Airport Searches in US May Be Extended to Trains
By Staff News & Analysis - May 10, 2011

Schumer Calls For 'Do Not Ride' List For Amtrak … Sen. Charles Schumer (left) is calling for better rail security now that the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound has turned up plans to attack trains in the U.S. "Anyone, even a member of al-Qaida could purchase a train ticket and board an Amtrak train without so much as a question asked," Schumer said. "So that's why I'm calling for the creation of an Amtrak no ride list. That would take the secure flight program and apply it to Amtrak trains." – LocalCBS

Dominant Social Theme: Bin Laden is dead but sufficient security must be maintained.

Free-Market Analysis: This is how fascism descends, word by word. Now US Sen. Charles Schumer has said that he wishes to introduce legislation in the US Senate that will create a "do not ride" list for America's foundering, nationalized rail system, Amtrak. Amtrak is not by any means the largest or most comprehensive rail facility in the US, but it is the one that receives the most US subsidies.

Schumer, a Democratic Senator of the worst stripe when it comes to attacking individual freedoms, wants to use the leverage that the state enjoys over Amtrak to introduce comprehensive security searches. This ambition actually goes far beyond keeping a list.

According to the article: "Schumer is calling for increased funding for rail security in light of the new intelligence." Rail security means searches no doubt administered by the ominously named Homeland Security federal bureaucracy and would likely mimic in style and substance the horrible searches that today take place at US airports. Certainly the list itself is bad enough. According to the CBS article, above, the list would be "similar to the no-fly list that keeps those suspected of terrorism from flying into or out of the United States."

Why is Schumer contemplating the introduction of this legislation now? The article points out that notes and computer materials taken from bin Laden's compound in Pakistan indicated that Al Qaeda wanted to attack trains in the US and elsewhere. "Schumer is calling for increased funding for rail security in light of the new intelligence. The New York Democrat says the U.S. must remain vigilant in protecting itself from future attacks."

What US citizens should be vigilant about in our opinion is phony security scares. In other articles we have pointed out that bin Laden probably died years ago and therefore the current dramatics involving intelligence information must be considered suspect as well. There is plenty of precedent for governments lying to citizens in order to achieve what leaders consider to be larger goals for the "greater good." (See yesterday's article for an analysis of this point.)

In the 1960s via Operation Northwood, the Pentagon wanted to blow up a plane over the US – presumably killing many – and then blame to Cuba to precipitate a war to remove Fidel Castro from power. But that is only one example. Programs code-named Monarch, Paper Clip and Gladio all manipulated US and European populations and presented half-truths and outright lies to them.

In this case, we believe the agenda is more ominous than merely "protecting" citizens. We believe that Anglo-American elites based historically in the City of London are trying to create ever closer global governance and are using the so-called War on Terror to build up government power and trammel Western citizens with numerous and onerous security regulations.

One does not have to be a genius to see where all this is going. Certainly it is moving forward. The plane searches in the US especially are despised by a majority of travelers. Recently they have gotten worse with the introduction of what are probably unsafe scanners that people are impelled to pass through, often receiving a large doses of radiation as a result.

The alternative to passing through these scanners is an invasive body search that has caused controversy as well. Recently, the top leaders at Homeland Security have suggested that a program can be put in place that would provide a "secure traveler" card to those who pass security background checks. This card would be nothing more than an internal passport however, handed out by government clerics to those who met certain government guidelines.

Internal passports are a hallmark of fascism; "No travel" lists end up in the same place. If someone can be prevented from traveling on a plane or train, eventually they must be prevented from travelling by car. This means the no travel database must be extended to local police forces who must then set up local checkpoints to prevent domestic "terrorists" from moving around locally (say, to the supermarket).

It would all be kind of funny in a ridiculous way if it weren't actually happening to the US and presumably, eventually, throughout the West. This is no doubt another reason why the Anglosphere elites do not want the EU to break up. (See other article in today's edition.) It is a great deal easier to impose authoritarian solutions over large areas than to do so in individual nation states.

Imagine the power government will have when it can prevent an individual from traveling simply by putting him or her on a database. And how long before the database begins to be used for other purposes? If someone is on the database as a "terrorist" who cannot travel, why should this person be allowed to own a home or even maintain gainful employment. And such conclusions lead to even worse solutions, such as internment camps.

It is not "terrorism" that is the problem – for there is ample evidence (as we and many others in the alternative news media have documented) – to show that the war on a terror is a phony or at least manipulated campaign. The solutions themselves pose difficulties. We have long maintained that the war on terror is more likely aimed at domestic Western populations than at its supposed adversaries. The rolling advances of "no travel" lists seem to confirm that perspective.

How long before members of the Western media are labeled as terrorists because they are advancing perspectives that are not appropriate to the progress of Anglo-American dominated global governance? How long before these individuals in the media (or elsewhere) are deprived of basics rights to live and work in the societies in which they were born because a government surveillance operation has determined that they are actively resisting certain rhetorical trends.

Editor's Note: Suspicious Packages at Train Stations Suddenly Appear: At deadline, mainstream news articles were posted on "suspicious" packages at various train terminals. The coincidence of bin Laden's death and notes about attacking train stations, Schumer's proposal to create a "train no-travel list" and almost immediate train-terror scares, is astonishing to anyone who studies the memes of the elite. One gets the feeling Anglo-American powers-that-be are not even bothering to dissemble anymore. They are merely moving through the process in a rote fashion. The playbook seems more and more obvious. A Dallas/CBS 11 report that circulated widely yesterday in the US began as follows: "The Mockingbird DART station and the surrounding area, including the Angelika Theater, were evacuated Saturday after a police dog alerted authorities to a passenger onboard with two suspicious packages, a spokesman said. Riders traveling through downtown stations reportedly expressed alarm after a man asked them for help carrying a duffel bag and a large box. Bomb technicians with the Dallas Police Department determined the packages were not a threat about two hours after the evacuation, said DART spokesman Morgan Lyons." Why is the station named "Mockingbird" by the way? Mockingbird was a CIA operation (still running) that penetrates American media with CIA-sympathetic journalists and commentators. Very strange.

After Thoughts

It is not just the media by any means. The current efforts by Western governments to spy on citizens indicates that as information dragnets become more pervasive, punitive measures shall be applied to larger population based on the perception of their views even if they are not formally presented via articles and broadcasts. Schumer's proposal does not suggest any of this directly. But indirectly the message is clear. If one believes in civil society and free-markets it is a profoundly disquieting one.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap