by Jim Marrs
According to Dr. Begich, all Americans are already under constant bombardment from microwave frequencies “one thousand times higher than the level considered safe in the former Soviet Union [a leader in mind-affecting energy technology]. The reason that the Soviets set their safety standards as low as they did was because they detected biological effects at levels ignored by the West,” he explained.
But while microwaves may be affecting large segments of the population in the United States, this issue pales when one considers the possibility of a program to consciously target whole populations. Such a program exists in the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), a vast array of powerful transmitting dishes located near Gakona, Alaska. Officially, HAARP is designed to study the uppermost portion of the Earth’s atmosphere: the ionosphere. However, critics of the program, including Dr. Begich and other scientists, claim this powerful array can be used as a weapon, to deliver energy blasts equal to an atomic bomb, destroy communications across the planet, and even influence human behavior.
Critics argue that HAARP has the capability of stimulating the ionosphere to return a pulsed electromagnetic signal, which, at the proper frequency, can override normal brain functions.
In 2002, the Russians, who experimented with both psychic and mind-altering technologies as far back as the 1970s, expressed their concern with HAARP. A complaint letter from the Russian State Duma to President Vladimir Putin stated that HAARP was influencing near-Earth atmosphere with high-frequency radio waves. “The significance of this qualitative leap [in science] could be compared to the transition from cold steel to firearms, or from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons. This new type of weapon differs from previous types in that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence,” stated the letter. Despite this objection, no discernible action has been taken by the United States, and the HAARP system continues to operate.
Dr. Begich warned that allowing the military-industrial complex to solely guide such mind-control research not only runs the risk of creating an Orwellian thought-controlled society but would prevent the “enabling enhancement of human potentials in ways only reserved in the past to mystics, religious figures, and those who sought to change people.”
INCREDIBLY, COMPUTER SYSTEMS are under development today to anticipate criminal or antisocial behavior. They are designed to read human body language that might indicate potential “criminal” activity and summon authorities, reminiscent of prewar Nazi plans to preempt crime and dissent.
In Vienna, during September 1940, at the First Conference of the German Society for Child Psychiatry and Therapeutic Education—later changed to the German Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry—Dr. Anna Leiter, a genetic researcher from Dresden, who studied three thousand youngsters for possible antisocial traits, stated, “We demand that as soon as a careful and responsible analysis shows an extremely unusual lack of emotions in connection with other criminogenic reactive tendencies, we detain these children as early as possible, since they represent an unbearable burden and danger for the entire country.”
Nazi educators pointed to these symptoms of “bad student material” that would qualify for such detention: actual and potential repeaters of lower public school grades, students recommended for special school, “borderline and questionable cases,” uneducable children, those with special educational difficulties, and schoolchildren whose siblings and families are or have been in special schools. It was stated that “genetic and national health considerations recommend their preventative registration.” Of course, such registration led to the euthanasia centers.
The trend to identify and detain potential troublemakers before they have actually committed a crime is being perpetuated today. The British government, in May 2007, responding to news accounts, acknowledged it had secretly established a new national antiterrorist unit to protect VIPs by first profiling, then arresting persons considered to be potentially dangerous. Amazingly, this power to detain suspects even before they actually committed a crime was based on mental health laws.
“The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was quietly established last October [2006] and is set to reignite controversy over the detention of suspects without trial,” wrote The Times reporter Joanna Bale. “Until now it has been up to mental health professionals to determine if someone should be forcibly detained, but the new unit uses the police to identify suspects, increasing fears that distinctions are being blurred between criminal investigations and doctors’ clinical decisions.”
The FTAC unit will be staffed by four police officers, two civilian researchers, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a community mental health nurse. It was hailed as the first joint mental health–police unit in the United Kingdom and a “prototype for future joint services” in other areas. Even as this police unit was assuming the power to arrest and hold potential “suspects,” Scotland Yard refused to discuss how many suspects have been forcibly hospitalized by the team, because of “patient confidentiality.” Meanwhile, the British government was introducing legislation to broaden the definition of mental disorders to give doctors—and now police—more power to detain people.
