The two shootings the Police and U.S. Feds Let Happen


While many of the news reports in the United States are concentrating on how legally owned weapons represent a threat to our society as a whole, and while the politicians tirelessly call for gun control policies, little attention has been given to the fact that both shooters — in Aurora Colorado and in Wisconsin — had been reported as showing suspicious behavior weeks before the attacks occurred. What happened to ‘if you see something say something’ crap? That’s right. The Feds knew that both of these men — James Holmes and Michael Page — were potential psychos, but did nothing to stop the shootings.

In the case of Holmes, his psychiatrist, who is in part responsible for prescribing dangerous medications which have been proven to turn patients into violent animals, had contacted Colorado University police to report concerns about her patient’s behavior at least a few weeks before the attack. In reporting Holmes’ strange behavior, Dr. Lynne Fenton went as far as violating the doctor-patient confidentiality agreement, that resulted in no action, apparently, by university police. The officer who spoke to Ms. Fenton has now been interviewed by members of the Aurora Police Department as part of their fact-finding mission.

A few questions can be raised from the first salvo previous to the Aurora movie theater attack. For example, what kind of medication was Dr. Fenton drugging Holmes with, that may have triggered his violent behavior? The question is not rhetorical, since the use of well-known psychiatric medications has been proven to cause violent behavior in patients. Among those drugs are: Ritalin, Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac, etc. The main reaction caused by these and other drugs is homicidal behavior. The effects of the drugs given to Holmes were seen even during his court appearance, when he was present only physically, but not mentally.

In addition to reporting Holmes’ weird behavior to university police, his psychiatrist also spoke with members of the university’s threat-assessment team. At this point, it seems that such team never met formally or informally to talk about Holmes’ potential threat or to assess the concerns presented by Ms. Fenton. After the shooting, the University of Colorado has refused to describe what kind of action was taken, if any, by the institution or the police with the information provided by Fenton. They cite the existence of a gag order issued by a court. Why would a court order be issued to prohibit them to provide information to the press about the case? Is it not this the job of the university’s legal team to gauge whether it is a good idea or not?

The last statement issued by Colorado University said that campus police often meets with the threat assessment team to discuss “safety issues including security matters, badge access, background checks, wellness checks, criminal investigations and referrals to law enforcement agencies.”

Holmes’ case is clearly one of a man who was doped with drugs that have been proven to cause violent behavior and that has certainly more to do with his attack at the Aurora movie theater than the fact that he was the legal owner of firearms. However, U.S. law enforcement agencies and politicians have taken the opportunity to call for more gun ownership legislation that would leave Americans without the possibility to legally purchase guns to defend themselves from wackos like James Holmes. As it has been shown in this case, police cannot keep everyone safe at all times, and it should be each individual’s responsibility to take care of his or her safety.

The other case that law enforcement agencies also failed to follow carefully, and that just so happens to have ended in another shooting, is the case of the Sikh Temple shooting, Wade Michael Page. In Mr. Page’s case, police had also been warned about his strange behavior previous to the attack, but again failed to stop him from carrying it out. Page had been looked into by Federal investigators because of his ties to racist extremist groups. They would later drop any investigation because they thought there wasn’t enough evidence to continue watching him.

Page’s attack has been labeled as a case of domestic terrorism by the media and some left-wing extremist organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, although officially he was not being investigated by any federal law enforcement agency for any crimes whatsoever. Although the FBI is in theory prohibited from surveilling people not accused of committing a crime, government outfits like the SPLC are legally allowed to do so, and this information can be then fed to law enforcement agencies. The SPLC is well-known for calling for censorship of journalists and other people who call themselves conservatives or libertarians and who demonstrate opposition to government policies.

Page’s case is another example of how federal agents dropped the ball and were unable to uncover his plans to carry out the Sikh Temple attack.

Now to the issues that are hidden behind the fog of censorship.

