Art Bell and Harry Helms explore the 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein, with callers debating Iraqi trials over international ones amid doubts about staged events or U.S. motives. Helms’ Inside the Shadow Government reveals how presidents exploit emergency powers—like EO 9066 (1942) or FEMA’s Title 32 authority—to suspend rights, citing unchecked internment risks and militarized law enforcement. Callers share eerie accounts: military roadblocks in Tennessee, Johnson-era counterinsurgency ops targeting protesters, and speculative claims about HAARP’s mind-control potential. Helms warns of a legal framework enabling permanent authoritarianism unless constitutional limits are clarified, urging activism to prevent government overreach from becoming the new normal. [Automatically generated summary]
And I would too, except it's Ramona's computer, and so I can.
Any computer whizzes out there, try this one on besides Windows 98 version 2, right?
Wife's machine, right?
Okay.
It prints everything just fine.
Install a new print.
Prints everything just fine.
Except Netscape won't print.
Every other function of the computer is perfect, but Netscape will not print.
I've reinstalled Netscape, reinstalled the, you know, the software for the printer.
I've done everything under the sun that I can think of to do, and I don't care what you order something to print Netscape, it just goes.
And that's it.
And it never prints.
And I've been fighting with this machine now since, well, since the news of Saddam broke.
Actually, since even slightly before that.
And so somewhere out there, there's somebody who knows how this can possibly be.
Some obscure person somewhere knows this.
If that's you, email me, artbell at mindspring.com.
That's A-R-T-B-E-L-L at mindspring.com.
Artbell at mindspring.com.
Well, I have no illusions with regard to what we're going to do in the first hour here, and we do have open lines.
While you're certainly allowed to call about anything you want, I mean, obviously, unless you've had your head buried deep beneath the sand, it began, I would guess, about slightly less than an hour after I got off the air last night.
Wham!
A ham radio friend that I was in communication with up in British Columbia said, hey, they got Saddam.
It's breaking.
Well, they didn't know for sure right away, but, you know, it was all over the networks.
Fox was saying, no, they didn't.
CNN was saying, yes, they did.
And then ABC and the rest of the networks began to break it.
And sure enough, we got him.
Caught like a rat in a hole is the headline CNN story.
A little hole in the ground.
And that's where Saddam was hiding.
And we got him.
So this hour, I guess I would like to ask you all, now what?
We got him.
Now what?
That's the big question.
Now what?
In more ways than one.
Now what?
A trial?
Jail?
Terrorists from now until the day Saddam finally kicks off in the pokey?
Saying free Saddam, bringing down airliners, doing terrorism around the world to get them set loose?
Is that in our future?
In other words, now what?
That's what I want to ask the audience.
Now what?
We got them.
Do you believe that it's going to change what's going on in Iraq on a day-to-day basis?
Maybe.
So the big question is, I'm just assuming all of you are swamped with the news of Saddam.
The obvious question is, now what?
And then in the next hour, after we're done with Saddam, it's going to get really interesting.
Harry Helms is going to be here.
We'll talk about pirate radio and about the shadow government.
It's going to be a good one.
It's really going to be a good one.
Harry Helms is a cool dude.
We interviewed him on pirate radio for about an hour, and I said we'd have him back.
And so he is back tonight.
Cool dude.
In the meantime, though, now what?
That really is my question.
Now what?
Assuming you all have the news and probably are almost sick of it by now, it's still, it's a monstrous, it's a really big deal.
Well, that's an interesting thought because I would think an Iraqi court and jury is probably going to be considerably more severe than one here in the U.S. What do you think?
unidentified
Actually, if he gets the trial done here, a lot of the global nations are going to say, no, that's foul because it's Bush wanting to take revenge.
The smartest move for the situation to happen now is for him to be tried against his peers.
If he's tried here, he'll be in jail for life, right?
We all know that.
There's no way an execution would ever take place here.
No way.
So he's certainly right about that.
The Iraqis, on the other hand, probably would have considerable sway in terms of convincing me that they ought to be the ones, as he suggested, to try Saddam, not some international tribunal where he'll be, and I don't even know where they finally sentenced him to, but yeah, of your peers, about your peers, right?
Well, wildcard line, you're on the air.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi, this is Michael.
And I have some information that I think you folks overlooked, which relates both to Saddam and it ties Saddam directly to John Lear test.
What does Saddam have to do with the John Lear test?
unidentified
Well, he has to do with everything because Saddam it's actually a pretty sad day for humanity today because for all of the bad things that Saddam did and I understand he did a lot of bad things.
Nonetheless, he was trying to free this planet from a particular extraterrestrial race.
First off, he was talking about your computer problem earlier, and I guess a side note for this, I read this weekend that Microsoft is actually going to quit next month, giving technical support for people whose computers have Windows 95 and Windows 98.
Do you think we would have been better off with Saddam dead or alive?
unidentified
Well, on the trying part, it might have been better, but it would have possibly made him a martyr in the Arab world because many of the people in the Arab world were expecting Saddam to die, you know, going down with a fight.
Some kind of international war crimes tribunal, I suppose?
unidentified
No, actually, I see probably France and a couple of them other guys trying to ride in and probably try and scoop them up and probably try and put them away somewhere where they're going to just separate them from everywhere and put them in some little soft little cushy place where they can wrap them up in mothballs.
And that way, if they ever want to bring him back out, they can.
But couldn't we keep him sequestered until the right moment arrives, until Iraq stabilizes enough that he could be tried there?
unidentified
Yeah, we could, but I just think that's going to be a long ways down the road, and I think it'll cause a lot of trouble in the meantime.
And also, I don't think his capture is going to change anything, because based on the limited look we got at him, via the news media and what have you, it does not appear that he's been running anything.
Well, yes, but of course it was very, you know, if nothing else, his capture was very important to show the Iraqi people that, hey, baby, it's really over.
The terror, or the king of the terror, is gone.
But I appreciate your suggestion about the animal cover.
I suppose, in a way, that might have been a wiser suggestion than you might imagine than just later sort of find the body.
I don't know about getting him alive.
I don't know how good it is that we have actually captured him alive.
And I have a not very important observation about breaking news that I always find very entertaining.
And that is the news began breaking shortly after 3 a.m., I think.
Right after I got done, about an hour after the show last night.
And then the official press conference didn't come until 4 a.m.
And so for a long time, all of the news networks had nothing better to do, in fact, nothing at all, other than to wake up all the news anchors they could, have them come down, and then they got to question each other and sort of make news before the news.
And that's one of the more entertaining things you can ever watch during a major piece of breaking news, and that is the anchors all having nothing to do but not answer each other's questions and talk to each other.
the american media is a credible machine isn't it the In my opinion, the American news media has devolved to the point in this country where, frankly, it's an interesting thing.
It's absolutely fascinating.
Try it the next time there's really serious breaking news.
The most serious, of course, is when they don't actually have the news.
