Project Megiddo is supposedly the FBI's strategic assessment of the potential for domestic terrorism in the United States undertaken in preparation for the arrival of the new millennium. The stated purpose of the report is "to analyze the potential for extremist criminal activity in the United States by individuals or domestic extremist groups who profess an apocalyptic view of the millennium or attach special significance to the year 2000."

The suggestions in this report are much worse than the pot calling the kettle black. This is an example of the pot calling the crystal chalice black. There is absolutely no logical reason or motivation for patriotic Americans, for those who espouse moral and traditional values or for those who are concerned about Y2K to commit violence. To the contrary, many or most of these people are concerned that any resulting Y2K panic or disorder could create an opportunity for dark elements within the government to implement police state powers and eliminate civil liberties in this nation. Many of those concerned about potential Y2K disruptions are worried that there might not be enough police available to come to their aid in the event of a criminal attack. These concerned citizens are providing for their own self-defense. The sinister assertion being made by this report is that providing for one’s self-defense indicates an intention to commit acts of violence or to overthrow the government. The real concern of these preparedness-minded people is that in a time of national crisis there might not be enough government.

The real reason Americans of moral value and conviction are being targeted for this attack is they do not have an unquestioning faith in the powers that be. Americans of moral value and conviction have committed the crime of resisting a well-orchestrated and forced trend toward moral decay, erosion of civil liberties and the dilution of national sovereignty. Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow government. Patriots are counter-revolutionaries trying to prevent government from overthrowing the U.S. Constitution.

It is rather hypocritical for the FBI to sponsor a report that alleges that Americans who are patriotic, religious or advocate moral standards are somehow planning to commit irrational acts of violence. The FBI has a long and well-documented history of infiltrating dissident political groups and instigating acts of violence. Almost without exception, acts of supposed right wing violence have involved government provocateurs, instigators, equipment or money. Of their own volition, no persons normally associated with these groups would be inclined to violate the law. Most of these groups are wholesome and benign and would still be held in respect by the public were it not for government agent instigation and orchestrated media slander.

This coordinated attack by the media and the government is an intentional attempt to turn the words "patriotism", "religion", "Christianity" and "morality" into dirty words. This was effectively done to the militia movement by inferring that the militia had to do with the Oklahoma City bombing. There is no evidence connecting the militia to the Oklahoma City bombing, only media inference. In fact if any legitimate inference were applied based on association, the US military would be implicated. McVeigh was an active member of the Army at the time of the bombing.

The overall strategic objective here is to defame the reputation of peaceful, law-abiding Americans by inference. Psycho politicians and social engineers have learned through experience that the best way to destroy the power base of opposition groups is to destroy their reputation and image in the eyes of the public. Groups without public support cannot long survive. Once a group or individual has been judged and found guilty by the media, the public tends to turn a blind eye while the controlling power exercises ruthless eliminating force against the opposition group or individual. Public sentiment usually justifies such inordinate uses of force because "they had it coming to them". This was clearly out-pictured in the extermination of the Branch Davidians.

What we are seeing here is covert psycho warfare. Things are not as they seem. We are living in an age of deception. The only way to effectively discern the truth behind any act of violence is to disregard all mainstream media assertions and ask the golden question " who stands to benefit from this act?"

History has taught psycho politicians that fear is an effective weapon for social change. Fear can be used to herd people. Fear causes people to give up freedoms and liberty in exchange for some false promise of security.

The Hegelian principle of change, used so effectively by the Communists and Socialists, has three steps: thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. In practical terms this means synthetically creating a problem (usually through the use provocateurs). The second step is a predictable public reaction of fear, panic and hysteria. The final step is to present to the public a pre-engineered solution to the synthetically created problem. The public acceptance of this engineered solution achieves a social change that the public would never have agreed to under normal circumstances.

Just after his election, Bill Clinton told reporters it was the Oklahoma bombing that proved the turning-point in his political fortunes. This event caused the militias, the Christian Right and the Gingrich onslaught to all meld together in the public mind as one rampant movement of extremism. "It broke a spell in the country as the people began searching for our common ground again," said Clinton. The Oklahoma bombing was Clinton’s springboard for a remarkable political comeback.

The reason this is so paramount to their agenda is that history has shown that you can’t successfully subjugate people who are in a position to resist.

Most Americans are not looking for a fight with authority (legitimate or assumed), but the demarcation line for most seems to be drawn at the point that the government attempts to disarm them. The original intent of the founding fathers was for the citizens to be armed to keep the government in check in the event that an out of control administration tried to tyrannize the people. Social engineers recognize this demarcation line and it may be in their strategy to try to instigate civil disorder as an excuse to bring in foreign UN troops to accomplish dirty work. The majority of this nation’s law enforcement and military personnel will generally not go along with gun confiscation and the elimination of political dissidents.

The original intent of the law was to protect the individual from tyranny, but now we find ourselves in a time where government is not responsive to the people. In general the system no longer allows the individual to use the law as a defense against governmental tyranny. In fact today's law in many cases is used to tyrannize the individual and take his rights.

"Legitimate violence is integral to our form of government, for it is from this source that we can continue to purge our weaknesses." Louis Guiffreda, former head of FEMA.

Throughout America’s history, political dissent has played a vital role in preserving freedom. Political dissent maintains the ongoing health of the republic. Freedom of speech and unrestrained expression are the principal pillars in any free government. When the supporting pillars of freedom of speech and unrestrained expression are removed, the Constitution dissolves and tyranny rises on its ruins.

Tolerance for political dissent strengthens the fiber of a nation and society. A nation that won't tolerate political dissent is on a collision course with its people. Political dissent in society is like pain in the human body. Dissent and pain are both warning signs, they tell us when something is wrong. Suppressing and ignoring pain or political dissent results in serious sickness and terminal disease.

Strong enduring societies tolerate dissent, weak and crumbling societies do not. Historically America has been a strong nation because as a society we allow all factions to hash things out in the political arena with words as opposed to hashing it out in the shadows with guns and bombs. The systems our founding fathers created allow our society to openly debate many different points of view and eventually reach consensus on problems.

But the present politically correct trend is toward criminalizing expressions of political dissent. The deputy attorney general of California reflected this trend when he stated that anyone who attacks the state, even verbally, becomes a revolutionary and an enemy by definition.

Today the First Amendment is misused to protect that which is immoral and unpatriotic. At the same time that legislation is used to suppress free speech on moral and religious issues. Now pro-life protesters are targeted for prosecution though RICO (anti-racketeering legislation) and new "hate" laws. The author of RICO, University of Notre Dame Prof. G. Robert Blakely, said its sole intent was to curtail organized crime, not organized protest.

If the First Amendment doesn't protect all, it potentially protects none. If this trend continues, the government will feel free to muzzle anyone or anything of which it disapproves.