Both James Holmes and Wade Michael Page had close connections to the government. In the case of Holmes, he was the recipient of a $26,000 government grant — offered to him through the National Institutes for Health — for the specific purpose of studying Neuroscience. The National Institutes of Health is a component agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This relationship makes Holmes’ mass killing a painful example of taxpayer-funded homicide. But the details about Holmes get even stranger. According to Journalist Wayne Madsen, there are more links between James Holmes and American government research, such as the the Salk Institute, a place involved with neurologically enhancing soldiers’ abilities on the battlefield, which also has connections with the US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

From Madsen’s article James Holmes Family Tied To DARPA And Mind Manipulation Work:

In 2006, at the age of 18, Holmes served as a research intern at the Salk Institute at the University of California at San Diego in La Jolla. It is noteworthy that for the previous two years before Holmes worked at the Salk Institute, the research center was partnered with the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Columbia University, University of California at San Francisco, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Wake Forest University, and the Mars Company (the manufacturers of Milky Way and Snickers bars) to prevent fatigue in combat troops through the enhanced use of epicatechina, a blood flow-increasing and blood vessel-dilating anti-oxidant flavanol found in cocoa and, particularly, in dark chocolate.

The research was part of a larger DARPA program known as the “Peak Soldier Performance Program,” which involved creating brain-machine interfaces for battlefield use, including human-robotic bionics for legs, arms, and eyes. DARPA works closely with the Defense Science Office on projects that include the medical research community. Fitzsimons was at the forefront of DARPA research on the use of brain-connected “neuroprosthetic” limbs for soldiers amputated or paralyzed in combat.

In the case of Wade Michael Page, his connections to government programs are also clear and very direct. Up until 1998, Page was a US Army Psy-Op specialist. Psychological Operations are an important part of the US Army. In fact, they are conducted all the time. Page held his position at Fort Bragg until he was given a less-than-honorable discharge.

How can a former army man, who has associations to racist organizations and who has deep knowledge about psy-ops, not be investigated by law enforcement agencies? How can an admittedly racist person be employed by the US Army to work on and / or conduct psy-ops? Furthermore, the first shooting in Aurora was conducted by a Neuroscience student and the latest in Wisconsin by a former psy-ops military man. What are the odds? Well, whatever the odds are, they get even more difficult to believe, because both psychological operations and neuroscience are dedicated to conduct brain manipulation. Is this just another coincidence?

There is another coincidence we will never be able to know about, and that is if after conducting psychiatric evaluations on both of the shooters they discover that Holmes and Page were under mind control. That will never be known because one of the shooters, Mr. Page, was conveniently shot dead — another coincidence — on sight by a police officer and authorities are convinced he, just as they believed in the cases of Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy Mc Veigh, was a lone wolf. So that is where the investigation ends, even though in both shootings, witnesses reported the presence of more gunmen besides Holmes and Page. But that of course is just a conspiracy theory.


EE.UU. Trata a Ciudadanos como Terroristas

Gobierno usa tácticas de miedo para jugar los unos contra otros y enseñarles como espiar los unos a los otros.

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
21 de julio 2011

La inminencia artificial de un ataque terrorista contra los Estados Unidos sigue siendo la herramienta de elección que el gobierno de los EE.UU. usa para provocar el miedo entre sus ciudadanos. Después de los ataques de falsa bandera del 11 de septiembre, el gobierno culpó a los árabes y los musulmanes de manera indiscriminada y le dijo a la gente que debían estar alertas y reportar cualquier actividad sospechosa. La definición de sospechoso o ‘actividades fuera de lo común’, sin embargo, no fue especificada. Tampoco se especificó el alcance de cualquier posible ataque, ni ninguna información creíble de un intento de causar daño a la nación.