And just sit back and watch them do infotainment.
In essence, interviewing each other and talking about what might be, sometimes for hours on end, without one scrap of real information.
In other words, just a subject.
No real hard news in the old style of news, but just a concept.
Tonight we're going to talk about all of that with Harry Helms.
Now, I have always sort of lived on the outskirts of the topic of the shadow government in this country.
But tonight we're going to leap into it with both feet.
We're going to talk a little bit about pirate radio because you know my love for that subject.
But beyond that, we're going to get into the shadow government, which is the second main topic that Harry Helms can talk on, and I guess one very close to his heart.
So we're really going to jump into that with both feet tonight.
And I think he definitely should be tried in Iraq.
He has done so much damage to the people over there and the soul of that country that I think it could be a start of a healing for their minds and their hearts if they do see him justice being served to him.
Do you think, and by the way, I certainly agree with you.
Do you think that the Bush administration will conclude how important it is that he be tried by his own people in Iraq rather than some international court?
unidentified
Yes, I do definitely.
Actually, you know, I said to my father, we were talking about a week and a half ago, I said, you know, he's probably somewhere in the basement lined with lead, hiding, so they can't see him.
I said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was under his own house.
And I said, he's underground somewhere.
And it was so, in fact, my dad called me so early this morning and said, they got him.
And I guess it, you know, I said it earlier, had he been dead, however it happened, we would have always assumed there were orders not to take him alive.
Until we do prove something by getting him alive.
I mean, we do about ourselves.
I guess that's right.
unidentified
We can't let the U.N. try him, though, because they'll try to bring up charges against the U.S. for various crimes they want to try to assess to us.
And also, this will have a great impact on the Iranian people who we're hoping will overthrow their own government and put a righteous government over there.
And on your guest tonight, I believe one of the biggest conspiracies, besides what's been going on in the press, calling this country a democracy instead of a constitutional republic and banning hemp.
I mean, it was William Randolph first who started the conspiracy against so-called marijuana, which was a Mexican slang term no one knew stood for the cannabis hemp plan.
I heard a half trillion, but it's up to a trillion dollars now, huh?
unidentified
More than that.
And back in 1938, cover story of Popular Science, February.
It called hemp the world's first billion-dollar crop because of the machine that had just been coming on market to harvest it, turning it from a hand harvest to a mechanical harvest.
On the Saddam Hussein thing, I think he ought to be tried in Iraq, but I think each one of the tribes, the Shiite tribes, the Kurdish tribes, ought to send a representative, and he ought to be able to face each one of those tribes that he attacked and did these dastardly attacks to and have them judge him.
Do you think this administration, as I asked the last caller, will have the sense to recognize that that is the way to do this or some form of it as opposed to some great international war crimes?
unidentified
I think the international ought to stay out of it.
I think it's Iraqi people.
I think it's something that's just due.
And they ought to be the ones that have to say what to do with it.
In this case, maybe I'm hoping that's true and they're listening this morning and they're going, hmm, well, look at that.
The American people would like him tried in his own country.
unidentified
Right.
But in a way, it's kind of an oxymoron to have him tried in his country because the only person that's really controlled that government is him.
So how can a country that's been under his control for so long, that have been brainwashed by him, try to do an actual prosecution on him?
I think it would almost be impossible to try to prosecute him over there without having any kind of international law involved, if you catch what I'm saying.
Or translated, how could he get a fair trial in Iraq?
unidentified
Yeah, I mean, how can you have a trial over there?
I mean, their government is torn to pieces over there, and the only way you're going to be able to prosecute this guy right and to make sure that he gets what he deserves is having international law involved, having the U.S. involved, having the British involved to make sure that he pays for his crimes.
I don't think he ought to be killed.
I'm afraid if the Iraq government prosecutes him, they'll kill him right away.
I think the guy ought to be stripped of everything he has, and he ought to sit and simmer for a while in a cell.
All right, let's for a second, though, talk about the victims.
There are Kurds, thousands of Kurds, family members of those who died in gas attacks where he killed the moss, right?
Genocide, virtually genocide with chemicals.
Don't those people have a right to have a word with regard to what should happen to this man?
unidentified
Oh, for sure, for sure.
And I think he should die.
I just don't think he should die right away.
I think he ought to sit and simmer for a while and should be tortured for a while and feel what it's like to have everything stripped from you and to live in poverty.
I mean, if that was the real Saddam, he came out of there looking haggard, tired, beat, ready to be caught, ready to whatever, just sort of like, I've had enough of this.
Now I'm finally down in this hole, and that's all I got.
But at the beginning, I would probably, you know, I don't know if this is hard to say, but, you know, Bush can somehow take a page from maybe Tony Blair.
I don't know that I agree with it, but I know what you're saying.
Sure.
Actually, I was against the war, to be honest with you.
I was pretty much against the whole concept in the first place, as you well know.
I am nevertheless very pleased that the United States has this mass murderer in custody.
And I think if you can draw any conclusions from what we've heard tonight in this first hour, it would be the majority of you calling, given a random sample, of course, think that he ought to be tried in his own country.
that we should turn them over to the iraqis perhaps wait until the government's a little more stabilized than it is presently and then let them be tried there and We will be right back with Harry Helms.
Stay right where you are.
unidentified
Find out more about tonight's guest.
Log on to CoastToCoastAM.com.
When you take my place, I think no one can take your place.
Get hurt, get hurt.
By the little things I see, I can put that smile back on your face.
Ooh, you can dance, you can die, having the time of your life.
Ooh, see that girl, watch that sea, you get the dancing queen.
Friday night and the lights are low, looking out for a place to go.
Where they play the right music, getting in the swing, you come to rock the game.
Anybody could be that guy, not as young as the music's high.
Want to take a ride?
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free 800-825-5033.
From west to the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach ART by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Well, one of the things that we discussed last time, Mark, was the Cuban numbers stations, the stations that broadcast groups of numbers in Spanish in blocks of five.
These are known to be communications to agents in the field using what's known as the five, the one-heimpad method of decoding numbers, where the groups of numbers will be transmitted, the agent copies them down, subtracts them from another list of numbers, and then decodes the message.
Now, this is a system where if you try to decode the message yourself, it's an exercise in frustration.
The people at the national security agencies have supercomputers busy at it, and really there's no evidence they're any better than the rest of us, but certainly these transmissions are easy to hear throughout North America, and it's a bit exciting to say, hey, I'm listening to a message sent to an actual spy.
I mean, you'll come across a shortwave frequency, and you'll just hear some young lady, perhaps with a Spanish accent or not, going 51, 17, 14, 34, 6, just like that, in groups and groups and groups.
And you can, one distinguishing characteristic of these stations, and one that indicates they are probably from Cuba, is that there's a very loud hum on these signals.
and if you've listened to the shortwave transmissions from like radio hawana cuba you also hear it distinct hum from uh...
older transmitters that have not been well maintained over the years and i suppose uh...
