The Autumn Terror

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 15, 2010

If there  is one lesson that history shows clearly, it is that crisis don’t come around randomly.  Major crisis are caused in order to further an agenda.  World Wars I, II are examples of this.  The Gulf of Tonkin attack is another artificially created crisis perpetrated to pass an agenda of control.  Operations Gladio and Northwoods are two other examples of how the Establishment plays with the public’s mind to force an agenda through.  More recently, we have 9/11 and the Gulf of Mexico’s Oil Spill.

Terror is the elites’ favorite tool to force crime and control down our throats when they want or need.  What saved Bill Clinton’s presidency was not his understanding of economics, but his treacherous attack in Bosnia and the Oklahoma City bombing.  What saved George W. Bush’s presidency in its first term was not his compassion or conservative actions, but the 9/11 attacks.  Now, it is being suggested by Establishment talking heads that the only think that can save Barack Obama’s presidency is another massive terror attack of the scale of Oklahoma City or September 11, 2001.

Suspecting that a massive attack on the Americans or any other G8 nation is in the works in order to bring about another -possibly a last- crisis is not an exaggeration.  History teaches us well.  What is more outrageous about a possible engineered crisis is not that it will happen, but that Establishment-controlled talking heads come out in the open and suggest such crisis may be the only way to rescue Barack Obama’s presidency from the mud where it is laying down now.  In an article in the Financial Times, a former Bill Clinton operative, Robert Shapiro, made it clear that Obama is relying on an Autumn crisis to come back from the dead.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro.  “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”  Remember George W. Bush standing over the World Trade Center pile of metal?  Where will Obama be standing come October?  He has already had his Katrina-like moment in the Gulf of Mexico, where he bowed to the interests of the British crown by letting BP get away with murder; literally.

The Obama administration not only failed to prevent the oil spill disaster, but also purposely allowed it to get worse.  Obama prevented foreigners and locals to help with the clean-up of the Gulf’s waters.  Instead, he allowed BP to hire thugs and goons who to block the rescue of wildlife and prevent the spread of the oil along the Gulf coast.  As you read this article, BP is using water and land as toxic dumps.  It has transformed islands in centers of death, by pouring chemicals around them which deplete marine life all over the Gulf.  Even though there is technology to clean the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Obama and his buddies at BP chose to let the oil pour into the ocean in order to have an excuse to promote their Cap&Trade scheme.

Looking back in history, during the Bush administration, his Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that another terror attack could help sell the war on terror better.  Members of the military also posed this option as a suggestion to give the global war on terror a boost in times when people are war-fatigued.  Lt. Colonel Doug Delaney, from the Royal Military College made this statement as the head of the war studies course.  Of course, an attack on the United States or any other G8 country would not only have local or regional impact.  The way the global economy is going -into Depression- a terror attack would not only mean a general state of Martial Law and Police State, but a faster and more deafening collapse of economies around the world.

The October Surprise, as it is called in North America could come in any form, not necessarily a nuclear or dirty bomb.  As we have witnessed, the Rulers do not lack creativity when it comes to scaring the sheep.  We have seen the state of the economy being changed through the sale and purchase of illegal imaginary financial products -derivatives-, we now know how to invade a country and lose a war and certainly it is of everyone’s knowledge we are experiencing the consequences of a poorly -purposely- handled oil spill.  But there is one details that the next attack may have that no other had.  It seems, from all the chatter, that this time the attack will be blamed on the citizens.  That’s right.  Anyone and everyone who loudly criticizes the government and its illegal actions has been the target of that very same government throughout history.  Now, those who make their voices heard will not only be put in prison or detained for life.  They themselves will be blamed for any attack.

In the United States, the Tea Party is demonized on an hourly basis on the corporate media.  Granted not everyone in the Tea party is a real patriot -due to the fact it is infiltrated by government and intelligence goons.  However, the real Tea Party, formed by concerned citizens mainly from the Ron Paul Revolution have been victims of continuous attacks from police, the media and other groups that are on the payroll of the government.

So what is a president to do when his poll numbers plunge in only the first 18 months? Nothing!  Because no president is in a position to decided what is done.  He sits there as the front man, as the main character in the puppet show.  He is told what to do and how to do it.  What intelligent man, conscious man would let a chemical disaster simply happen?  What smart, Harvard product would let corporations, banks and military interests be above those of the people?  Only one who was created, one who is controlled and told what to do by his owners.  Also a man who is blackmailed by those who put him in power.

Another question that remains to address is: Why are citizens in revolt against their government?  Could it be because to them, citizens are a product they can sell or auction to the best bidder?  Can it be because citizens are squeezed until their last drop of sweat, blood and patience runs out of their bodies?  Maybe is the fact citizens are treated like criminals in their own country while the criminals are let loose on the street.  This is not so because there aren’t enough funds to keep the towns and cities safe, but because it was designed to be like that.  Charge more taxes, cut basic services.  Charge more taxes but subsidize the collapse of industry.  And when this is not good anymore, the Rulers simply decide to bomb the heck out the irrational citizens.  For the citizens’ benefit, of course.

