Therapist at FGCU is Architect of Surveillance State

Posted on Updated on

Alex McAllister with Jeanne Arlotta McAllister, a Couple of Kooky Federal Agents
Alex McAllister with Jeanne Arlotta McAllister, his former wife worked for the federal government for 35 Years

At Florida Gulf Coast University, professors are “gagged,” unable to speak against the administration’s actions. They are also instructed to send students who “appear troubled” to CAPS (Counseling and Psychological Services).

One of the therapists at CAPS, who specializes in anger management, has a rather illustrious history. Makes one wonder just what kind of managing of the anger is done.

Meet Alex I. McAllister: therapist and inventor.

McAllister did work with Bell Atlantic Federal (which became Verizon Federal). They contributed to such markets as DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency),the DSSMP (U.S. Army Digital Switched Systems Modernization Program), and the DMATS-Boston (Defense Metropolitan Area Telephone System-Boston).

He actually helped develop a technology that makes a telephone a prison. New York Times did an interesting article on it.

Anyway, an architect of the surveillance state is a therapist at FGCU.

You may have noticed that the entire country is under surveillance (if not drive down 75 and count the cameras). This was pointed out in a 2006 article that appeared in USA Today (there was an earlier article, actually, but I can’t find it anymore), and was hardly commented on much until the Edward Snowden affair.

In the article, it was pointed out that Verizon, Bellsouth, and AT&T were involved.

Verizon evolved partially from Bell Atlantic Federal, McAllister’s former employer for whom he helped invent, according to a page it seems he probably created, some 20 inventions. Among them was a home incarceration system described as turning a telephone into a prison.

Coincidentally, Alex Mcallister’s wife was employed for 35 years by the federal government as a “systems analyst,” which I believe was Edward Snowden’s job at one point.

Obit
Source: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?pid=158382550

 

Interestingly or not, their marriage occurred while martial law while underway in the area after Hurricane Charley. For some, surviving that experience may have been a great bonding, although I’m not sure they were here during the hurricane itself.

You may think it’s in bad taste to post this obituary, but it’s also in bad taste not to inform the public about whom their troubled youth are being sent to.

AmCallisterbio

 

Dead Disease Experts (restored article)

Posted on Updated on

DavidDees-DeadMicrobiologists

This is an article pulled out of the archives about a conspiracy that never gained a lot of traction. Apparently, between 40 and 100 suspicious deaths have occurred involving microbiologists. It is believed by some they were helping create a plague of some kind.

This article was captured on July 29, 2002.

 

DEAD DISEASE EXPERTS

It all began with Don Wiley.

On November 15th, Harvard Professor Don Wiley left a gathering of friends and colleagues some time after 10:30 PM. The next morning, Memphis police found his rental car stopped on a bridge, with a full tank of gas and keys still in the ignition. There was no financial or family trouble. Indeed Wiley was supposed to meet his family at the Memphis airport to continue on to an Icelandic vacation. Neither was there any history of depression or mental illness.

In the report printed in the New York Times on November 27th, the FBI’s Memphis office distanced itself from the case saying that the available facts did not add up to a suspicion of foul play. I guess at the FBI it’s a perfectly everyday occurrence for a Harvard Professor to stop his rental car on a bridge in the middle of the night before he is supposed to leave for Iceland and just walk away into the Tennessee dark.

The NYT report of November 27th also downplayed Professor Wiley’s expertise in virology, quoting Gregory Verdine, a professor of chemical biology at Harvard, said, “If bioterrorists were to abduct Don Wiley, they’d be very disappointed,” because his research was in studying the component parts of viruses, and “that doesn’t really help you make a more dangerous version of the virus.”

But this statement is not consistent with the facts of Professor Wiley’s full range of knowledge. Wiley has, in conjunction with another Harvard Professor, Dr. Jack Strominger, won several academic prizes for their work in immunology, including a Lasker prize. Don Wiley is a Harvard professor, but he is also a researcher at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the National Institute of Health. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute is located in Chevy Chase, Maryland, and performs biological research, sometimes jointly funded by the Department of Defense and the NIH. Don Wiley’s peers at Harvard include professors such as John Collier performing research on Anthrax.

So, contrary to the dismissive tone of the New York Times report, Professor Wiley would be of great value to anyone developing biological weapons. This makes the FBI’s obvious disinterest in the case highly questionable, indeed reminiscent of the FBI’s obvious disinterest in the numerous witnesses in Oklahoma City who had seen Tim McVeigh in the company of additional perpetrators not to mention the witnesses who had seen additional bombs.