“There is a grave danger of this being used to deal with people where there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution,” said Gareth Crossman, policy director for Britain’s National Council for Civil Liberties. “This blurs the line between medical decisions and police actions. If you are going to allow doctors to take people’s liberty away, they have to be independent. That credibility is undermined when the doctors are part of the same team as the police. This raises serious concerns. First, that you have a unit that allows police investigation to lead directly to people being sectioned without any kind of criminal proceedings. Secondly, it is being done under the umbrella of antiterrorism at a time when the government is looking at ways to detain terrorists without putting them on trial.”
Is this coming to America soon? Libertarians fear that such measures might be slipped into legislation such as funding for the military or Homeland Security. Many conspiracy researchers suspect that the globalists try out new policies and methods in the United Kingdom first, to see if they are accepted by the public.
Once offenders are picked up, today they face new types of unconstitutional trials. Some researchers saw Bush’s Military Commissions Act with its secret tribunals as an echo of the Third Reich “special courts,” which were designed to prosecute political resistance to the Nazi administration. “The main duty of the special courts was to criminally prosecute the political resistance to the Nazi regime,” wrote Dr. Thomas Roeder, Volker Kubillus, and Anthony Burwell in their book Psychiatrists—the Men Behind Hitler. “During the Second World War, they gradually took over the duties of ordinary justice and from 1942 on, most of the sentencing. Experts estimate that the special court of Hannover alone, one of several in today’s Saxony, sentenced 4,000 defendants, about 170 of them to death.”
Another eerie parallel between the Bush administration and the Third Reich involved the Fuehrerprinzip, or leader principle, which was outlined in Hitler’s book Mein Kampf. This principle stated the leader embodied National Socialism and therefore the people. All decision-making rested with him. Such thinking evolves from the lack of trust in the people. National Socialism, like our democracy, was supposedly a movement of the masses. But its leadership had little faith in its followers.
“[Nazi] ideology denounced civilian methods of elections, negotiation, and compromise as horse trading and called for authority of command, discipline and obedience,” noted Professor Louis L. Snyder in his Encyclopedia of the Third Reich. This top-down leadership principle sounds eerily similar to calls by President George W. Bush for a “unified presidency” as well as his comment to reporters in April 2006, “I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.” “Perhaps the most unique feature of the Bush administration is its protracted peri
od of unified party control of the government, a stark contrast to the divided governments of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan,” noted Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution.
Civil libertarians historically have heeded the statement of patriot Thomas Paine, who wrote in Common Sense, “In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” In other words, no one is above the law.
Yet, Bush has argued that actions allowing him to ride roughshod over the Congress, the courts, and the Constitution were somehow necessary to preserve the presidency. “I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains robust and that the legislative branch doesn’t end up running the executive branch,” Bush argued in mid-2002. In launching the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush preempted the power of Congress, as the U.S. Constitution under Section 8 clearly states that only Congress has the power to declare war. When he and his appointees rammed the USA PATRIOT Act through a cowed Congress, with little or no input, he likewise took powers from the representatives of the people.
A panicky House of Representatives, still in shock over 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, rushed the PATRIOT Act into law by a vote of 339–79. The act was 342 pages long and made changes, both great and small, to more than fifteen different U.S. laws, many of them enacted following revelations about the misuse of surveillance powers by the FBI and CIA. It was hurriedly and enthusiastically signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001. The speed with which this legislation was presented to Congress left little doubt in many minds that it had long been prepared and simply needed some provocation as an impetus for action.
According to some congressmen, many lawmakers had not even read the entire document when it was passed. The ACLU also reported that some members of Congress had less than one hour to read the extensive changes of law contained within the act. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, described the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed: “There was great fear in our great Capitol…. The great fear began when we had to evacuate the Capitol on September 11. It continued when we had to leave the Capitol again when a bomb scare occurred as members were pressing the CIA during a secret briefing. It continued when we abandoned Washington when anthrax, possibly from a government lab, arrived in the mail…. It is present in the camouflaged armed national guardsmen who greet members of Congress each day we enter the Capitol campus. It is present in the labyrinth of concrete barriers through which we must pass each time we go to vote.” Texas congressman Ron Paul, one of only three Republicans to vote against the House bill, said he objected to how opponents were stigmatized by the name alone. “The insult is to call this a ‘patriot bill’ and suggest I’m not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what was in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn’t vote for it—therefore I’m somehow not a patriot. That’s insulting.”