But these spy transmissions have long fascinated me because how often do those of us who sit at home in front of our shortwave radios actually get to match wits with the CIA and the National Security Agency?
To some degree, ham radio is threatened by the arrival of the internet and the computer.
If you were to try to make your best case, Harry, about why people should still listen to shortwave and why it's still fun to listen to shortwave, what would you say?
One is that shortwave radio is simplicity is a virtue because when everything else fails, when the internet is down through denial of service attacks or too many users trying to access a certain dialect number, shortwave still gets through.
The second thing is that for those of us who like a sense of adventure, trying to find these new stations or these unusual stations like these number stations or pirate radio stations, it's a bit like fishing.
Some nights you turn on the radio, you tune around, you hear nothing new or unusual.
Some nights you hear something that's quite surprising.
It's that element of unpredictability that I think makes shortwave radio monitoring so compelling.
That cannot be denied, and I certainly would not advocate that someone go out and operate a pirate station because there are some substantial penalties if you do get caught.
If you had a station like the one you were just talking about playing hip-hop, I mean, obviously, from the FCC's point of view, it's a kid out there messing around.
So you take that pirate station.
Then let's consider a second pirate station, one in which somebody's a political activist and they don't like, let's say, the Bush administration.
And so they're actively on the air every night transmitting their hate toward the Bush administration.
Which one of those pirate stations do you suppose the FCC would pursue?
The reason that the majority of these kids put a pirate station on the air is because they love radio.
And they're looking for any way at all to get into radio, to experience what it's like to broadcast.
I know gazillions of people like this, Harry, because of what I do.
They come to me all the time.
And I was there myself.
I was almost born on radio.
I just plain love every aspect of it.
And so that's what makes these pirates do what They do.
Do you think, Harry, that we should have some avenue, some way, and I guess you could say CB or ham radios a way, and certainly they are, but I mean something else, some way that young people could legally do some small-scale operation.
For example, let's say just above the expanded AM broadcast span from about 1700 to 1750.
That's an area you need to across at night, and it's essentially debt.
I could see, for example, authorizing low-power stations, say no more than 50 watts or so, into a limited antenna, maybe a quarter wave, in that range for a non-commercial broadcasting.
There's also a little bit of leeway above and below the FM band that could be used, like say down from 87 to 88 perhaps.
There are also a possibility with television going through all digital and new channel allocations for some frequency space to be already freed up there.
So something that would be basically the broadcasting equivalent of CB radio, low power, short range, but with few restrictions and low-cost equipment.
I think that is something not just for kids, but for every person who wants to go on the air and express an opinion.
Harry, I've been an advocate of this for I don't know how long.
Some low-powered, now low-power radio and low-power television were both proposed and to some degree were passed, but large lobbyists kind of squashed the low-power radio business, so it's groups, you know, churches and that sort of thing, which is fine, but nothing for individuals really, right?
The low-power FM initiative a few years ago was indeed adopted by FCC, but the technical standards the FCC imposed on these stations basically put just the administrative overhead of complying with the technical standards beyond the reach of the average person.
It takes, as you said, some sort of church-based or community-based broadcaster to be able to afford a low-power FM station.
you think that the now, of course, go back, Harry, to when the Federal Communications Commission took the 11-meter band away from the hams and they gave it to the CBers.
A gigantic, incredible, monstrous mistake in every way you can imagine.
I mean, 27 megahertz is not a local communications frequency most of the time.
It's skip.
It's a mess.
It's become just sort of a bad land of people who are now encroaching on the 10-meter handband.
I mean, it's a disaster up there.
And I've got CB because it'll save your butt on the road.
But it was a disaster.
It could have been put up in VHF or somewhere else.
So what do you think about that?
I mean, you know, when you're proposing a little space above the broadcast band, is that going to turn into another CB band?
Freedom always carries with it some risks, including that people will be misbehaving to a degree.
But then that's part of price tag for freedom.
It's interesting that free speech applies to, say, if you want to do something in writing, you don't have to get government permission.
If you want to publish a book, you don't need government permission.
If you want to put up a website, you don't need government permission.
But if you want to send something out on the airways, which theoretically belong to all the people of the United States, then you have to get the government's permission.
And I think that we've been a bit too restrictive over the average citizen's access to the airways with their own transmitted equipment over the years.
Yes, we need some standards, but the way it is now, we have restrictions and no standards whatsoever.
So you're sort of admitting then there would be with space at the top of the broadcast band, maybe either side of the FM band, whatever, there would be trouble as a result of it, but you're saying that's part of the price of freedom.
i think perhaps something that would be But I think at this stage, being realistic, I think the odds are quite long that the FCC would do such a thing.
That tends to happen when you talk to the FCC about it and you have some sort of media connection that could publicize it or write about it.
I've had similar experiences.
I think what you heard, Art, was probably a variation of the Overt the Horizon radar system, which uses the ionosphere.
Sends a radio signal up there, refracts off the ionosphere, hits the ocean surface, it echoes back up to the ionosphere, and it is received at a location near the transmitting site.
And this can be used to track such things as small ocean vessels, submarines that have briefly surfaced, things like that, which cannot be readily tracked by satellites or ground-based radar.
My pet theory is that HARP is actually some sort of weapons-related project intended to disrupt or disturb shortwave communications, particularly the guidance systems of missiles,
by pumping so much energy into the ion sphere that it becomes highly absorptive of all radio signals, thereby disrupting shortwave communications, or perhaps playing tricks with the guidance systems of missiles that would be coming in over the North Pole.
It's really interesting, to turn all of the power lines in America, I mean all of the power lines in America, into delivery systems for the internet so that we could deliver broadband to every home in the United States.
He came from somewhere back in her long ago But Sarah better fool don't see Trying hard to recreate what had yet to be created Once in her life she musters a smile For his nostalgia tear Never coming near what he wanted to say Only to
realize it never really was She had a place in his life He never made her dangerous As she rises to her apology Everybody else what should they know Who's
watching her go And the party will be here To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach ART by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
And that hitch, of course, is that it would produce noise.
It would wipe out the short wave band.
It would wipe out ham radio.
It would wipe out CB.
It would wipe out international broadcasters.
It would wipe out, well, you know who it would wipe out?
It'd wipe out FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
And they just filed against BPL, and so a lot of people are going, looks like we may have dodged a bullet, because the last I heard, FEMA said, look, our stuff won't work if you go ahead with this idea.
Do you think BPL is going to be dead because of that?
I certainly hope so, Art, because in addition to the short wave bands, if anyone is out there listening to Coast to Coast AM on an AM broadcast band station, BPL will also do a number on that.
Listeners may have noticed in the past when they're out in their car listening to AM radio and they pass their power line, that loud buzz.
And the other part is, you know, many of the people in the FCC making decisions regarding technical matters are lawyers, MBAs, and other people without inadequate technical background.
