It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Being Laxed on TERROR Can Do!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:04 AM
Once upon a time we as Americans lived our lives without fear. Everyone had to confess there was indeed something great about America that must be even confessed even to this date. But then something strange suddenly came along. In 1991 we had a war against Iraq. It was called, Operation Desert Storm. After that war, President George Bush, Sr. began to tell us about something called a NEW WORLD ORDER.

What was this? Where did the concept come from? When did it start? Who are involved in its construction besides President George Bush, Sr.? Amazingly in that major discussion, the former president did not elaborate. At such a critical time on a podium before the entire world, what was the agenda to bring this up, and then leave it cold and flat? Anyone who wanted to find out what it was had to study history. Some already knew that it was the dream of Adolf Hitler. Some already knew it was the object of Communism. The problem was that only a few knew. Independent publications were talking about this as a growing agenda and concern among American leadership. They were claiming it was an anti-Constitutional agenda. But, with most dialogue today, people are sent to confuse and gridlock to the point where the American people believe there is no consequence for believing the wrong thing. But for a long time, such people who supported this concept, like the ones of history, began to say that the American people are "too free." They were saying that there is a necessity of giving up "some of" their liberties, because this would be necessary for security. They were just as free as they were for 200 years. Those 200 years proved that with their liberties, their security was intact. Some Americans knew that this concept was something new to America, but not to brutal regimes: that they have to give up their liberties to achieve something they always had with their liberties for most of the history of this country: SECURITY. Most brutal regimes claimed that liberties must be either limited or non-existent for SECURITY to be maintained. But now something strange recently happened.

On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, two airplanes plowed right into the World Trade Center buildings. The American people were shocked. Those planes just marched clear in and through. No military jets were seen around them neither to stop them nor to even ask for ID, ransom, etc. Dick Cheney was asked how they were able to just march through like that and why military jets were not around to stop them, and immediately and again, something followed that gave ammunition to the big bad ol' "Conspiracy theorists" that are out to get us: a lie. Cheney claimed that those military jets were not sent because they didn't want to SHOOT DOWN the passenger planes that were used as missiles. In other words, if a plane even strays off course, he was saying that if military jets were sent, they are supposed to shoot them down instead of requesting ID and information on what they want, where they're going, etc. This constitutes the first major QUESTION that the "conspiracy theorists" demand answers for that have not been answered to date. A strange team of people are constantly sent to make sure the questions are NOT answered.

In the 1970s when I was in high school, a report appeared of how a small airplane strayed into Kremlin airspace in the former Soviet Union. At that time the Soviet Union was considered a power to be reckoned with. As a result of what happened, THE REPORT SHOWED THAT THE KREMLIN LEADERS TURNED ABSOLUTELY RED IN THE FACE!

This time not only was the airspace in the greatest nation in the world compromised, BUT 3,000 LIVES WERE SNUFFED OUT! But this time was different. This time not only did the faces of the American leaders NOT turn red, but actual pictures of the tragedy were used in the President's re-election campaign that took place on his watch! It was as if he was proud that he failed to stop the tragedy. His subsequent demands proved that he was proud of his failure.

This was an unprecedented circumstance to befall a president. But from that day to this, though this president failed to protect the American people, he began to claim rewards and benefits for failing to protect America. His first move was to stand on the top of a seeming pulpit at Ground Zero telling the world that he is about to destroy "all evil." No sign of distress or even embarrassment was shown on his face. If a president fails to protect the people, is he supposed to be given powers above his presidential oath of office and be made a king? All the other presidents who protected us were not given such benefits. If the day comes when we reward presidents for failing to do their jobs (albeit he was outsmarted) how is it we cannot tell that such presidents will fail us again?

The president then "concocts" something called "The Patriot Act," which is a reward package for himself for failing to protect the American people. This Act is a package of laws that claims the president can arrest and detain anyone just on his accusation alone of having ties to terrorists. Once accused, the victim has no due process nor legal recourse to even prove his innocence. He is accused and tried in secret. There is no set date for his release since he may never be released at all forever, and even judges cannot look over the matter. The President, from that time forward, began to press that this is a "Constitutional" and "Vital" law. In fact a law we never needed until he came along. From that time and in spotty places, the same people began to tell us that the Constitution is an "outdated" document.