There is one thing the Rulers do not lie about, and that is what they really want to do to us.  When they said they wanted a massive terror attack to further consolidate their control of people and resources, they did it (Project for a New American Century).   When they said they would collapse the global economy, they did it (Derivatives, toxic assets, IMF and World Bank loan programs).  Now they warn us once again that another Big Surprise is coming and we don’t have any reason to doubt them.  Especially because unlike most corruption, the main stream media loud speaks scenarios of gloom and doom echoing what the terrorists say.  Fifteen years ago, no corporate medium talked about Bilderberg or how the central banks are private and controlled from the top of the pyramid.  Now, these and other “conspiracy theories” are explained in detail daily.  Politicians, professionals, reporters and everyone on the street knows the world is controlled by a handful of families.  They of course make it look as if it is good for us for it to be like that.  They present the Rulers and their “solutions” as the only ones that can save us instead of telling us the truth: That they are the ones who cause the crisis.

Obama’s mask has fallen.  In fact, all the presidents and heads of government’s masks have fallen.

In what form will the Autumn Terror come? Who knows?  The important thing is we have been warned and we must prepare.

In the U.S., the Establishment is on the Run

The waking of the United States of America has begun.  All over the country, incumbents traditionally in bed with corporations have been voted out of office again and again and again.  Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania and other states saw the break of dawn with different eyes as grassroots supported candidates took over senate seats from Establishment candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties.  While only a few years ago people simply could not see through the smoke screen called partisan politics, it took many Americans only six months to realize that Obama was just another disappointment.  Therefore, many of the President’s allies are now being booted out of office.  The massive awakening has started.  May this awakening serve as an example for more Americans to keep on fighting for liberty and freedom.  May this movement infect patriots in other countries so they also defeat the tyranny of the Establishment, the Globalists and their conquest agenda.

Politico

Rand Paul, the first-time candidate for elective office who has emerged as a symbol of the national tea party’s clout in Republican politics, appears to have clinched the GOP’s nomination for this state’s open Senate seat – in a victory certain to jolt the political order in Kentucky and across the country.

The 47-year-old Bowling Green ophthalmologist – who until last year was best known for being the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), whose staunch libertarian views have spawned a national grassroots following – knocked off Trey Grayson, the Kentucky secretary of state who had been the favorite of this state’s political heavyweights, most notably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“I have a message, a message from the tea party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back,” Paul, with his parents and the rest of his family by his side, declared to roaring supporters at a posh country club here in his hometown.

With his attention-grabbing views railing on Washington and its ballooning budget deficits, the fire-breathing Paul successfully connected with this state’s furious Republican primary voters, something that the more subdued Grayson was unable to accomplish in the fight to replace the retiring two-term Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.).

“The electorate is pissed,” said Mike Shea, a long-time political adviser to McConnell. “Rand did a really good job of tapping into those themes and tapping into that anger. Trey is a nice guy, but in his commercials and everything else, he seemed completely unable to generate any kind of dialogue to indicate he was tapping into that. If you meet him, he didn’t seem like he was angry.”

With 89 percent of the precincts reporting, Paul appeared poised to seize a huge victory – leading Grayson by 59 percent to 35 percent of the vote. The Associated Press projected that Paul would win the race.

A packed crowd here at the Bowling Green Country Club let out a loud cheer when the AP projected the race for Paul, who was expected to address some 100 activists here later Tuesday.

But many of the Paul supporters had expected nothing less than resounding victory.

“I kind of expected it actually,” said Brent Young, a 45-year-old tea party activist who works with a local firm researching swine production. “I’ve really been a big supporter of his dad, and I really hope he can be elected in November. Time will tell but we really do think he’s a different kind of politician – and hopefully send a message to the GOP that we want something different.”

Paul is expected to face either Lt. Gov Daniel Mongiardo or state Attorney General Jack Conway, who are in the middle of a neck-and-neck battle for the Democratic nomination. Conway’s views are more in line with the Democratic base’s positions, and he is seen by national Democrats as a safer choice. But Mongiardo is seen as more unpredictable on the campaign trail, though his conservative views that break with the White House could appeal to rural and right-leaning voters. Conway is leading the race in early returns.

While polls showed Paul building a comfortable lead in the final weeks of the primary campaign, his win is still poised to send a shockwave threw the Republican establishment. It’s the first clear statewide victory by the disparate national tea party movement, which propelled his victory based on his calls for radical reforms to Washington, including imposing term limits on senators, mandating Congress be more sensitive to its constitutional prerogatives, constitutionally mandate Congress to balance its budget and force all legislation to directly apply to lawmakers. Absent from Paul’s campaign was much focus on socially conservative and national security views that have generated enthusiasm among tea party supporters in other states.