Especially in light of the events of 9/11, the vanishing of a scientist with Professor Wiley’s expertise in virology and immunology should have been expected to be an issue of critical national importance, yet the official tone of the government was that this is nothing to worry about. Move along citizen, nothing to see.

In the context of the Anthrax letters being sent through the mail, any disappearance of any microbiologist under questionable circumstances should have set off alarm bells across the nation. but it didn’t. Professor Wiley was assumed to have committed suicide, end of story.

Doubts expressed about official “suicide” explanation for disappearance of Harvard Virologist.

Then, more biologists started to die under suspicious circumstances.

The Very Mysterious Deaths of Five Microbiologists.

03/06/02Microbiologist death toll mounts.

The body count of infections disease experts continued to climb. Connections to weapons research began to surface.

02/20/02 12 top microbiologists have died under mysterious circumstances since 9-11

And still the US Government acted as if nothing was amiss, as silent on the question of dead microbiologists as they are on the question of the Israeli spies and their connection to 9-11.

In fact, the official silence on the question of how so many top experts in infectious diseases could die in such a short time span is deafening.

Now, statistically, it’s possible, even likely, that one or two of these microbiologists legitimately were killed in random accidents. But for so many to die in such a short while exceeds all reasonable bounds of statistics. Prudence would demand an investigation, not the “ho hum” attitude of the government which even today continues to issue dire warnings to the general population of how much we are all in danger from “bioterrorism”.

So, let’s take a moment and step away from the perpetual fear-mongering of the media (and Rumsfeld) as they assure us another attack IS coming (with a certainty which suggests inside information on the subject) and assume for a moment that some party has indeed decided to “liquidate” weapons research infectious disease experts.

There is really only one reason to kill off a bunch of scientists. To keep them from doing something they are able to do.

What were these scientists able to do? Maybe blow the whistle if an artificially created disease was about to be used in a manner those who created it did not approve of.

Regardless of the exact reason, there does seem to be a clear pattern of targeted microbiologists, and paired with it, an obvious government disinterest in the matter.

I leave it to you to figure out why.

 

JFK Secret Society Transcript

Posted on

Here’s a link to the transcript.

Note: it’s been removed.

Here’s another copy:

The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

audio  Listen to this speech

    Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

     I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

     You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

     You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

     We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

     But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

     If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

     I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.

     It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

     Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

     Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

     If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

     On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

     It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

     My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

     I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

     This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

     The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

     But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

     Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

     If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

     It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

     Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

     Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

     For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

     The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

     The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

     On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

     I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

     Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

     And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

     Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

     It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

     No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

     I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

     Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

     This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.

III

     It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

     And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

 

 

EPA Playing Cover Up in FOIA Request

Posted on Updated on

Ed Garrett at DEP Hearing
Ed Garrett at DEP Hearing, Worrying David Mica

Recently, I received a FOIA request reply from the EPA which was very odd on several levels.

A copy of an email from Fred McManus of the EPA to Leonard Dangerfield and Wilda Cobb (UIC Attorney) that said she (Cobb) needed to approve the emails that are released on FOIA request EPA-R4-2014-006828.

That’s the number of my request.

I asked for no paper, only electronic, so I got a three inch thick pile of paper. And there are no electronic documents online for the public to access thus far.

Then, I was told that many subjects I had asked about had no documents of any kind related to them, which seems next to impossible since they include such huge projects as the Sabal Pipeline, Collier Resources, Youngquist Brothers, Sea Robin Pipeline, Pollister Drilling, Old Corkscrew Plantation, Trunkline, Saudi Aramco, and Florida Gas Transmission.

Also, I got duplicate copies of many things, perhaps to make sure more trees were killed.

Dangers to themselves were covered in some of the emails between the DEP and EPA in the lead up to the Golden Gate Estates Community Center hearings on March 31, 2014.

An earlier email from Rafaela Zapata, the Golden Gate Community Center customer service specialist, indicated that an earlier public hearing had been blissfully bereft of “shouting, heckling, or sign waving.”

Isn’t that nice for them.

That was from a September 25th, 2013 email. However, as March 31, 2014 approached, some paranoia seemed to creep into communications between Ed Garrett and Fred McManus.

In a February 20th, 2014 email McManus wrote Garrett:

“Ed, what was the person’s name that caused you some concern and was actually escorted from the past meeting by the FL State Troopers? Please tell me again what his specific comment was that caused the concern and lead to him being escorted out of the building.”