Unfortunately these laws and principles were already adopted and practiced by the Inquisitors of Rome before this country started and which this country was a protest to, it was practiced also by the Communists and by the Nazis. President Bush didn't give these brutal systems any form of credit for having these principles before he introduced them to the American people. Even worse is the fact that President Bill Clinton, another New World Order devotee, already pushed for the very same principles contained in the Patriot Act to be established into law with his 1995 Omnibus Anti-terrorism proposals. He also was given no credit for the so-called, "hard decisions" Bush claims that he has to make as he is empowered to bypass the constitution through failing to protect the American people.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:07 AM
Though this country more than survived and prospered almost all its existence for over 200 years without this "new" package of laws, it was advertised as if we cannot exist without it. The American people were always secure with their full liberties before Bush. Then, like the former people who wanted a New World Order, a propaganda team emerged to bake us in the deception. The question emerged, "How come we never needed such rules before Bush?" The propaganda team was set into motion.

They began to say that this country always suffered from terrorism. If that were true, then this country always needed The Patriot Act. How then did it survive and prospered so long without it and before Bush? They began to show us that acts of war even is TERRORISM as we understand it today. Pearl Harbor, that took place before WWII, was an act of terrorism. We then asked them if the Patriot Act was needed back then, and they ducked, dodged and hid from giving the answer. We asked them for a timeline since the first president of the United States: George Washington. We reminded them that Middle Eastern Muslim extremists were always around since the first president. We were free back then. They must have hated us because we were free even back then. Since all in the equation are equal, we asked them to show us how the Patriot Act was around back then or was needed back then. They used great talent to duck the question and preserve the confusion.

They told us that President Bush is the only president that takes the most effective stance against terrorism: instead of swatting mosquitoes as they told us all the former Presidents did, they told us that President Bush makes and starts wars with countries that sponsor terrorism, therefore spraying the pond where the mosquitoes are created. This, according to them, is what makes the Constitution an "outdated" document.

One plus one equals two: If terrorism was always with us, and and the only effective method for combating it is starting illegal wars and the Patriot Act, HOW FAR BACK WAS THE CONSTITUTION "OUTDATED?" How far back were the principles found in the Geneva Conventions "outdated?" From that time the American people are supposed to understand that the people these questions are directed to are the actual enemies of liberty and the United States. From the beginning, it was only the determined enemies of the United States who believed that the Constitution of the United States was "outdated" from the very time of its creation.

The propaganda team was asked to gage the usage of the word TERRORISM in our news media, our magazine periodicals, the internet, and even the textbooks in our schools of higher learning and even elementary schools before President Bush, and they pretended they couldn't comprehend what we were asking. What would be the result if we asked our grandmothers and grandfathers about the existence and frequency of that word in all the reading materials they had when they were growing up, what would they tell you? If we were to ask our parents about the frequency of that word and concern in their lives before President Bush, what would they tell you? They would tell you that the concern just was not there. The problem is that Middle Eastern Muslim extremists were back there back then. Every variable in the equation back then was there as today EXCEPT PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE OTHER NEW WORLD ORDER LOYALISTS. Many of them would tell you that if anyone brought up a set of laws like the Patriot Act back then, they would recognize him as an enemy of liberty and the American Constitution.
Just check the Google Newsgroup Archives, set into operation in 1981, and gage the frequency and use of the word TERRORISM from the beginning till President Bush. What will you find? You will find actually that the more American leaders told us about this NEW WORLD ORDER business, was the more the word and concern for terrorism grew and grew till it exploded since President Bush.
Putting it bluntly:

The propaganda team told us that 911 took place because President Bill Clinton had "laxed" policies on terrorism. The actual fact is, Bill Clinton had stronger policies against terrorism than all the other presidents before him. And yet, the further back we go in the list of presidents this country ever had was the more laxed were their policies against terrorism, and, in fact,...

The more the issue of terrorism never bothered us!!

Why therefore should the American people always be stumped and baffled about this seemingly perplexing subject of terrorism and why it is here among us? Stay with us, and...

Come out of your confusion.

Conclusion: Just follow the principles those bringing the deceit have told us, and it must be that we can combat terrorism by having laxed policies against it.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:19 AM

new topics

log in