Amos, he is all of that. However, the only part on which we differ substantially is this: he is not the leader, he is just the figurehead. He's too stupid to be a leader in anything but name. He's been easier to lead than a calf with a ring in its nose, and there is no doubt in my mind that he IS being led. When he will best serve the Neocon purpose by being out of the picture, that's what will happen.

The US has little choice but to impose martial law on its citizenry before the next election. The next election can not be allowed to happen in the US, and I think it won't. Look at recent times and connect the dots: the US is in massive debt (six TRILLION for a figure--about $17,000 for every man, woman and child in the country) and it's currently spending about a billion a day on a war where its stated purpose is to bring democracy/stability to Iraq. True, much of that money is being kept in the American economy by soldiers and companies paid with American tax dollars, but the war allows for troops to be available 24/7 in both Iraq AND the US.

Oil is getting scarce. Call that one the way you want--and yes I have read the various studies that show it will become scarcer and scarcer until in 2050 (the most optimistic estimate) when it just isn't available to the average guy anymore.

The world itself is on the brink of a totally new economic 'system', and that has been coming for at least 200 years now. The gold-based and silver-based dollar is a myth. The US doesn't have enough of either metal to back its currency. Enter a new leader of the World Bank who also helped write the US blueprint for the 21st century. Indeed, the times they are a-changin'.

I think that 9/11 was engineered. However, whether or not it was an intentional or simply convenient event, it did allow the passage of bills (laws) that have fundamentally changed America. I have wondered since 9/11 why the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were targeted. (I don't know what the fourth target was supposed to be.) A larger loss of life could have been accomplished by hitting a nuclear reactor; larger economic loss could have been achieved by hitting oil refinery complexes in New Jersey (just a few minutes away). So I'm left with the conclusion that the attacks were meant to stun, shock and awe the American people. Whether or not that was the purpose, the events DID stun, shock and awe the American people, enough so that the people have allowed the passage of bills that trade their freedom for a perceived security--and on paper it looks good. But the question that remains is this: Why were the attacks 'symbolic'?

Some questions that have plagued me since 9/11: Where did the debris of the Twin Towers end up? Why were there no independent chemicla tests done on the debris to determine precisely why the buildings collapsed as neatly as they did? Why do we hear nothing about building 7? It too came down perfectly, and on purpose. However, the decision to take it down was made one minute and the next, boom, and down it came. I do NOT believe that the charges to drop that building were installed in six or seven hours.

Scenario as I see it: About two years from now there will have to be another 'major event' in the US. I think two factions are fighting in Washington to control the future of the country and indeed the world. One is the Neocon faction, and the other is deeper, darker and more entrenched than that. I do think that Bush is part of the Neocon group. They are simply immoral money people. It's the other group that is scary. Mostly because they are so elusive.

Some of this stuff plays out like a Tom Clancy novel. That is interesting. A scenario that Clancy portrayed in one of his books has a nuclear weapon misfire in Colorado. Another scenario has the Congressional buildings hit by a plane heavily loaded with fuel. OK, so that's fiction, as was the release of an aerosol Ebola strain. But what isn't fiction are the repercussions. The Ebola scenario allowed the shutdown of interstate travel and the imposition of martial law. The people accepted it willingly for the most part because it was for their protection. In two years, what will the US people be willing to accept?

Wheteher the camps that were discussed on another thread are for the internment of Americans or not, what fascinated me was this: NO ONE disputed that the camps are there. People only disputed the end-purpose of the camps. Interesting.

In the words of some guy in a movie, "Add it all up and I don't know what the hell ya got." However, no matter how ya add it up, the US government is going to TELL you what the bottom line is.

I think your country is facing a 'coup d'etat'. And I think the American people are going to allow it to happen.

BM