Poll numbers confirm majority of Americans feel less safe than before 9/11 as more globalist figureheads promise huge attacksSteve WatsonInfowars.netWednesday, August 8, 2007
The majority of people in America feel less safe now than they did before the 9/11 attacks in spite of the introduction of terror related legislation and laws such as the PATRIOT act, the domestic spying program and the Military Commissions act, according to a recent scientific poll.
The poll commissioned by Hart/Newhouse and released by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News finds that 37 per cent of respondents feel the U.S. is more vulnerable to an attack today than it was six years ago, that is a significant rise of 14 points since last September.
Over a thousand people were asked "Do you think that, as a country, we are more safe, about as safe, or less safe than we were before the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?". The results are summarized in the table below.
Jul. 2007
Sept. 2006
Sept. 2005
More safe
34%
42%
31%
About as safe
27%
32%
37%
Less safe
37%
23%
31%
Not sure
2%
3%
1%
It should comes as no surprise to learn that more people feel less safe given that they have been subjected to a vastly increased daily dose of terror fearmongering for over a year now.
A whole host of government officials and neocon talking heads are literally promising that major attacks are on the way while more and more freedom stripping legislation is being passed by a whimpering Congress who have now proven that they hold no sway whatsoever over the neocon cabal inside the White House.The latest globalist choir boy to chirp into action is former CIA Director James Woolsey who has asserted that terrorists could strike the America with a weapon of mass destruction this summer or early fall. Woolsey even hinted that an upcoming terror attack may be nuclear:
Certainly the Soviets had atomic demolition munitions that were relatively small — ours were smaller, I think. But each of us had ADMS that could easily be carried by one man. That was also true of some of the smaller nuclear artillery shells that existed. So it's not impossible that a terrorist group could try to get hold of a former Soviet relatively small nuclear warhead.
In the same breath Woolsey also warned that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it. He answered in response to ridiculous questioning from Neocon rag Newsmax which asked "Is Iran preparing military action against the U.S.?"Of course, Woolsey's suggestion for what Americans can do in the face of this perpetual imminent attack is to pressure their representatives into not restricting the president's push to exert total authority over Congress and implement whatever big brother surveillance programs and martial law directives he sees fit:
Well, the thing that we can do in the short order that is most important is not to cut back on our intelligence capabilities, whether it's through restricting the president's ability to intercept communications or otherwise. We know how to do that reasonably well and don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting back on it.
Woolsey has repeated this same mantra over and over since 9/11, perhaps not surprisingly given that he is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital, a company which, as the London Observer reported in 2003, was set up three months after 9/11 as a business opportunity which 'offer[s] substantial promise for homeland security investment'.
Woolsey's remarks come on the back of the same type of endless warnings from The director of national Intelligence, Mike McConnell, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff all of whom have recently stated that a huge attack is imminent without giving any specific or credible evidence, instead referring to "gut feelings" and "imaginations"
The fear poll figures represent the fallout of these government figureheads dropping crude hints and hunches in addition to the mainstream media's completely inability to analyze and debate the facts rather than simply spewing out segment after segment of fearmongering terror repetition.
Take a look at this article from the so called conservative Editors of FamilySecurityMatters.org which echoes Woolsey's call for Americans to quietly accept the government's attempts to abolish the fourth amendment in the name of a "gut feeling":
A prime example of what not to do is the spectacle that transpired in the Senate just this past week with liberals insisting that court orders be obtained under the FISA program to intercept suspected terrorist conversations occurring between foreign countries! What are they smoking?
Citizens take note: whatever Senators wanted to enforce FISA restrictions on the president in these circumstances should, in our humble opinion, be kicked out of office. We are not playing paddycake with terrorists who lust for our deaths. This is all out war and our “leaders” need to get serious but fast about winning it. Note: Every Republican who voted was in favor of the amendments to FISA. They were joined by seventeen Democrats: Bayh, Carper, Casey, Conrad, Feinstein, Inouye, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor, Salazar, and Webb. Twenty-eight Democrats, amazingly, voted against this vital measure.
Those vicious American people who actually want to hold onto their rights and freedoms, the very things they have repeatedly been told are the reason the terrorists hate them and attacked them in the first place, what ARE they smoking? Amazingly some Senators actually voted against allowing the government to covertly spy on every citizen in the country and in favour of the Constitution, what traitors!
The article them goes on to give a detailed analysis of what would happen should a nuclear bomb be detonated in a major city, with a further handy guide to how quickly you would die should radiological bombs be used on you or biological agents dispersed in your vicinity. Are you scared yet?
FDR said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified, terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
America has become a market for fearmongering and the public is buying it. Remarkably we are being told that the only way to prevent this perpetual state of fear is to give up all our rights and not to question anything. If this is true then congratulations must go to the terrorists for they have won. However, it was not the "terrorists" we were warned about that took away our rights.