It's almost as if the FCC was saying, okay, we're going to make it easier for hackers to hack into your dial-up Internet connection.
And that's what BPL would have been.
You would probably have widespread hijacking of email addresses, of great theft of Internet service.
So I saw it not just as dangerous for radio listeners and other users of the radio spectrum, such as police, fire, and emergency services, it would have been a nightmare for users of the Internet Via BPL, who would suddenly find that their website or their email address had been hijacked and used by other people.
Having said all this, let's now take the giant leap, Harry.
You have just written a book.
And first of all, I guess I'd like to know, how do you get from being interested in, you know, in radio and monitoring, which is kind of a technical thing, to writing a book about the shadow government?
It came about, Art, years ago when I first visited a site along the eastern Sierra of California called Manzanar, which was the site of a relocation camp for Japanese Americans during World War II.
I have had an interest in ghost towns and archaeological sites, and suddenly I saw what appeared to be a couple of Japanese pagodas against the Sierra Nevada mountains.
Checking it out, I got into the history of the place and found out about the several thousand Japanese Americans who were relocated there during World War II.
And as I got into the history, it turned out these people were American citizens.
Most of them were American citizens.
None of them were charged with espionage or any other crime, nor were they ever convicted of a crime.
They were kept there for the duration by a direct order of the president, not an act of Congress.
And they were basically held as prisoners in their own country.
And I started to say, how is this possible?
And as I dug deeper into it, I discovered that the mechanisms, the tools that allowed President Roosevelt to order people on the basis of a race to be held on a military camp indefinitely, those tools were still in place, still valid, could still be used by an American president, and in fact have been greatly expanded over the years.
The term shadow government is not original with me.
This came from a May 2002 article in the Washington Post.
The shadow government is the collection of laws, court decisions, facilities, procedures, and tools by which the president, upon declaration of a state of national emergency, can basically circumvent constitutional government and impose his will directly through a device known as an executive order.
Awful as it sounds, there has to be a contingency, does there not?
Particularly in the days in which people drive airplanes into buildings and things like that, there has to be a way to continue, to govern, to get the word out, to have civilization, no matter what might happen.
However, the point of my book is that these plans have gone far beyond prudent, rational safeguards for the event of a sudden nuclear attack.
They have become so expansive and so open to misuse that it's where these powers could actually be a greater threat to our long-term liberties and constitutional rights than the external threats.
For example, I used a phrase, this happens when the president declares a state of a national emergency.
Well, what constitutes a state of national emergency?
Simply put, whatever the president feels is a state of national emergency.
You might remember, 1971, President Nixon imposed a declared a state of national emergency, and he froze wages and prices for several weeks.
And there were rumors, for example, that President Nixon was going to do something like you're talking about right now instead of leaving office, that he was going to declare some kind of state of emergency and suspend the Constitution, and we were suddenly going to not be a democracy anymore.
Those rumors were out there.
Actually, you know what?
Those rumors have been out there, frankly, for every president, I think, since I've been alive, you know, that somebody would soon do this.
Well, we do know that in the final days of the Nix administration, his chief of staff, General Alexander Haig, had all communications and written directives coming out of the president's office passed by his desk first.
And he imposed that only in the last few weeks of the Nix administration.
He never said why he did it, but it is widely assumed that he was worried that President Nixon would try exactly what you Described here.
But you think these powers have now been put in place to the point where a president with evil intent could, in fact, turn us overnight from a democracy into a dictatorship.
As I point out in my book, I include in a very lengthy appendix the complete text of several of these presidential executive orders, the most sweeping of which were signed and introduced during the Nixon and Clinton administrations.
When the president declares the state of the national emergency now, for whatever reason, he can do, like President Roosevelt did in World War II, detain indefinitely any group of Americans for whatever reason he sees fit without filing charges, without legal proceedings, without legal representation.
In other words, you'd be no better off than the Al-Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo right now.
He can seize private property, including your auto, your home, your computer, furniture, whatever.
He can order you to work at specified jobs.
He can seize your bank accounts.
He can seize control of all radio and TV stations.
He can control access to food and medical supplies.
No great master switch, but they would send out orders and saying, here's where you're going to get your program via this line feed, and that's the line feed you would use if you wanted to stay on the air.
If you refuse to comply, some soldiers could come down and they could seize it.
I own a little radio station here in Puram, right?
Mm-hmm.
And to imagine that somebody would order me to take a certain feed or else is so far beyond what I know and feel as an American that I just can't even imagine it.
That's the main reaction people have when the subject of shadow government comes up, because it sounds so inherently preposterous that you say this cannot be.
If I told you on September 10, 2001, however, that a group of young Arab males armed with Nazi Morton box cutter knives would in less than 24 hours kill over 3,000 Americans and basically destroy two major landmarks in Washington, New York, would you believe that?
And once people knew what would be done, how it would be handled, I think you would have far greater acceptance of it than some of these sub-rows of things which are hidden under the government.
If everyone in the presidential line of secession were killed, the governors or surviving governors of the states would then elect a replacement president to serve out the remainder of the term or some other specified periods.
The same thing would be that, or we could say that in the event everyone in the presidential line of secession is killed, the governors of states, say maybe an order of population or admission to the union or whatever formula you would use, would come up.
Okay, so but that doesn't tell me what safeguards and powers you would have to place in the hands of that ultimately elected person to deal with a potential emergency.
Too many, and also too many without the accountability of the people.
At least here in the Constitution, we'd have accountability to the people, to the state legislatures, to the state governors, and to the people who elect them.
What has happened now is that there has been a cleavage between power and the accountability at this level.
And this is the thing that disturbs me because many of these powers are not being used to Fight terrorism or ensure domestic security.
Those powers that we're talking about, extreme as they are, are put in place precisely so they can be wielded by, for example, one individual, who, the President of the United States.
Why?
Because if you had all kinds of oversight and procedural things you would have to go through, you'd never get anything done.
And if you were, or at least not fast enough, and if you were facing an immediate emergency, somewhere along the line, somebody's got to act real quickly.
Now, how about somebody planting a big, dirty bomb in one of our cities and notifying us, or a big real bomb, whatever, you know, something awful about to hit us?
That would kind of qualify as a state of national emergency, right?
It certainly would, but as I point out in the book, since 1933, for all but nine months of history, the United States has been operating under one or more presidentially declared states of national emergency.
Now, that's a little bit too broad.
Sure, we've had some legitimate national emergencies and matters of grave crisis during those times, but certainly not every single month but nine since 1933 has been a moment of national emergency.
Is that something, you know, there's always rumors of it.
I mean, you hear these internet rumors that pilots have been seeing these sequestered off internment camps, waiting for wrong-thinking Americans who are going to be on the wrong side of an executive order, that kind of thing.
In fact, I think many of these reports got their start back in 1984 when the news first came out of something called RECS 84, or Readiness Exercise 84.
