Showing posts with label U.S. Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Constitution. Show all posts

Friday, July 27, 2012

Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, It’s About Tyranny

InfoWars Via 12160
Kurt Nimmo




Obama and his globalist handlers – who ultimately want every gun confiscated – understand that the American people by and large support the Second Amendment. This is why the president patronized hunters and shooters with an oily sleight of hand.
“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”
In fact, according to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal governmentif need be.
AK47s and other “assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government.
Obama supporters and other lovers of the state recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. This concept is antithetical to the modern liberal who believes government to be a force of good.
“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”
If Obama supporters, Democrats, “progressives” and others demanding the government take our firearms in a misplaced effort to stop maniacs from killing people were honest, they would work to repeal the Second Amendment instead of chipping away at it piecemeal. “If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue,” writes Schrade.
Such a debate is only possible today because formerly free men no longer have a grasp of history and have been brainwashed by decades of government mandated public education and propaganda. Early on in America, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists agreed that arms and liberty are inextricably linked. George Mason and others knew reflexively that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason, in particular, argued that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense – including the right to defend against a tyrannical government. Today, we have forgotten all of this.
Obama can easily get away with making an outrageous speech about hunting and target shooting and almost completely ignore criticism and not be called to task. We are told that he is a constitutional scholar. How could a constitutional scholar be completely ignorant of the Second Amendment’s true purpose and the admonitions of the founders? What constitutional scholar would be ignorant of Jefferson’s famous assertion, made in a letter to William Smith in 1787, that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”?
Obama is not a constitutional scholar. It is a phony title like just about everything else about the man. He is a teleprompter reader for a shadow global elite determined to debar access to weapons and take away those already in our possession. Not because of maniacs in theaters or classrooms, but in order to render us helpless against the violence of the state.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Death of the US Constitution: Can Americans Escape the Deception?

Global Research
Paul Craig Roberts

Hot Air Day is upon us.  On July 4 hot air will spew forth all over the country as dignitaries deliver homilies to our “freedom and democracy” and praise “our brave troops” who are protecting our freedom by “killing them over there before they come over here.”


Not a single one of these speeches will contain one word of truth.  No speaker will lament the death of the US Constitution or urge his audience to action to restore the only document that protects their liberty.  No speaker will acknowledge that in the 21st century the Bush/Obama Regime, with the complicity of the Department of Justice, federal courts, Congress, presstitute media, law schools, bar associations, and an insouciant public have murdered the Constitution in the name of the “war on terror.”


As in medieval times, American citizens can be thrown into dungeons and never accounted for.  No evidence or charges need be presented to a court.  No trial is required, and no conviction.


As in tyrannies, US citizens can be executed at the sole discretion of the despot in the Oval Office, who sits there drawing up lists of people to be murdered. 


Protestors exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association are attacked by armed police, beaten, tasered, tear-gassed, pepper sprayed, and arrested.  


Whistleblowers who report the government’s crimes are prosecuted despite the statute that protects them.


US soldier Bradley Manning, who allegedly gave Wikileaks the documents revealing US war crimes, including the video of US soldiers in a helicopter gunship enjoying themselves murdering civilians walking along the street as if the soldiers were playing a video game, has been arrested and held in conditions of torture while the government tries to invent a case against him.  


According to the US Military Code, US soldiers are required to make war crimes known. However, the law on the books provided no protection to Bradley Manning, and conservative Republicans whom I know are foaming at the mouth for Manning to be executed for letting out the truth.  The truth, what is mere truth compared to the “exceptionalism of the great american people”?  America has carte blanche to do whatever it wishes to the unexceptional peoples. Manning deserves to die, they say, because he took the side of the oppressed and not the side of the amerikan oppressors. 


After the Swedish prosecutorial office dropped the case against Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, ruling that the charges of rape had no foundation, another prosecutor, many believe at the urging of the US government, demanded Assange be extradited from England in order to be questioned.  Normally, extradition only applies to those who have been charged with a crime and for whom a warrant has been issued, which is most certainly not the case with Assange.  But, of course, if Washington wants Assange, Washington will be sure every law is broken or bent until they get him. The Swedish puppet will do the exceptional country’s will and be paid well for its service.


Peace activists in several states had their homes invaded by FBI, computers and personal records taken, and a grand jury was convened in an attempt to indict them for supporting terrorism by their protests of Washington’s illegal wars, wars that are war crimes under the Nuremberg standard established by the US government itself.