Noun 1. terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
Are you scared yet?
The poll commissioned by Hart/Newhouse and released by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News finds that 37 per cent of respondents feel the U.S. is more vulnerable to an attack today than it was six years ago, that is a significant rise of 14 points since last September.
Over a thousand people were asked "Do you think that, as a country, we are more safe, about as safe, or less safe than we were before the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?". The results are summarized in the table below.
Jul. 2007
Sept. 2006
Sept. 2005
More safe
34%
42%
31%
About as safe
27%
32%
37%
Less safe
37%
23%
31%
Not sure
2%
3%
1%
It should comes as no surprise to learn that more people feel less safe given that they have been subjected to a vastly increased daily dose of terror fearmongering for over a year now.
A whole host of government officials and neocon talking heads are literally promising that major attacks are on the way while more and more freedom stripping legislation is being passed by a whimpering Congress who have now proven that they hold no sway whatsoever over the neocon cabal inside the White House.The latest globalist choir boy to chirp into action is former CIA Director James Woolsey who has asserted that terrorists could strike the America with a weapon of mass destruction this summer or early fall. Woolsey even hinted that an upcoming terror attack may be nuclear:
Certainly the Soviets had atomic demolition munitions that were relatively small — ours were smaller, I think. But each of us had ADMS that could easily be carried by one man. That was also true of some of the smaller nuclear artillery shells that existed. So it's not impossible that a terrorist group could try to get hold of a former Soviet relatively small nuclear warhead.
In the same breath Woolsey also warned that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it. He answered in response to ridiculous questioning from Neocon rag Newsmax which asked "Is Iran preparing military action against the U.S.?"Of course, Woolsey's suggestion for what Americans can do in the face of this perpetual imminent attack is to pressure their representatives into not restricting the president's push to exert total authority over Congress and implement whatever big brother surveillance programs and martial law directives he sees fit:
Well, the thing that we can do in the short order that is most important is not to cut back on our intelligence capabilities, whether it's through restricting the president's ability to intercept communications or otherwise. We know how to do that reasonably well and don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting back on it.
Woolsey has repeated this same mantra over and over since 9/11, perhaps not surprisingly given that he is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital, a company which, as the London Observer reported in 2003, was set up three months after 9/11 as a business opportunity which 'offer[s] substantial promise for homeland security investment'.
Woolsey's remarks come on the back of the same type of endless warnings from The director of national Intelligence, Mike McConnell, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff all of whom have recently stated that a huge attack is imminent without giving any specific or credible evidence, instead referring to "gut feelings" and "imaginations"
The fear poll figures represent the fallout of these government figureheads dropping crude hints and hunches in addition to the mainstream media's completely inability to analyze and debate the facts rather than simply spewing out segment after segment of fearmongering terror repetition.
Take a look at this article from the so called conservative Editors of FamilySecurityMatters.org which echoes Woolsey's call for Americans to quietly accept the government's attempts to abolish the fourth amendment in the name of a "gut feeling":
A prime example of what not to do is the spectacle that transpired in the Senate just this past week with liberals insisting that court orders be obtained under the FISA program to intercept suspected terrorist conversations occurring between foreign countries! What are they smoking?
Citizens take note: whatever Senators wanted to enforce FISA restrictions on the president in these circumstances should, in our humble opinion, be kicked out of office. We are not playing paddycake with terrorists who lust for our deaths. This is all out war and our “leaders” need to get serious but fast about winning it. Note: Every Republican who voted was in favor of the amendments to FISA. They were joined by seventeen Democrats: Bayh, Carper, Casey, Conrad, Feinstein, Inouye, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor, Salazar, and Webb. Twenty-eight Democrats, amazingly, voted against this vital measure.
Those vicious American people who actually want to hold onto their rights and freedoms, the very things they have repeatedly been told are the reason the terrorists hate them and attacked them in the first place, what ARE they smoking? Amazingly some Senators actually voted against allowing the government to covertly spy on every citizen in the country and in favour of the Constitution, what traitors!
The article them goes on to give a detailed analysis of what would happen should a nuclear bomb be detonated in a major city, with a further handy guide to how quickly you would die should radiological bombs be used on you or biological agents dispersed in your vicinity. Are you scared yet?
FDR said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified, terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
America has become a market for fearmongering and the public is buying it. Remarkably we are being told that the only way to prevent this perpetual state of fear is to give up all our rights and not to question anything. If this is true then congratulations must go to the terrorists for they have won. However, it was not the "terrorists" we were warned about that took away our rights.
Noun 1. terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
Are you scared yet?