Page 187 - Nick Begich - Angels Don't Play This Haarp Advances in Tesla Technology

www.earthpulse.com 180 www.earthpulse.com
military's writers say that there is a shift to "spiritual" and "commercial"
insurgencies, which they do not define well. They imply that these kinds of
"insurgencies" represent national security risks to be defended against. This may be
the case but, who will decide what is "spiritually" or "commercially"
correct?

The military's authors discuss emerging technologies which may go against
Americans' beliefs in such things as the presumption of innocence, the right to
disagree with the government, and the right to free expression and movement
throughout the world. At one point in the document they discuss the need to use new
technology to keep track of Americans traveling out of the United States:

"While advances in robotics and information technologies may make it
possible to perform many commercial activities with fewer employees in dangerous
regions, those Americans who are overseas will be more isolated and dispersed. This
complicates the main problems of NEOs (noncombatant evacuation operations):
identification and notification of the individuals to be evacuated, identification of
safe routes, and assessment of threats to the evacuation. Technology could diminish
these problems. In the near future every American at risk could be equipped with an
electronic individual position locator device (IPLD). The device, derived from the
electronic bracelet used to control some criminal offenders or parolees,would
continuously inform a central data bank of the individuals' locations. Eventually such
a device could be permanently implanted under the skin, with automatic remote
activation either upon departure from the U.S. territory (while passing through the
security screening system at the airport, for example) or by transmission of a NEO alert
code to areas of conflict. Implantation would help preclude removal of the device
(although, of course, some terrorists might be willing to remove a portion of the
hostage's body if they knew where the device was implanted). The IPLD could also
act as a form of IFFN (identification friend, foe or neutral) if U.S.
military personnel were equipped with appropriate
challenge/response devices."

The most likely people to receive the implants are military personnel who
will be told that this will help rescue them if they are captured. They may be the first,
setting the stage for the rest of the country. Will our military personnel object? Will
our defenders recognize that this is an invasion by our government into the rights
guaranteed by our Constitution - a Constitution they have sworn to defend?
Another technology mentioned is a method for interfering with activities
the government judges to be wrong. In the examples given, most of us would agree
intervention should take place at some level. However, the methods contemplated are
extreme. Will those with the power to invade the privacy of individuals do so and
without just cause? Will the holders of the power be trusted by the rest of the
population? The military planners anticipate a resounding - "NO"! There-fore, they
propose a series of events to shift the popular view to the opposite extreme. They
propose a revolution of society which will allow for a Revolution in Military Affairs.
At this point, they lay out a fictional scenario where the illusion of the need for this