Una década más tarde, el gobierno de Estados Unidos ha demostrado que las ‘teorías de conspiración’ estaban correctas, y con esto ha validado el trabajo de un segmento significativo de la prensa alternativa. Ahora todo el aparato de seguridad creado antes y después del 11 de septiembre es usado contra los ciudadanos, no los elusivos hombres escondidos en una cueva o debajo de una cama en algún lugar. El hecho de que el gobierno no ha podido llevar a cabo sus políticas de control social a través de la amenaza del terrorismo, obligó al gobierno a cambiar de planes y, más temprano que tarde, a tornar sus mecanismos de seguridad nacional en contra de la ciudadanía. Ahora, la amenaza de un ataque perpetrado por un hombre de piel oscura en algún lugar de los 50 estados se ha escondido para re-enfocar la atención hacia el ciudadano común de la clase media y trabajadora.

A pesar de que existen terroristas, la amenaza real de un ataque terrorista perpetrado por musulmanes o árabes es tan minúscula que expertos de seguridad, como Wayne Madsen, historiadores como Webster Tarpley y ex-agentes de inteligencia como Bob Chapman y Ray McGovern normalmente comparan la probabilidad de un ataque con ser golpeado por un rayo o morir durante un ataque de abejas. Como ha sido ampliamente probado, el gobierno no sólo no puede proporcionar ninguna evidencia de un ataque inminente en territorio de EE.UU., sino que también admitió que ha creado falsas amenazas para apoyar la implementación de políticas que violan los bien establecidos derechos constitucionales como la privacidad, el derecho a poseer y portar armas, derecho de reunión, manifestación en lugares públicos, y así sucesivamente, utilizando como excusa la falsa premisa de que cualquier “actividad fuera de lo común” departe de la ciudadana implica la potencial amenaza de un ataque terrorista.

Recientemente, municipios en Phoenix y Arkansas han prohibido las reuniones de ciudadanos sin permiso municipal y trataron de acosar al alcalde y otros ciudadanos que se encontraban en el proceso de revelar la toma de control federal que ocurre en todo el país. Los burócratas de los estados en todo el país, con el respaldo de jefes de policía locales que, dejan que el gobierno federal se haga cargo de sus ciudades a cambio de un mayor presupuesto federal para su fuerza policial, o lo hacen como consecuencia de su ignorancia.

Mientras que en oportunidades anteriores el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional ha enseñado sus poderes militares -como la capacidad para detener y arrestar a los ciudadanos considerados como sospechosos, sin ningún tipo de base legal, ahora, el gobierno está tratando de “alertar” a la población sobre la amenaza que los miembros de la clase media, los veteranos de guerra y ciudadanos de las minorías presentan en la sociedad. En un video publicado recientemente por el gobierno de los EE.UU., las supuestas “autoridades” perfilan a todos los tipos de personas como posibles terroristas, pero hacen hincapié en que la amenaza puede provenir de la clase media compuesta por ciudadanos blancos. El primer actor en la operación psicológica presentada en el video, el cual es patrocinado por FEMA y Seguridad Nacional, es un supuesto terrorista de origen caucásico que pinta una cámara de seguridad con un aerosol para ocultar la llegada de un vehículo que oculta quién sabe qué. En la secuencia, un hombre afro-americano llama a la policía para denunciar lo que él llama “actividad sospechosa”. El vídeo sigue con imágenes de anteriores atentados terroristas que, irónicamente, se llevaron a cabo por el mismo gobierno, como el atentado de Oklahoma City. Así lo asegura el Mayor Edward A. Dames, un veterano del Ejército de los Estados Unidos. Dames asegura que hay un grupo de poder que tiene la intención de ejecutar otro ataque terrorista en Oklahoma City, similar al atentado de los 90’s. El mayor ha identificado el lugar del posible atentado como 210 Park Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Lea el testimonio del ex-militar aquí.

En otras secciones del video, la gente puede ver a un hombre caucásico quien deja una mochila con lo que parece ser un artefacto explosivo, mientras que otro hombre observa a través de una ventana de su oficina. Para quien no está familiarizado con operaciones psicológicas, esta es la forma en que los terroristas dicen que es lo que harán. En otras palabras, es muy probable que el próximo ataque terrorista en suelo estadounidense será un camión bomba en un edificio federal, un artefacto explosivo en algún rincón de la ciudad o cualquiera de las formas que se muestran en el video. La exposición del público a este tipo de escenarios garantiza que las masas ignorantes le crean al gobierno cuando este diga que el próximo ataque terrorista se llevó a cabo por un hombre blanco que dejó coches bomba y/o artefactos explosivos en algún lugar para matar policías, trabajadores federales o sus vecinos que viven o trabajan en la esquina.