This was an exercise conducted in the Reagan White House, headed up by Colonel Oliver North, which was to simulate what would happen if there would be a revolution in Central America, sending a great number of people north of the border, illegally north of the border, and what would we do with this?
And Rec 84 was a plan to house several hundreds of thousands of these people on military camps in temporary housing.
These would not be the formal wood structures, but tents and temporary structures of that nature at all large military camps.
Ollie North did not even get a chance to ask the question.
Senator Brooks first broke to Colonel North asking if he had taken part in a plan known as Readiness Exercise 84.
And at that point, Brendan Sullivan, who was Colonel North's attorney, immediately said, Mr. Chairman, that's classified as Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, then informed Representative Brooks that that could not be discussed in open forum.
And let's say that the big news of the day is that there's about to be a bloody, bloody revolution in Mexico and that unrest has become out of control in Mexico.
I'm not saying all this is going to happen.
I'm just saying let's say that's the news of the day.
And the possibility is that hundreds, well, no, let's make it millions of Mexicans would flee such a bloody civil war and come across the border.
Now, Mr. President Helms, we know that's what we're facing.
We don't have enough troops, nor can we simply mow people down on the border as they try to flee a war, Mr. President.
I guess what I'm asking, Mr. President, is would you turn them back to possibly assure death in the middle of a bloody revolution, or would you accept them across the border?
You might make some limited exception of people, but you would actually have to, if you're going to have a nation, you need to have secure borders.
That's the definition of a nation.
You can defend your own borders.
I think this sort of large-scale housing of several hundreds of thousands would not be in anyone's interest because it would simply encourage more people to come.
Again, I don't want to say that we don't need any contingency plans whatsoever or that we can just simply get by in this world and go and tension.
My problem with this is that the definition of what constitutes an emergency, namely it's defined by the President for whatever reasons he sees fit, is far too elastic, and that many of the provisions of these, particularly those that affect the rights and constitutional rights and privileges of American citizens, are far too expensive.
For example, the September 11th attacks were not caused by American citizens freely exercising their constitutional rights.
And restricting the constitutional rights of citizens would not have prevented those attacks more future attacks.
It is a failure, rather, for the various agencies of the United States to coordinate and share the information they have, such as between the various FBI offices, the Immigration and Naturalization Services, and these other agencies, governments, to properly coordinate and use the available information and to enforce the available laws on the book.
We now know, for example, that most of the September 11th hijackers were here illegally.
So my point is that rather than this huge, secret, under-the-table collection of laws, plans, contingencies, what we really need is more effective and focused enforcement of the laws that we already have on the book.
Okay, but Harry, again, playing that devil I do so well, we live in a modern world where we have GE, the Internet, and all of these very fast, very electronic, very effective means of communication.
And those communication channels can be used to plan bad things as well as good.
And so I understand, for example, the Fourth Amendment and our rights to privacy.
But then again, I also understand our government's need, if they're even going to try and prevent another tragedy in this country, to get hold of, sift through a lot of this information, and that's going to run smack into the Fourth Amendment 1,000 miles an hour.
Yeah, so I'd like to know how, for example, knowing that you have a certain medicine for high blood pressure or that you prefer to watch kung fu flicks, how this ties into preventing terrorism?
And all of that information would be completely useless and irrelevant from the point of view of trying to stop an act of terrorism.
However, it may just be that one piece of information, one email sent, one communication, one telephone call, one something could stop another bunch of airplanes from bumping into buildings real hard.
And maybe it could, Harry.
You can't deny that fact.
It might.
And so where and how do we draw that line about what our government can and can't listen to in our defense?
You do what every cop does as part of their investigative procedure, namely you focus on the likely suspects.
Even if the government wanted to, it clearly doesn't have the capacity to monitor all of our phone communications, all of our emails, all other aspects of our lives.
So you have to focus on the people who are most likely to be perpetrators of a certain crime.
In this case, as we've now seen September 11th, if the FBI had followed up on credible reports they were getting from flight schools that there were students from Middle Eastern nations who were interested in learning how to steer planes once they were aloft, jet airplanes, but not interested in learning how to take off or land them, that constitutes a red flag.
And that's the sort of thing you should be following up on.
And the more data you gather from unlikely suspects, the wider the net you cast, then the more data you're going to gather that is extraneous to the thing you are trying to discover, and you just gum up the gears chasing dead ends.
I'd allow it in the same circumstances that we traditionally have allowed it, namely upon a warrant to conduct such surveillance issued by a court of competent authority.
We don't have to protect ourselves by trashing the Constitution.
We don't have to destroy democracy in order to save it.
And it really does come down to that, to potentially destroying that which we are trying to protect.
So, you know, when I first heard about the shadow government, and there are indeed some people who feel this, Harry, I always thought what was meant by that was a government behind everything we see, a power behind every congressman, every senator, even the President of the United States, a power that's really pulling the strings and orchestrating everything that's happening.
What I do see are people who potentially have the power to do certain things in the event of a national emergency who could abuse that power.
FEMA is obviously one such candidate.
The National Security Agency is another.
I see where national security is used and invoked not so much to legitimately protect essential government secrets, but to cover up perhaps mismanagement, wasteful spending, misapplication of funds, and outright failures.
This is what I see, and it's not really some master plan that came about when some people got in a secret room and they decided, okay, this is what we're going to do.
It came about over years, dating from the National Security Act of 1947, and many seemingly innocuous, minor laws that were passed that over time have allowed the enormous accumulation of power and the potential for abuse in one man, namely the President of the United States.
I would begin in the Constitution by including a definition of what constitutes a national emergency.
For example, I think we could all agree that military action against the United States or a terrorist attack on par with, say, September 11th would certainly constitute a national emergency.
Maybe a catastrophic national event like a magnitude 8 earthquake in California, something of this nature, which clearly would demand quick, sudden, and decisive action to save lives.
Yes, that's quite clear.
But we've had national emergencies declared for such things as the trade balance of payments being out of kilter, or to protect snail darters, or for some other very minute, almost irrelevant reason.
We need to tighten up on that considerably.
We also need to, because when the Constitution was framed, the possibility of the sudden loss of the executive and legislative branches in one day wasn't considered a possibility.
We need to include provisions for restoring a constitutional government, electing replacement members of the legislative and executive branches as soon as possible and spell that out in the Constitution.
Finally, we need to have some clear constitutional restrictions on when and how the military can be used in civilian law enforcement, because that is perhaps the most odious and potentially dangerous aspect of the shadow government.
It is known that on certain occasions, such as the Los Angeles riots of 1992, We were very close to that.
In fact, some military units were used in the latter stages of those riots.
It's known that there was a partial activation of the shadow government on September 11, 2001, when Vice President Cheney was taken on that day from Washington to Mount Weather, a large underground facility in Western Virginia, which if the shadow government has a capital, that's it.
Do you think, Harry, that it's possible that a state of emergency could be declared and that the problem or emergency could be handled and then we would just simply slide back into constitutional government?