Paul confirmed rumors that the bill was not read by most members of the House prior to their vote. “It’s my understanding the bill wasn’t printed before the vote—at least I couldn’t get it,” he told Insight magazine. “They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote.” Paul’s view of the PATRIOT Bill was echoed by the only independent in the House, Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who said, “I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I’m concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching examination.”
Most Americans would be surprised to learn that since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, until 1976, the USA operated under four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency—the one declared by President Roosevelt in 1933; a national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict; and two states of national emergency declared by President Nixon, on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971. Years of debate over the need for such emergency powers resulted in the creation in 1973 of the U.S. Senate’s Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency. By 1976, the committee had consolidated the emergency declarations and produced the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601–1651), which limits such emergencies to two years.
The Senate committee found that the weight of all these often-underreported proclamations “give[s] force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the president extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the president may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”
Few people in the United States today have been informed that they have been living under a state of emergency since September 11, 2001. This was quietly but officially declared by President George W. Bush three days later, when he issued a proclamation stating, “A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, NY, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
“Now, therefore, I, George W. Bush, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001, and pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq).”
With this proclamation Bush activated what the media called the “shadow government,” those unelected officials and appointees who, under the guidance of his father, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, had years earlier began to alter the form of this former republic, including the use of warrantless electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency.
In mid-2007, Bush codified the “shadow government” with the ominously worded National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, innocently titled “National Continuity Policy.” In the interest of “continuity of government,” this directive stated, “the president shall lead the activities of the federal government for ensuring constitutional government.” The implication was that he would lead the entire government, not just the executive branch.
This takeover of the federal government was contingent on a “catastrophic emergency,” defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”
Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel at the Constitution Project, a bipartisan think tank that promotes constitutional safeguards, said the policy’s definition “is so broad that it raises serious concerns about when and how this might be used to authorize unchecked executive action.”
ALSO TROUBLESOME IS Bush’s contention that he must defend his office from the loss of power. In January 2006, Vice President Cheney stated on NBC, “For thirty-five years that I’ve been in [Washington], there’s been a constant, steady erosion of the prerogatives and the powers of the president of the United States. And I don’t want to be a part of that.” Bush has stated, “I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains robust and that the legislative branch doesn’t end up running the executive branch.”
A June 29, 2006, Supreme Court ruling bolstered efforts of those in Congress who had been trying to curtail overreaching presidential power that claims unilateral authority to determine not only how terrorism suspects are tried, but also to set rules for domestic wiretapping, to interrogate prisoners, and to pursue other wartime powers. It was this 5–3 decision to overrule the president’s actions that required the Bush administration to draw up the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Volumes have been written about the Bush White House’s penchant for secrecy. It has almost become policy. Even conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly has attacked the Bush policy of unnecessary secrecy, writing, “The American people do not and should not tolerate government by secrecy.” She added that no one is “going to buy the sanctimonious argument that the Bush administration has some sort of duty to protect the power of the presidency.” “What the president is claiming is legally and historically absurd and politically stupid,” declared former Justice Department official Bruce Fein.
Bush’s secretive manner of drawing ever more power unto himself came in the form of “signing statements”—written responses by the president issued upon the signing of a bill into law. Such statements have drawn severe criticism from credible legal sources. Jennifer Van Bergen holds a law degree from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is an adjunct faculty member at the New School for Social Research in New York, and is a member of the board of the ACLU Broward County (Florida) chapter. She criticized this activity by noting that from 1817 until the end of the Carter administration in 1981, only 75 “signing statements” were issued. From the Reagan administration until the end of the Clinton administration, this number had grown to 322. But in the first term alone, Bush issued at least 435 signing statements, many noting his concept of a “unitary executive.”