El video más reciente creado por Seguridad Nacional es parte de una campaña llamada “Ve algo, diga algo”, que cuenta con un presupuesto de al menos $ 10 millones. A pesar de que denunciar posibles ataques terroristas se pinta como “patriótico” y los funcionarios del gobierno a menudo se envuelven con la bandera de su país al pedir más control de la ciudadanía, la historia demuestra que las llamadas urgentes de los gobiernos a aprobar leyes para espiar a sus ciudadanos o para que los ciudadanos espíen unos a otros, resultada en la instalación de lo que muchos llaman un Estado Policía. La historia nos señala ejemplos específicos. Las solicitudes para suprimir los derechos civiles y constitucionales fueron seguidos por la instalación de regímenes dictatoriales como sucedió en la Rusia comunista, la Alemania nazi, la China comunista, Chile en los años 70 y 80, Brasil, Cuba, hasta hoy, y así sucesivamente.

Lo que es más alarmante hoy en día, no es que los gobiernos intenten retratar y culpar a sus propios ciudadanos como terroristas, porque esto es un hecho histórico. La novedad en las llamadas de los gobiernos para “ayudar a evitar un ataque inminente” es que en su propaganda, los funcionarios del gobierno etiquetan casi cualquier forma de disidencia o tradiciones como Terrorismo. Es por eso que la gente que habla acerca de la Constitución o los derechos constitucionales son ahora sospechosos de terrorismo. La gente que apoya a candidatos independientes son identificados como potenciales terroristas. Las personas que muestran pegatinas o pancartas que piden la reducción del tamaño del gobierno son detenidos y multados por expresar sus derechos políticos o incluso sus creencias religiosas. La lista también incluye a los ciudadanos que apoyan al candidato republicano Ron Paul, los propietarios de armas, los entusiastas de comprar monedas de oro o plata, y cualquier persona que se opone a las políticas gubernamentales. Lea los detalles de esta política en el Reporte titulado: MIAC Report: The Modern Militia Movement. Adicionalmente, el gobierno ha contratado a pastores y sacerdotes para que enseñen a sus seguidores a someterse a las directrices del gobierno. Este plan fue implementado con la Orden Ejecutiva 13397: Las Iglesias como Agencias Gubernamentales.

U.S. Regards its citizens as Terrorists

Government uses scare tactics to play people against each other and teach them how to tattle tale.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 21, 2011

The artificial imminence of a terrorist attack against the United States continues to be the tool of choice for the U.S. government to provoke fear among its citizens. After the false-flag attacks of September 11, the government blamed Arabs and Muslims indiscriminately and told people to watch out and report any suspicious activity. The definition of suspicious or ‘out of the ordinary’ activity, however, was not specified. Neither was specified the reach of any potential attack, nor any credible information of an attempt to cause harm to the nation.

A decade later, the United States government has proven conspiracy theories correct. The whole security apparatus created before and after 9/11 was meant to be used on citizens, not elusive boogie men hiding in a cave or under a bed somewhere. The failure to carry out their policies of societal control through the menace of terrorism, obligated the government to change plans and, earlier rather than later, turn the homeland security machinery against the citizenry. Now, the threat of an attack perpetrated by a brown-skinned man somewhere in the 50 states has been downplayed to re-focus the attention towards the common middle-class, hard-working citizen.