Or do you think that there is a substantial chance all of this has grown so dire that once we cross that bridge, we well might not come back?
I would ask the question, how many times has government ever received an increase in its power or its ability to impact our lives and has ever voluntarily returned such power to the people?
So it would be your view then that if we really went off the cliff with this and began to invoke the really serious aspects of this, Harry, that we might not come back.
I could see us lapsing to a state of this permanent national emergency leading to a permanent curtailment of certain key rights, particularly those relating to freedom of expression, assembly, property ownership rights, those sorts of things.
Very fundamental rights and the rights that make us America in the first place.
And that's why I say we have to be careful that we're not trying to, with our efforts to protect ourselves, we wind up destroying the very fabric of this nation.
Mount Weather is an underground facility originally built to withstand a direct hit from the Soviet ICBM that can support up to 1,000 people for 30 days totally cut off from the outside world.
Above it, you have the FEMA Training Center, which conducts training exercises for regional FEMA personnel and exercises.
And it is, in effect, this place that in the event of a really catastrophic national emergency, such as a nuclear strike or an actual or impending terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction, this is where essential civilian leaders would go, along with the military support staff, to basically run the government from with underground.
And I presume then that the broadcast industry, those radio stations that I'm speaking on right now, would be singing a new tune, one that would be coming from Mount Weather.
You know, for most Americans, it's impossible to almost even contemplate that such an un-American, anti-constitutional thing could ever be done by anybody, president or otherwise.
Most of us just can't believe it can occur.
Hey, you know, look around the world at what has happened elsewhere and ask yourself.
unidentified
I sat at a night on a downtown, working for my FBI, sitting in a nail-topping man, with your father's father's father.
I sat at a night on a downtown, working for my FBI, sitting in a nail-topping man, with your father's father's father.
I sat at a night on a downtown, working for my FBI, sitting in a nail-topping man, with your father's father.
I sat at a night on a downtown, working for my FBI, sitting in a nail-topping man, with your father's father.
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach ART by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Imagine waking up one morning and walking outside your house and seeing U.S. military, U.S. Marines lining your street on every street corner.
New instructions for everybody.
Times had changed overnight.
Could it happen?
Well, Harry Helms obviously thinks so, and I know a lot of you do too, and I'd like to give you an opportunity to talk about it.
So, you get with your phones, and I'll get you with Harry.
We live in safe America, right?
Could you wake up, say, 2, 2:30, 3 o'clock in the morning one morning to the sound of gunfire outside your house and hear the military en masse beginning to take things over?
Harry, could such a nightmare scenario really happen?
As I note in my book, in the 90s, the U.S. military began conducting numerous exercises in major American cities such as Miami, Chicago, Houston, where it was the injection of troops to take command and control of certain areas.
There has been, since the 1960 urban riots, a plan called Operation Garden Plot, which calls for the use of U.S. military forces in urban areas.
This has been revised numerous times since the mid-1960s.
It's still operational.
And as I point out in my book, surveys of troops, a group of U.S. Marines done by a professor with a U.S. War College, show that over a quarter of active duty troops indicated they would be willing to fire upon U.S. civilians, unarmed civilians, if so ordered by their superiors.
Yes, and so wouldn't that, on the face of it, just even based on those outrageous numbers, wouldn't that prevent what we're talking about right now from occurring because not enough would, in fact, enough might fight back in that given situation to prevent even the thought of someone implementing something like that?
But we might be in a situation then where you could perhaps compose special units from those 26% who answered in the affirmative for these sorts of operations.
I have heard of rumors of those types of camps in Michigan that he's referring to, yes, indeed.
unidentified
Okay.
Well, they're just the military police in charge of it.
But a federal lawsuit was brought in the Houston federal court, and it was dismissed because they were saying it violated people's civil rights to set up internment camps.
And the judge wouldn't hear the case because he said as long as everyone is treated the same, it doesn't violate your civil rights.
But anyway, there's a book by Bill Cooper called The Hold a Pale Horse, which covers a lot of this information, has a lot of documents in it.
And if you haven't seen it, you might be interested in it.
I'm always, I mean, this is such an incredibly sensitive subject.
And the fact, I'll tell you, Harry, I'm a little bit comforted by the fact that I can go on the air and talk about it still, about what you and I are talking about right now without getting shut down.
I find it comforting, but then on the other hand, President Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066, which he used in 1942 to order the detention of Japanese Americans without warrants or charges for as long as he deemed fit, that executive order was twice challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court.
So a future president could insert, so Japanese Americans could have black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Americans who voted for the other candidate in the last election, and do the same thing.
And it's already been pre-approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
you know what we've got harry a non-apparent uh...
unidentified
Well, that means that it's within a controlled medium that is, how can I say it?
It's like a control monitoring synchronicity and coordination station that is like an in like like an IO as you're a radio uh person to uh I don't know um check certain security features to make sure that there's no outbreak of disorder.
Our founding fathers set up this government to serve the people and not for the people to serve the government as the government, or out of the people, is the government.
That is an early example of in my book, what I termed the militarization of civilian law enforcement, where you had military advisors to the FBI and the use of military equipment, like an armored personnel carrier, against civilians.
And that was perhaps the first public demonstration of how the line between civilian law enforcement and militarized law enforcement is becoming increasingly blurred.
Well, it's an example of what can happen when certain powers are used without good judgment and proper discretion.
The situation, I think, got rapidly out of the FBI's hand and led to a very rapid escalation of force on their side without sufficient provocation from the other side.
And my license on the wall is signed by the Secretary of Defense, or DOD and Secretary of the Army.
But I'm not military.
I'm not paid.
And I have to use my own equipment.
What you guys are talking about this morning kind of puts me in a rather difficult position.
I have to serve Mars the best I can.
But if the government turns against me, I have to revert back to my oath that I took when I joined the Marine Corps to defend this country against all of the marginalized margins.
Operating your Mars station, if you became aware of a situation, an emergency that had been declared in the United States by, say, the President of the United States, and you heard or were even part of handling traffic that indicated to you that the U.S. government was, in fact, moving en masse against its own citizens in an obviously unconstitutional way, would you follow orders?
Would you pass that traffic?
Or would you throw up your hands and say, uh-uh, it's time for a change?
That's exactly I guess, again, the kind of thing that I was talking about a few moments ago when you gave me the percentage, horrid and horrific as it is, of the military that would fire on civilians if they were ordered to do so.
There's an example of a guy who's in at least a fairly important position who would not pass such traffic, who would make a decision on his own, making such a nightmare impossible.
And I salute the caller for that decision, but the danger lies in that the percentage of those who would take part in this may be small, but if they have access to sufficient firepower or other means of controlling or managing a population, even that small number could be devastatingly effective.
And then I'm seeing where the HARP is affecting the behavior from last night's show.
And we have a humongous amount of people that are being put in prisons like our drug companies are just overloading us with depression pills that literally drove my daughter almost to the point of suicide, those pills.