None of this will be mentioned in July 4 patriotic speeches. The inebriated masses will be wrapped in the flag and return home full of the hubris that despises lesser foreigners, such as Muslims, Arabs, Chinese, and the French.


And no dignitary will mention that those that “we are killing over there” are mainly women,  children, village elders, and aid workers. The US troops seem to specialize in soft targets like weddings, funerals, kids’ soccer games, farm houses, and schools.

Recently Washington reduced the “collateral damage” count by declaring every murdered male of military age to have been a Taliban fighter or terrorist.  Obviously,
Washington has no way of knowing whether they were or not, but Washington’s declaration is intended as a green light to murder Afghan males of military age.


Currently, Washington has wars underway, or occupations, or is violating the sovereignty of countries with drones and/or troops in seven Muslim countries, and is
arming rebels in Syria.  All of this is being done without the constitutionally-required authorization by Congress, allegedly the people’s representatives.  What a joke!


In short, in “freedom and democracy” america, the people have no voice and no rights and no representatives. 

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

22% Believe Government Has Consent of Governed

Liberty Cryer

Democrats are happier with the status quo than Republicans and voters not affiliated with either of the major parties when it comes to the current Congress and the federal government.

One of the central tenets of the Declaration of Independence is that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Only 22% of the nation’s likely voters believe the government today has such consent.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds a wide partisan gap on the question. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether or not the government has the consent needed for legitimacy. Only eight percent (8%) Republicans and 21% of unaffiliated voters believe it does.

22% Believe Government Has Consent of Governed [continued]


Thursday, June 28, 2012

Supreme Court upholds Obama health care law

USAToday
David Jackson

The Supreme Court upheld the health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion that appears to give President Obama a major victory.

Basically. the justices said that the individual mandate -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine -- is constitutional as a tax.

Chief Justice John Roberts -- a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush -- provided the key vote to preserve the landmark health care law, which figures to be a major issue in Obama's re-election bid against Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

The announcement will have a major impact on the nation's health care system, the actions of both federal and state governments, and the course of the November presidential and congressional elections.

A key question for the high court: The law's individual mandate, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance, or pay a penalty.

Critics call the requirement an unconstitutional overreach by Congress and the Obama administration; supporters say it is necessary to finance the health care plan, and well within the government's powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

While the individual mandate remained 18 months away from implementation, many other provisions already have gone into effect, such as free wellness exams for seniors and allowing children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance policies. Some of those provisions are likely to be retained by some insurance companies.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

How Secret Kill Lists Are Made

Reuters

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

LAWYERS CONSULTED

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

The National Initiative and the Birth of 9-11cc.org


Transcript of a speech by Senator Mike Gravel
[See accompanying video on the home page of this site]
From the forum: “A New Path to Peace and Prosperity”
May 11, 2011 • Oakland, California

I want to approach the problem less dramatically because I want to deal with solutions.  We’ve amply heard the nature of the problem – and I mean amply heard on all facets of it, both 9/11 and the broader spectrum that Bob Bowman presented to you about the state of affairs with the American government and the American empire.  So I’ll take two approaches.

One, I’ll take the immediate approach, which is the 9/11 problem.  I personally feel in my heart of hearts that if we can expose the dishonesty, the criminality that existed on 9/11 – if we can expose that what will happen is we can change the American psyche and maybe for once people will begin to question authority.  That’s possible.

Now, how do we get to that one facet of it?  And I’ll deal with another facet, which is a broader solution to our global problems.  And that is real simple.  You’re not going to get an investigation from the Congress, from the Obama administration.  It’s just not going to happen.  And if it did it would be another cover-up.  So that’s a red herring.  We don’t’ even want to go there.

So when you look at the body politic, you say, “Well, how can we bring something about?”  Well, we’re fortunate enough, as a result of the courageous leadership of politicians and progressives 100 years ago, to have 24 states that have initiative laws, where people can make laws.   California is one of them.  I came up with this suggestion in New York at a conference on 9/11, saying that what we ought to do is write an initiative that would set up a commission that would have subpoena powers or grand jury powers to go ahead and investigate what happened leading up to 9/11, what happened on 9/11 and the aftermath of 9/11, which is three wars – one of them, which is totally ridiculous, the war on terror, which is no more than the economic underpinning for the continuation of the appropriations for the military-industrial complex.  That’s all that is.