Garrett attached something which I am not privy to, mentioned an individual, and said the Collier County Sheriff’s office was notified.

A later email from Garrett to McManus on February 24, 2014 read:

“You may have to provide federal law enforcement officers or make arrangements with Golden Gate Community Center for Sheriff’s Deputies.”

What was also disturbing was that I was given a copy of an email from Fred McManus to Ed Garrett reading:

“My Division Director asked if there has ever been any ground water contamination associated with Class II injection wells in the Sunniland trend…”

It was also CC’d to Wilda Cobb and James Ferreira, and I didn’t receive the reply to this email.

However, I did receive an EPA document “Permitting Guidance for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities using Diesel Fuels: Underground Injection Control Program Guidance #84.”

It was the latest copy, and here’s an article about it. It notes, among other things, that the EPA doesn’t even regulate where it could, which is hardly anywhere (only in the case of diesel fuels).

What immediately leapt out for me what that it is relying on Fracfocus.org data, which has been called extremely unreliable by independent studies. It also relied on standards from the American Petroleum Institute, which had a Saudi agent presiding over it quite recently, and is linked with the Koch brothers and ALEC, a corporate-friendly legislation creating body.

Matt Caldwell and the Two Postage Payments

Posted on Updated on

Matt Caldwell, District 79, Team Frack

 

By Carl-John X Veraja

Recently, Larry Aguilar was excluded under mysterious circumstances from the ballot for District 79 for the State House of Florida, an area in which Sunshine Elementary has since gotten an acid fracking rig as a neighbor.

Matt Caldwell, the state representative Aguilar wanted to run against, has paid exorbitant fees to Terry Miller and companies associated with him, causing one to wonder what sorts of services they provide. For instance, Caldwell paid $21.575.46 from 12/01/2013 until 1/18/2014 in consulting fees. To 3 different but same parties (all of them associated with Terry Miller and his employer Strategic Advocacy). Terry Miller is the head of Team Frack.

As you might imagine, this is much more than the average amount candidates pay for consulting services in this area.

For some reason, Terry Miller and Strategic Advocacy set up several consulting companies. Some would even call them fronts.

Larry Aguilar’s case involved his package not getting picked up by a mail clerk who has since been difficult to locate. Furthermore, the letter of the law was ignored in favor of the spirit of a memo and a handbook. These spelled out that the Department of Elections recommends you don’t use the Post Office and that it’s your responsibility if they don’t pick up your mail.

Interestingly, a little bit before this fiasco arose, Caldwell decided he needed another consulting company called Taylor Strategies up in Tallahassee, where the action happened.

What is odd is that Caldwell paid postage and for his qualifying fee on 6/9/2014, and then paid postage again on 6/16/2014, an amount of $170.

Why two postage payments?
Why two postage payments?

The two postage payments are listed to POSTMASTER at 8695 COLLEGE PKWY, FORT MYERS, FL located at The Atrium.

Coincidentally, this is the same location as Terry Miller’s TM STRATEGIC CONSULTING SERVICES LLC.

So, why the two postage fees? And why all the campaign management fees? Where is that money going exactly? Over $50,000 in two years? This Terry Miller must be the local Wizard of Oz, and who knows what’s going on behind the curtain. What with all the Big Oil backing he has?

And why did Brittany Lesser say the post office wouldn’t give the Department of Elections Larry’s mail, whereas a mail clerk name “David” said no one even went to get the mail?

Questions abound.

Meanwhile, behind an elementary school in Lehigh Acres…

DEP Revokes Permits and Files Lawsuit Against Dan A. Hughes

Posted on Updated on

Herschel "411" Vinyard
Herschel “411″ Vinyard

By Carl-John X Veraja

In what is most likely an effort to give Rick Scott the appearance of being environmentally concerned, the DEP is proceeding with its lawsuit and has revoked the permits of Dan A. Hughes Co.

A amount “in excess of $100,000″ is being sought from Dan A. Hughes.

A notice of revocation and a complaint were provided.

Despite this supposed act of green responsibility, the DEP has failed to respond to my concerns about the acid fracking rig being set up behind Sunshine Elementary in Lehigh Acres.

This is the school at 601 Sara Ave. N, Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 which now has the skeleton of a monolith looming over it.