You know, there has been certainly a movement in America to privatize the prison system, to actually put it in the hands of companies that would run prisons.
After 8 Second Award in Metal 66, when President Roosevelt interned more than 120,000 Americans as Japanese ancestry, and then in August 10th, 1998, 1988, excuse me, Monawig, President Reagan signed H.R. 442, which gave the apologies and the compensation to more than 70,000 Japanese Americans.
Isn't that like a justification or like an identification to say that what we did to the Japanese American was wrong?
They paid them back, even though it was only $20,000.
It could be construed as such, but the fact of the matter is that did not repeal Executive Order 9066, nor did it impact negatively its legality.
Executive Order 9066 was twice upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
It is still there for a future president to use as he sees fit against any group of people he sees fit.
I think you should understand that in terms of maybe domestic political considerations rather than having any bearing upon its legality or its potential for misuse in the future.
So we didn't, other than making a payment, which was like an admission of wrong, other than that, and a big I'm sorry, we didn't change the thing that would allow that exact same thing to occur again.
Could that be, says the devil, because there has to be something that radical in place, something so radical that after you do it, you have to apologize for it in order to fight the dangers that we face.
I always find it interesting that whenever we talk in terms of national security dangers, it seems almost as if the Bill of Rights is the greatest threat to Americans rather than, say, foreign terrorists or foreign military powers.
That does not affect, let's say, the operational capabilities of, say, al-Qaeda or, say, China.
It does, however, go right to the heart of the freedoms and rights that make us a unique nation.
Just the very fact that we can get on talk radio, nationwide, as we're doing right now, and talk about a subject as sensitive as this, to me, is almost like a beacon in the night saying, it's still okay.
It's still okay.
But then there's another beacon in the night going, but you better keep your eyes open, better keep your eyes open.
And that's what this is all about.
Harry Helms has written a book that has prompted this discussion tonight entitled Inside the Shadow Government.
Because of the nature of the subject matter, I thought it was very important that I provide as much documentation as possible.
So in there, you'll see extracts from various federal laws that give President the power, for example, to seize control of radio and TV stations or to declare martial law.
And I reproduced the full text of several presidential executive orders, including Order 9066, the one President Roosevelt used to detain Japanese Americans for the duration of World War II.
I am a 75-year-old disabled American veteran, and I was at the FTAA rally in Miami Beach a few weeks ago, and there I saw an amphibious tank with a .30-caliber machine gun manned,
and also an amphibious personnel carrier up on the little hill there, and, of course, a couple of thousand full-body armored, I call them thugs.
And these were sent by our illustrious governor, Jeb Bush, against a peaceable rally against the FTAA so that our children and grandchildren's jobs wouldn't be exported.
Now, where does this come into the shadow government?
There's a very large movement out there against these various meetings which are designed to promote trade and, in the view of many, in fact, eliminate American jobs in the process.
The protests have been large, the response at times violent on both sides.
It's an example of the increased militarization of civilian law enforcement that we discussed in the last hour.
And some of the things that your caller is now discussing, I think, is covered by a document called Army Field Manual 19-15, dated November 1985, and is titled Civil Disturbances.
And that outlines the tactics and procedures and methodologies that would be used by the United States Army if called upon to assist in the suppression of a civil disturbance or to be on standby in case of a civil disturbance of some sort.
That document outlines how a regional commander can declare martial law if he feels it warranted before even a presidential or gubernatorial declaration of martial law.
In fact, on my book, on pages 133 and 134, I reproduced the exact wording of federal law that allows a regional military commander on his own initiative to declare martial law.
And I have a comment, and this is relating to the subject.
The United States government abides by international law that you cannot take away somebody's civil rights because of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, whatever they'll be.
That is politically sensitive.
But if the U.S. government wants to propagate some movement to make citizens afraid of somebody's ancestry, racial origin, or religion, whatever you mentioned, somebody who voted for the wrong candidate,
that the U.S. government had to tell the media for the newspapers or the radio or the movies or TV, I'm talking about to promote a hysteria atmosphere that will make American citizens who mostly don't care or don't fear anybody because of such things.
And I would say to the caller, I would not place a Great deal of reliance upon the United States government being deterred in taking certain actions by the fact that those actions would be in violation of international law.
I don't think I would rely upon that for any degree of security or restraint upon U.S. government activities.
And I think what we need is really a national debate on how do we respond to these crises effectively while at the same time preserving our constitutional rights in our civilian form of government.
And also, I think emergency plans or things of this nature, if, for example, we were to clearly spell out, here are the circumstances under which it may well be necessary to deploy federal troops for civilian law enforcement.
I think we all recognize there could be certain situations, such as the aftermath of a major natural disaster or a terrorist event, when civilian law enforcement would break down or be overloaded, and it would be necessary to federalize it and militarize it to some extent.
And that's the catch, and that's why we need to be very explicit, perhaps through constitutional amendments, on the circumstances when and where this can and should be done.
The way it is right now, the latitude for deciding what constitutes a federal emergency and what measures may be taken are concentrated basically in the president.
And for the first six months at least, Congress can basically do nothing but watch helplessly if the president decides to take some of these actions.
Well, if a president, Let's just do a what-if scenario, Harry.
If a president were evil, I'm going to use the E word.
If a president were suddenly an evil president and he decided that he was going to take over, he was going to become a dictator, either kill or suppress all those who opposed him and take over the United States as its dictator, would six months of that power be long enough to ensure that be done?
Listen, from what I understand, as more United Nations occupation troops enter the United States, the White House and the two former administrations, they expect strong resistance from oil Americans, from what I understand, and to quietly suppress these patriotic fighters.
The last administration, President Clinton was getting help from the old Soviet KGB, and they supplied the Clinton administration with a whole new class of weapons that was specifically targeted against American civilians.
And I wanted to ask you about this, Harry, specifically about these Soviet psychotronic weapons or mind control technology, and what would be the likelihood of the government using those type of dangerous weapons against our own people?
All right, well, that one we'll take a big bite out of.
We did talk last night about the ability, for example, of HAARP to control human emotion, feeling, fear, produce a different state, even a confused state in a human being.
Would you imagine a scenario, Harry, under which a government would use such a device, or even just a political party or a member of a political party would use such a device against its own citizens?
I would just say, as a general rule, that any government entity would be interested in as many non-lethal methods of population control as they can muster.
I've heard rumors about that, which were supposedly to be used for dispensing of biological or chemical agents, but I've had no success in verifying this anything more than a rumor.
unidentified
Okay.
The other thing is, as far as crematories, I heard that, excuse me, I heard the government was purchasing, let me think here, old railroad stations, if I remember correctly, and installing crematories in them.
The final thing I want to ask is the Rex 84 program took place in the early 80s, and so that should be done and over with.
You would think that the Denver Airport, which is also known as the New World Airport, which we're not talking about the New World Order tonight, but I also found information as far as inputting a concentration camp.