And so now, if we could get an investigation to pursue that with some independent powers – well, my bluff was called – or not so much a bluff but my idea was called and said, “Well, would you help out and do something?”

Well, we did.  I came to – first I had to ascertain – I had my own take on 9/11.  It was more political than technical.  I just knew from my intelligence background that this was not a go.  It doesn’t take 18 months to set in motion an investigation, and a fraudulent investigation at that, which is admitted to by the investigators.  And so – but I didn’t act on it.  I was busy doing this other area with respect to the national initiative.

So after coming up with this idea I made a tour of California and came to a conclusion that the 9/11 truth movement is much, much larger than I had anticipated.  And it’s really coming into its own with this – as of what’s going to take place of ten years next September.  And as it’s coming into its own it can be plumbed for support to create a legitimate commission.

Now, I also found out that this is not only the United States.  In Germany a reputable poll was taken and it showed that 86 percent of the people do not believe the story about 9/11.  They feel it was a false flag operation.  Well, they know a little bit history than most Americans know because we have a great, great historic tradition of false flag, starting with the Mexican War in 1848, going on to the Spanish American War, going on to the First World War, going on to parts of the Second World War and also in Vietnam , with respect to the Gulf of Tonkin.  So this is very much in character for our defense mechanisms, our secret – I want to wedge this in.  Do you realize that the president of the United States has the largest secret army in the world?  It is totally funded with black box monies, appropriations.  The Congress doesn’t even know where the money’s going and that is that the beck and call of the president of the United States.  So when they talk about having pure power, this is the Praetorian Guard of the American Empire, and it’s at his beck and call.

So now, when you look at the possibilities of action you can say, well, supposing we write an initiative that says that we’re forming a commission.  We take this commission and we take the initiative and we do it in Oregon, we do it in Massachusetts, we do it in Maine, we do it in Washington State, we do it in Alaska, we do it across the country, at least ten states.  It develops a character, a national character, because we don’t have anything like that at the federal level, and I’ll address that in a moment.

What would happen?  Well, with the young attorney and the law in California where you can go to the state legislative counsel and they have to help you draft legislation, we drafted this legislation and it passed muster.  We have it on the stationary of the legislative council of the State of California.
Now, going into California with an initiative is quite an undertaking.  We’re talking about $2 million from the get-go to really just get it to the campaign stage, get the signatures involved.

Now, if we go into other states – and plus, we have to amend the constitution of California because of the way we’re appointing the members of the commission.  This is the biggest problem we have.  If we let an initiative go forward and do not set up the mechanism to appoint the membership of the committee, what happens, it’ll be appointed by the various governors and we’re back at square one where they appoint their cronies and you’ve got not a citizen’s commission but you’ve got a government commission that will proceed with the continued cover-up that we’ve experienced.

So after looking at the California draft that we have, which we have in the bank, so to speak, I went to Alaska, met with the legislative council up there and looked at their constitution and law.  Did the same thing with the State of Oregon.

Now, Alaska – you’ll laugh as Californians – all we need are 30,000 signatures to get something on the ballot in Alaska.  Well, that is chump change for an undertaking of this kind.

Secondly, we had the same – and there’s no requirements with respect to appointing somebody to go ahead and appoint the commission when it comes into being.  There’s no constitutional barrier to that.
Secondly, we have the same situation in the state of Oregon where it takes a little less than 100,000 signatures to get it on the ballot.  So obviously, what we need to do is to get it passed in those two states, which is sort of a freebie, and then work on the rest of the nation.  And since we would have the corpus of this initiative, which is basically a joint powers agreement – and so other states could latch on.  They could pass an initiative that doesn’t have to contain the same language.  All they’ve got to do is pass an initiative saying that they will join the joint powers agreement that’s passed in Alaska or Oregon.

Now, there’s another feature of those joint powers.  Not only can states latch onto this joint powers agreement, but also cities can.  And so you have the anomaly where Texas, which has no statewide initiative but has over 50 cities that do have the initiative, that these 50 cities could tie on to this joint powers agreement and, I’ll tell you, George Bush, who can’t go to Europe anymore, won’t even be able to get out of Crawford.

Now, the rub of that – and we had Ken Jenkins, who’s our communications officer, director who’s been helping us on a daily basis.  Secondly, Byron Belitsos – yes, a hand for Ken.  [Applause].  And Byron Belitsos, who’s been with the 9/11 truthers from the get-go, he obviously cannot give up his day job to take this on.  I don’t particularly have substantial resources at all.  In fact, I have no net worth and my first wife has my Senate retirement so thank God I’ve got a second wife who loves me.

