embassies and military bases. This is not definitive evidence, as there are other reasons for going on alert, but one has to question why the public was not warned.

6. CIA had advance warning of a plot to destroy buildings with hijacked airliners

I reported previously on Project Bojinka--the code name of a terrorist plot uncovered in the Philippines (where there are numerous Islamic terrorist activities). The CIA failed to surveil any fight schools in anticipation of this threat.

According to wire services, FBI agents in Minneapolis, MN arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, an Algerian with French citizenship, on immigration charges. He was arrested after a tip from a local flight school that reported that the suspect wanted to be trained in flying a large jet aircraft, but said that he did not want to take the time to learn how to take off or land. The FBI knew he was a terrorist on French watch lists, but refused to pursue the case or issue search warrants on orders from higher authority, according to Phil Brennan of NewsMax.com (Oct 8, 2001) and David Schippers (see below).

David Schippers was the former Democratic Chicago lawyer brought in by the Republicans to impeach Clinton. He wrote the book Sellout afterwards, which documented his experience and detailed how the Republican leadership sabotaged the impeachment to help get Clinton off. He was particularly incensed that they refused to let him present the more damaging evidence about Clinton's treasonous collusion with China. The following are excerpts from his interview with Alex Jones of Infowars.com. Alex Jones (AJ) begins by asking Schippers (DS) how his involvement in these charges of government prior knowledge of terrorism began. He explains that it surfaced as he received information about the various "john doe" accomplices to Timothy McVeigh who were of Middle Eastern origin and who appeared to have past links to Iraq and Osama bin Laden.

Even though I have found the evidence pointing to such accomplices absolutely compelling and accurate, I still think it is improper to proceed to the all-to-obvious conclusion that the OKC bombing was strictly an Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden act of terrorism. With all of bin Laden's prior dealings with the CIA, combined with the evidence of non-Middle Eastern/CIA agent provocateur involvement (Andreas Strassmeier of Elohim City) the trail of collusion and direction still points to our own government. Either the dark side of government agencies were directly involved in the explosion, or at least, they knew it was going to happen and let it happen. As to the latest acts of terrorism, the evidence is beginning to indicate that government knew more about the possibility of attack of 9/11 than they are admitting. Here are some excerpts of the Schippers interview with my comments in [brackets]:

DS: ...The woman who is a former investigative reporter down in Oklahoma City [Jayna Davis, who I mentioned in prior WABs] ...told me that she had information indicating a middle eastern connection...So she and her husband flew up to Chicago and brought a mass of information - I mean affidavits, all kinds of things.

AJ: And we've had Col. Craig Roberts, [Army Lt Col. Craig Roberts (Ret), who wrote "The Medussa File," a compilation of evidence on illegal government operations] who was a detective working the case on this show many times, a month before attack, predicting one was imminent. He has all that same information. They actually arrested some of these guys and the Justice Dept. in 1995 said to release them.

DS: That's right - and the word's out today that they [FBI] are not even allowed to touch them, the Oklahoma City police are not allowed to touch these people. And from what I'm understanding, they are up to something again in Oklahoma City. I don't know what it is or what their target is but these same people are at it again. The terrible thing here else (sic)--something that few people know--that there was a warning sent out. Have you ever heard of Yossef Bodansky? [Middle Eastern Terrorist expert and head of unofficial Congressional Task Force on Terrorism]

AJ: Yes.

DA: He is the guy that wrote the book about Bin Laden. He was hooked up with some Congressional leaders in the House - kind of an unofficial, for lack of a better word, a strike force, a task force on terrorism. They sent out a warning on February 19, 1995, saying there was going to be a massive attack by the terrorists in the heartland of the United States and it was going to be a federal facility. Everybody ignored it. By the way, I have seen that warning...there was in that warning that there was going to be a massive attack in Washington - it took them six years to do it. The targets were going to be Washington, the White House and the Capitol Building. - And that they were going to use airliners to attack them.

AJ: Now later you got it from FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota [whistleblowers who are under threat by their own agency leaders] that there was going to an attack on lower Manhattan.

DS: Yea - and that's what started me calling. I started calling out there. First of all, I tried to see if I could get a Congressman to go to bat for me and at least bring these people out there and listen to them. I sent them information and nobody cared. It was always, "We'll get back to you," "we'll get back to you." Then I reached out and tried to get to the Attorney General, when finally we got an attorney general in there that I would be willing to talk to [Ashcroft]. And, again, I used people who were personal friends of John Ashcroft to try to get him. One of them called me back and said, "All right, I have talked to him. He will call you tomorrow morning." This was like a month before the bombing. The next morning I got a call. It wasn't from Ashcroft. It was from somebody in the Justice Department.

AJ: One of his handlers.

DS: Yea, and I started telling him the situation and he said, "You know we don't start our investigations at the top" [inferring that he wasn't going to let him talk to Ashcroft about it]. I said I would like to talk to the Attorney General because this is vital. He said, "We don't start our investigations at the top. Let me look into this and I will get back to you." As I sit here today, I have never heard from him.

AJ: Again, David Schippers, you are big in Washington, you were the top lawyer that got Clinton impeached, you are highly respected, you know the Senators, the Congressmen. You're calling up. You've got these FBI agents and others feeding you this information. They're being pulled off the cases, they're angry. That's even been in the news now, from Minnesota and Florida and Illinois. They know what's going to happen. The Sudanese in '96 and '98 tried to arrest Bin Laden for Clinton, tried to give us the names of Al Qaeda, Clinton wouldn't take it.

DS: Didn't want any part of it.