Did I say concentration camp?
I meant to say a detainment camp underneath the airport.
Ham radio is one fun hobby, and I'd like to encourage as many of you as I can toward it.
My guest is Harry Helms.
We're talking, yes, about the shadow government, but also about radio and any other topic you'd like to bring up.
because you're the ones in the spotlight now on the phone.
unidentified
The News.
Happen to our love.
I wish I understood it just the face of us.
It used to pay so good So when you're near me, darling Can't you hear me?
S.O.S The love you gave me Nothing else can save me S.O.S When you're gone How can I In the sight to go home?
When you're gone Though I die How can I carry on?
You seem so far away Though you are standing near You make me feel alive But something that I feel I really tried to make it out I wish I understood What happened to our love?
It used to be so good To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free, 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Indeed, you know, even doing a talk show like this, considering it, you've got to gulp a couple times real hard before you do it, but I figured, what the hell?
I mean, anything you can imagine.
Look at science fiction, for example.
Some of the wildest, craziest scenarios that are so hard to imagine could ever come true.
Well, suddenly, they come true.
And this is one of those things that if you close your eyes and imagine a military presence and a takeover and a government gone and freedoms evaporated, it seems impossible.
that kind of behind the scenes, pulling the strings of the current government, I never was able to really grasp that as a concept I considered reasonable or that I thought it was really going on.
Unfortunately, this kind of shadow government, the one described by Harry tonight, can be envisioned.
And one can even close one's eyes and imagine how it would be implemented.
And all it might take would be the will of the right person to make it all happen because everything, according to you, Harry, everything, and I think you're pretty much in line, is in place to do it if someone wanted to.
In fact, I found a quote here in my book from Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland, who is a Republican back in 1975, reviewing some of the executive orders issued by the Nixon administration and their potential for misuse.
And this is a direct quote from Senator Mathias.
Under the authority delegated by the statute, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of ways control the lives of all American citizens.
And that pretty neatly sums up the situation as it exists today, except that the powers available to the president, should he decide to exercise them, are even greater than they were in 1975.
You know, Harry, a lot of people are going to want to get in touch with you, and so to prevent a gigantic amount of email from going across my computer, why don't you give out your email address?
And one of the concerns I have is a lot of these rumors about Chinese troops on the Mexican border, Russian troops, Latvian troops up on the Canadian border.
And I'm just curious as to, you know, from my perspective, it makes sense that in order to bring in a one-world government, you cannot have a superpower.
You're going to have to bring everybody down into an even keel, so to speak.
And I wanted to find out, one, if there's any information that, Harry, if you may know that it is true that there are troops on these borders that are ready to come in and I tell you what, it's a very good question you're asking.
I don't know where this came from, but it says big trouble in Mexico.
Residents of New Mexico, it says, just north of the border with Mexico, report that Chinese troops are operating out of northern Mexico and frequently make incursions into the United States.
The U.S. Border Patrol agents, who've spoken on condition of anonymity, meaning no sources here, right, fearing they will lose their jobs, said they've seen Chinese troops on the northern side of the border and that they have duly reported the situation to headquarters.
Agents said large numbers of the troops are frequently on U.S. territory about 32 miles southwest of Las Cruces, New Mexico, near the town of Deming.
Now, I have no idea if this is true, but this is circulating big time on the internet.
Harry, I'm sure you've heard the rumors like Van was talking about.
I have heard the rumors likewise, but I've seen nothing reliable or substantive to back them up.
However, there is increased military activity along the borders on both sides, and there have been incursions of Mexican troops that have been very well documented.
So certainly this is a situation that bears watching.
But I'll tell you, the rumors are all over the internet.
It's everywhere.
Why do you suppose these, assuming it's not true, we don't know for sure, but assuming that it's not true, how do you think these kinds of rumors are generated?
Are they generated by the extreme right wing out there, Harry, who are sort of stoking paranoia?
One is that you have China has replaced the Soviet Union as the most likely potential adversary for the United States in the military sense.
The other rumor I have often idea I've often entertained is that perhaps these rumors could be generated by the government itself in order to discredit or to serve as a cover story for some of the things they might be doing along the border.
So you're telling me that the military has public highways cordoned off, and they're stopping people and yanking them out of cars and searching the cars.
unidentified
So help me, God, it's my witness.
I've got better things to do with my time than to sit here and cook up a story.
This is an actual witness to God fact, and these have been documented in eastern Tennessee newspapers.
I have not heard about this happening inland in the United States, although my book does document several cases where the military have conducted roadblocks and searches on roads adjacent to the U.S.-Mexican border.
But this is the first I've heard of it in an inland case.
unidentified
They were printed up in the Knoxville, Tennessee Journal, or Knoxville, Tennessee Sentinel newspaper.
I also wrote a letter to Father Malachi Martin about 15 years ago and asked him why I could find no references to the United States in biblical prophecy.
But here would be things like along the border, not at the border, roads within a few miles of the border, which there have been military roadblocks, searches of cars, and in a couple of cases, the actual shooting of civilians.
Back in the 60s, the Johnson administration had a special group on counterinsurgency headed by Colonel William Corson.
And he was commissioned to investigate American Indian movement and the Black Panthers and so forth, and any possible linkage between them and the student protests against Vietnam.
And he concluded that without the students, the extremists cannot mount their revolution, and with them, they may be able to.
Yes, that was one of the conclusions that led to the creation of Operation Garden Plot, the operational plan for involvement of the U.S. military in civilian disturbances.
And in fact, they were monitoring the 1970 student anti-war protests, the ones that culminated in the shooting at Kent State, very carefully.
And to Harry, as you probably know, Thomas Aquinas held, the medieval philosopher held that monarchy was the most preferable and the best form of government.
and in that i believe he was following aristotle so the traditional monarchical government Well, I'm sorry about that.
Anyhow, both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in different eras held that monarchy was the most preferable form of government.
And I'm quite sure that the President and our American government are quite aware of this tradition.
Could it be that this plan, contingency of martial law and the rest, may be a sort of reversion, albeit a contingent reversion, to monarchy as a last resort,
as it is quite necessary in the final analysis to have a lone body, usually in the person of one ruler, but often sort of extrapolated to a body rather than having a various separate bodies to whom government is.
All right, so in other words, are we could this sort of thing precede the institution of monarchy is what you're asking right uh yes okay uh Harry I don't know if uh the institution of monarchy is uh what it could lead to but certainly the impact could be to the institution of a dictatorship or de facto strongman form of government but uh you quoted uh Sir Thomas Kinas well I prefer to quote Benjamin Franklin who said that those who would sacrifice their liberty
of your book they can get it it's inside the shadow government inside inside the shadow government thank you yes and it's available from bookstores or from amazon or from our website at www.the-shadow-government.com and when somebody reads this book cover to cover are they going to come away informed frightened um ready to become an activist um a believer what what do you think this book