Even though terrorists exist, the real measurable threat of an attack by Muslim or Arab terrorists is so miniscule that security experts such as Wayne Madsen, historians such as Webster Tarpley and former intelligence operatives such as Bob Chapman and Ray McGovern usually compare the likelihood of an attack with getting hit by lightning or dying during a bee attack. As it has been widely proven, the government not only cannot provide any hard evidence on an imminent attack on U.S. soil, but also has admitted to creating false threats to support the implementation of policies that violate well established constitutional rights such as privacy, the right to own and bear arms, assembly, protest in public places, and so on, using as an excuse the false premise that any ‘out of the ordinary’ citizen activity implies the potential threat of a terrorist attack.

Recently, townships in Phoenix and Arkansas have banned citizen gatherings without a municipal permit and tried to harass the mayor and other citizens who were in the process of revealing the out of control federal power grab occurring all over the country. Bureaucrats in those states and all over the nation have the backing of local police chiefs who either let the feds take over their towns in exchange for a larger federal budget for their police force, or side with the violators as a consequence of their ignorance.

While in previous opportunities the Department of Homeland Security has flashed its military-like capabilities to detain and apprehend citizens deemed as suspects -without any kind of legal basis- now, the government is trying to ‘alert’ the population about the threat that members of the middle-class, war veterans and minority citizens present to society. In a recent video issued by the U.S. government, the so-called ‘authorities’ profile every single type of person, but emphasize that the threat may come from white middle-class Americans. The first actor in the video psy-op sponsored by FEMA and Homeland Security, portrays a supposed caucasian terrorist who sprays can paint on a security camera to hide the arrival of a van carrying who knows what. In the sequence, an African-American man calls police to denounce what he calls ‘suspicious activity’. The video follows with pictures from previous terrorist attacks which ironically were carried out by the very same government such as the Oklahoma City bombing. This version of the facts often labeled as a conspiracy theory is supported by people like Major Edward A. Dames, an Army veteran of the United States. Dames said that there is a power group which intends to run another terrorist attack in Oklahoma City, similar to the attack of the 90’s. The Major has identified the location of the possible attack as 210 Park Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Read the testimony of ex-military here.

In other sections of the video, people can see a caucasian man dropping a backpack with what appears to be an explosive device, while another man observes through an office window. For anyone who is not familiar with psychological operations, this is the way terrorist tell you what their next move will be. In other words, it is very likely the next terrorist attack on United States soil will be a truck bomb inside a federal building, an explosive device on some city corner or any of the other forms shown in the video. The exposure of the public to these kind of scenarios guarantees that the masses will believe the government when it comes out to say that the latest terrorist attack was carried out by white man who left car bombs or explosive devices somewhere to kill police, federal workers or their neighbors who lived or worked around the corner.

The most recent video created by Homeland Security is part of a campaign labeled as “See something, say something”, which has a budget of at least $10 million. Although the denouncement of possible terror attacks is painted as ‘patriotic’ and government officials often wrap themselves with the flag, history shows that urgent calls from governments to pass legislation to spy on its citizens or for citizens to spy on themselves result in the installation of what many call a Police State. History points us to specific examples. Requests to abolish civil and constitutional rights were followed by dictatorial regimes in communist Russia, Nazi Germany, communist China, Chile in the 70’s and 80’s, Brazil, Cuba up until today, and so on.

What is more alarming on this day and age is not that governments such as the American attempt to portray and blame its own citizens as terrorists; this is a historical fact. The novelty on calls from governments to ‘help avoid imminent attack’ is that in their propaganda, government officials label almost any form or dissent or traditions as Terrorism. That is why people who speak about the Constitution or constitutional rights are now suspects of terrorism. People who support non-establishment political candidates are identified as potential terrorists. People who display stickers or banners calling for the reduction in the size of government are stopped, searched and sometimes issued tickets for expressing their political or even religious beliefs.The list also includes Ron Paul supporters, gun owners, gold bullion enthusiasts, and anyone and everyone who opposes government policies.

Read the details of this policy in the Report entitled: MIAC Report: The Modern Militia Movement. Additionally, the government has hired pastors and priests to teach his followers to submit to government guidelines. This plan was implemented with Executive Order 13397: The Churches as Government Agencies.