Conway was leading the race by just two percentage points with 92 percent of the precincts reporting.

“It’s not a real good time for any individual to be in a political position,” Republican state Sen. Carroll Gibson said simply.

Tuesday’s voting turnout appeared lighter than usual in much of the state, due to inclement weather and a lack of a presidential contest this midterm season. The day was colored by allegations from the Grayson camp that Paul’s supporters had been intimidating voters outside polling stations and had improperly sought to verify that voting machines were properly being used, allegations Paul firmly rejected.

Paul appears to have his work cut out for him uniting a divided GOP electorate here. A Public Policy Pollingmemo issued Tuesday found that 53 percent of likely Grayson voters had an unfavorable view of Paul, and 43 percent said firmly they would not vote for the tea party-favorite.

In his victory speech Tuesday night, Paul said nothing about Grayson and declined to extend an olive branch to his opponent’s supporters. Instead, he launched a fierce attack on President Barack Obama, accusing him of “apologizing” to the dictators and running the country towards socialism.

Beyond that, he’ll have to face a newly energized Democratic Party, which views his victory as a bright spot in an otherwise dim election year since it puts the Republican-held seat immediately in play. Already, Democrats are planning to pounce on a number of Paul’s more politically controversial views, including his calls to eliminate the Education Department, severely cut agriculture subsidies to farmers here and his advocacy for increasing the age for Social Security eligibility.

“Sometimes people run primaries different than they run general elections,” Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of theNational Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO when asked if he were concerned that Paul’s views would make him unelectable in a general election. “We’ll see what happens.”

But Paul said he will not “weave and dodge” from the tea party’s message, and he insisted that he will not moderate in the general election.

Grayson, 38, had been viewed as a rising star in the state’s Republican Party. Young, telegenic and seen as a pragmatic-minded conservative, he is one of only five living Republicans to win statewide here, where a majority of voters are either Democratic or independent. With the quiet backing of McConnell for months, Grayson was seen as the heir apparent to Bunning’s seat.

But in the final hours of the campaign that slipped away from him, Grayson’s allies began looking back at what went wrong – and the explanations ranged from failing to account for Paul’s rise early enough, a subpar advertising campaign and a failure to effectively communicate fiscal views to the electorate.

“It seemed to me that he got off to a slow start,” said state Sen. Tom Jensen, a Republican who backed Grayson. “We never really picked up the momentum. It seemed like Rand Paul had the momentum from the beginning and just didn’t lose it. They ran a good campaign.”

And several people here said Grayson failed to push back against the notion that he was the establishment choice, a politically toxic label this election year that he could have more forcefully sought to affix to his opponent.

“He accepted the mantle of being the ‘Washington D.C.’ candidate despite Paul’s obvious ties to his father, and he ceded ground on key fiscal arguments,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist based in Louisville. “Grayson wanted this primary to be about national security because that’s where they thought they had the best opposition research. But this race was about spending and fiscal issues from the beginning, and Grayson’s lack of focus on that cost him early momentum which he never regained.”

As late as Monday, Grayson had complained that he couldn’t get traction on what he considered a key Paul gaffe: that a nuclear-free Iran wouldn’t be detrimental to national security. Paul had responded with a television ad calling Iran a threat, and the tit-for-tat never quite resonated with voters.

“We ran an ad and a quote from him saying that – I don’t know what else we could have done,” Grayson said. “On an issues discussion level, I’m not sure what more we could have done.”

In addition, Paul has positions that stray from the conservative line, including his hesitation over building a fence along the southern border with Mexico and for endorsing a federal ban on same-sex marriage; such positions didn’t seem to resonate with GOP primary voters in an election-year with many concerned about the budget deficit.

And Paul seemed to squash any momentum that Grayson seemed to muster. Last month, for instance, Bunning – who has a strong base of support in the conservative northern part of the state – grabbed headlines when he endorsed Paul, just a day after a new poll found the race tightening.

“I was very surprised because he had said to me straight up that he was going to stay out of the race,” Grayson told POLITICO about Bunning’s decision. “I was surprised. Based upon the things he said to me, I couldn’t reconcile that with what his actions were a month or so ago.”

But Paul benefitted greatly from his name identification as result of his father’s quixotic presidential run for the 2008 GOP nomination that spawned a buoyant band of libertarian followers. And he seemed to be doing something Grayson did not: speak directly to the mood of Republican primary voters angry at President Barack Obama’s agenda – and that anger seems to have cost Grayson his bid for the nomination.

“Obama is the best thing to happen the Republicans, but also the worst thing to happen to some Republican [politicians],” said Todd Inman, a Republican Party activist who supported Grayson.

But Paul credited a “nationwide movement” that helped him win his primary.
“What I say to Washington is, ‘Watch out, here we come.”