AJ: Wouldn't touch it. So we've got all this developing. We've got police officers and FBI on the ground who know who bombed Oklahoma City. They've got them in custody with blue jogging suits and bomb-making components. They are ordered to release them...Why is this happening?

DS: I'll tell you something. This is one of the things that, to me, it is almost inconceivable, inconceivable that with the knowledge they had that they would turn their back. Just assume that they had investigated and gone in after the Oklahoma City bombing, as they are going now. There never would have been an attack on the Trade Towers. If they had done, 5 to 6 years ago what they are doing now, they probably would have had Bin Laden and that gang all stopped by now. But, I don't know, as a human being, as a former prosecutor, as a lawyer and a guy who represents police and agents all over the United States, it is inconceivable to me that those bureaucrats in Washington would turn their back on the obvious for their own purposes. [That's the trouble with most Americans. It is so hard to conceive of a conspiracy of power so strong and with such evil purposes that they would commit or allow these kinds of terror events to happen (in order to promote a secret globalist agenda), that they cannot bring themselves to believe it or act upon it].

AJ: Now you say, from your sources, I know you represent a bunch of FBI agents who are hopping mad, you probably can't talk about the specifics, you say you are representing them. Are they getting ready to sue or something?

DS: Well they are hoping to, but what do you sue for? What I'm trying to do is get the people in Washington - you see these agents can't come out. The only information that I have is information that is public knowledge. They can't tell me anything that is confidential or anything that is secret, or anything like that [whistleblower laws only allow these agents to take their grievances up the chain of command--to the very people who are always part of the problem. Top echelon people in the CIA and the FBI are the ones working for the dark side of government; thus truth cannot emerge under existing law]. I'm talking about what is public knowledge [which is rarely sufficient to prosecute] and these guys can't say anything unless they are subpoenaed.

AJ: That's why you want to get into a court. [Technically, they would then be allowed to reveal things their bosses have classified as secret, as long as the court sealed the record--so the public can't know.]

DS: I don't want to get into a court. [Schippers doesn't know that all top judges are controlled. Trial and appellate judges, in collusion with federal prosecutors, have demonstrated a consistent pattern of never allowing whistleblowers to give evidence of government collusion--at least when the evidence leads to the top.] I want to get them into the intelligence committee. I want to get them to talk to the Attorney General, to Gov. Ridge, to General Downing [Gen (ret) Wayne Downing, author of the DOD report on the terror bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia] or to somebody who has the ability or the authority to go to the FBI bureaucrats and say "Butt out!" --we are going to do this right. [This is very naive of Schippers. He doesn't realize that all of those top leaders are co-opted by the Powers That Be (PTB)--even if a few may be nice people apart from their government service. He obviously--perhaps incredibly--hasn't been able to project the pattern of stonewalling he has already experienced in Congressional committees and the impeachment process to draw the inevitable conclusions about dark-side control of government--but he's getting there].

There is much more to this interview than I am able to cover. It is a blockbuster. There are some exaggerations and mistaken conclusions, but it is must reading. For the full text go to FreeRepublic.com The exact URL is (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/544850/posts).

Mr. Skousen's analysis is posted each Friday evening.
See www.joelskousen.com for details.

More information not worth considering?

More "after-the-fact" finger-pointing with absolutely no evidence that an attack on the WTC on 9/11 by airliners hijacked in the United States was ever known by anybody but the hijackers.

Besides, if the JD HAD shut down airports or taken some other action, you tin-foilers would be screaming "fascism" at the top of your lungs.

You want it both ways.

You'll bitch about whatever happens.

...absolutely no evidence that an attack on the WTC on 9/11 by airliners hijacked in the United States was ever known by anybody but the hijackers.

from the article above:

1.
Israeli Mossad warned the US a week in advance
Numerous sources in Jerusalem and the UK published reports from Israel that the Mossad had sent a major warning to the CIA a week prior to the 9/11 terror attack that "large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent." The CIA claims they get these all the time and didn't take it seriously. Now the CIA is issuing daily warnings and they expect us to take them seriously!

What you have said is not true, sinkspur. The US was forewarned, US citizens were not. The WTC towers were the likeliest target - after all, they had been hit before. While I agree that the FedGov could not have halted all air traffic, or even known on what specific day to do so, if warnings can be issued now, after the attacks, why couldn't they have been issued prior to 9/11? The Mossad informed/warned the CIA one week before the attack took place...that tells me they had some pretty specific info to work with. A warning to US or at least NY citizens would have been helpful, to say the least. Also, considering all the warnings and preparation now going into efforts to "be prepared" for some large-scale infection of anthrax or smallpox, couldn't the NYPD and NYFD been put on alert and resources made ready to better handle an attack on the WTC...just in case?

if warnings can be issued now, after the attacks, why couldn't they have been issued prior to 9/11?

Nobody would have taken them seriously.

And, the civil libertarians here and elsewhere would have been screaming about some government conspiracy to "frighten" Americans.

Just look at all the hysteria that the Military Tribunals have generated. Every damn bit of it is speculation and hyperbole.

I can handle criticism; I get it all the time.

Given the things you often say there can be no doubt.

I notice you didn't defend the dork who wrote the article.

Why should I? The author's view is nothing to me. But Schippers sure has a damning load of things to say.

DS: Yea, and I started telling him the situation and he said, "You know we don't start our investigations at the top" [inferring that he wasn't going to let him talk to Ashcroft about it]. I said I would like to talk to the Attorney General because this is vital. He said, "We don't start our investigations at the top. Let me look into this and I will get back to you." As I sit here today, I have never heard from him.

I find it hard to believe that a man like David Schippers is just making this stuff up. No, it isn't evidence of anything but if he isn't making it up it sure gives one pause. One who has electrical activity in the brain anyway.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.