Here is a copy of a letter sent to the DEP:

To whom it may concern:
I looked at the Breitburn/ Youngquist Brothers operation at Consolidated-Tomoka Land Co. Well No. 26-2 and was deeply disturbed to find very recent history was repeating itself, such as occurred in the case of the drilling proposals by Dan A. Hughes in Golden Gate Estates and at the Collier-Hogan site.
Those events lead to a DEP lawsuit, a severing of ties between Dan A. Hughes and Collier Resources, and a deeply wounded relationship between the public and public officials.
Am I to understand that while that situation has yet to be recovered from, the DEP is prompting an even worse situation, involving putting up an acidizing rig right behind an elementary school in a residential community?
From what I understand, there is no toxic gas or safety plan for this area and school.
Laura Roberts reported that the DEP and BreitBurn led her to the conclusion that the “activities” at the Consolidated-Tomoka Land Co. Well No. 26-2 were just “routine maintenance.”
Where, and of what quantity, are the possible misnomers this time around?
1. Why is a tilted rig such as is employed for directional drilling up at the site?
2. What services will Youngquist Brothers be performing?
3. When will a public hearing be scheduled?
4. When will an advisory committee be assembled?
5. Can I tour the site?
6. Have groundwater samples been taken?
7. Has or will seismic surveying be used in the area?
8. What was the exact nature of the conversation with Laura Roberts?
9. Can I have copies of all documents pertaining to this operation?
10. What efforts have been made to inform the parents of students at Sunshine Elementary?
11. Why was some 1500 feet of pipe employed?

 

 

The Birth of Frackageddon

Posted on Updated on

So, these oil and gas men just become President and Vice President because clearly that’s what everyone wanted. Fox News said so.
And they’re like “So, um, Dick, how do we get this crazy middle class on board with fracking?
“Well, Georgie, we could use Milton Friedman’s formula. It’s worked in all those little countries we’ve installed freedom debt in.”
“Oh, oh, oh! What’s the formula, Dickster?”
“Well, Friedman said only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change.”
“You mean like when you have to go so bad that you get sick of waiting and use the lady’s room?”
“Well, sure, something like that.”
“How does that work with fracking?”
“Well, first we have to bankrupt the economy.”
“What? Won’t that make me look real bad?”
“No. Listen. You’ll have a good excuse.”
“How’s that?”
“Well, there will be a threat. And the people will need a strong leader to defend them.”
“Oh. Wait. Who’s the leader?”
“Why, you, Georgie, you. You get to be the strong leader the people deserve.”
“Me? Wow. Do I get to wear a uniform?”
“Yes. On the deck of an aircraft carrier.”
“Neat. I am a pilot, you know.”
“Yes. Speaking of pilots, there will be a terrorist attack.”
“Oh, no. Won’t the people blame me?”
“No, because your pal, King Abdullah, will help. We’ll use radicals that our intelligence guys have eased over the edge as patsies, and then we’ll fake an attack on our own country. We’ll even break up that meddling Pentagon bureaucracy once and for all.”
“Ha, ha, ha, ha! That will be funny. Then, what?”
“Well, we’ll have to counterattack, of course.”
“Counterattack? Saudi Arabia? No way! King Abdullah is my bro!”
“No, no, no. We’ll blame it on Afghanistan and then shift the focus to Iraq, get them into the petro-dollar system.”
“Oh, goody. I hate that Saddam Hussein. He made my daddy look real silly.”
“Well, this will fix his clock, Georgie, don’t you worry.”
“But, wait, this all sounds fun, but what about fracking?”
“Well, Georgie, it’s in the plan. Don’t worry. What we’ll also do is get all the banks on board to stiff people who believe in the American dream and want a home. Then, we’ll create a huge bubble. But, one day it will pop. And then, we’ll yank the rug out from under them, blame it on them, and get them to hand over even more dough to the banks along with the property of the suckers.”
“Um. What?”
“We’ll rip em off, George. But, we’ll use the six corporations that will control the media to tell the people what we want them to think, and the war will still be raging, so they’ll play along.”
“Wow. That sounds awesome.”
“It is, Georgie, it is. But, I left out the best part. In between all that, we’ll pass laws that exempt fracking from regulation. And no one will even notice, until it’s too late.”
“Too late? Too late how, Dickster?”
“Well, they’ll have no drinking water. They’ll be more dependent than ever. Their kids will get sick, stay sick for life, need lots of pharmaceuticals and other treatments. We’ll set up camps to keep them happy. As a side benefit, we’ll eliminate the surplus population.”
“Wow. That’s kinda…kinda evil, Dickster.”
“…welll.”
“I’m just kidding. Heh heh heh heh. Let’s play golf now.”