And so we’re without resources.  Now, just this last week I formed a corporation.  The name of the corporation is called the Citizens 9-11 Commission.  The purpose of this is to go out and draft the initiative legislation for Alaska, Oregon and all the other states that we’re go into put it in, including – well, we’ve already got California but we would change it a little bit.  And then from that – in fact, when I went up to Alaska I had almost as large a gathering of this, overnight, of people that even with my experience in Alaska I didn’t even know they’re all truthers and they were all committed to do something.  And so we’re going to be moving ahead in those two areas.

In addition to forming a corporation we’re going to have a PayPal account and an account with Wells Fargo wherein people can donate money.  We’ve been working for the last two or three months to try and see if we could find some angel that could plunk down a million dollars and get us off the ground.  It hasn’t happened.  And it may but what we’re going to do if we’re going to succeed, we have to rely on you on an ongoing basis.

And Richard Gage has proved that you can do this.  He’s raised the money to do all of this as he’s going forward and melding together these architects and engineers.  So if Richard can do this – and he’s been very gracious saying that anybody who wants to donate to our cause can donate it to his c3 and he would funnel it to us.  But we have to be able to go directly and that’s what we’re doing with this corporation.  So if those of you that want to write down, it’s Citizens911commission dot com. 

We’re working this weekend on the web site and we’ll have a contingent of people on the East Coast and of course others on the West Coast, and the first thing we’ll do is with our monies is be able to hire staff that will work on a permanent basis discarding their day jobs so they can get this job done.

And again, let me repeat:  If we can get it done in one state we can get it done in several states.  And this is what will energize the American people.  This will also, because we’ll be out there collecting signatures, getting qualified — this is what’s going to now take the marginalization done buy the fourth estate, the media, and really stick it in their nose that we are succeeding and we’re moving forward.  That will change their attitude.

Now, if we can get it on the ballot for 2012 we will be able to make this a presidential campaign wedge issue [applause] and it will be, “Do you support a commission, Barack Obama?”, or Mitt Romney or anybody else that makes it in and every member of Congress.  And so you will have the body politic at your mercy.  You know when you’ve got them at your mercy?  When they want something, they want to get elected.  So they want to go to you and say, “Hey, vote for me.”  Well, then you can meet them right in your district – not in Washington, because you don’t get any time there.  Meet them in their district and get them to commit one way or the other and suffer the consequences if they don’t commit to a commission.  But not to do it through the Congress but to do it through the methodology that we’ve established.

Having said that, let me now touch something that’s a broader gauge.  And we could do this within 30 days with about $30,000 if we had in place a national initiative.  That is, an initiative where people could be able to make laws in every governed jurisdiction of the United States, most importantly, the national government.

Now, to presage that concept to you let me try to give you, and it’s not as dramatic, but a little bit of a lecture about how we are the way we are in the mess that we’re in.  And the mess that we’re in is because our forebears, after the Age of Enlightenment, settled on representative government.  Well, representative government under our Constitution is really not what it’s cracked up to be.  If you analyze it, interestingly, you realize that it’s no more than the tribal system of governments.  And that is, each tribe sends a delegate to a central location and that delegate has to fight, whether with knives or spears or what have you – has to fight for the wealth of the collectivity of all the tribes.  Now, isn’t that an interesting concept.  You elect the person to go to Washington and his job is to steal money from every other state he can get his hands on and bring it home to you.  That’s bringing home the bacon.

Now, to show you how convoluted this becomes, and touching on a little bit what Bob was talking about when you talk about American empire, the reason why the empire is there is for the outreach and the (0:16:20.7 s/l hegemon) goal of controlling energy, oil and gas.  That’s our foreign policy.  Now, keep in mind, you have very little to say on foreign policy.  You don’t have much to say even on domestic policy.  On election day, all you do is give your votes away and the sovereignty that you had now resides, with respect to foreign policy, in the office of president of the United States.  And it’s sustained by the congress.

Most people look at the president.  The Congress is worse – much, much worse.  In 1989 they passed a law.  It’s called the Silk Road Plan.  And that is that everything from China to Europe, the underbelly of the Eurasian continent, was declared by an Act of Congress our vital interest.  And then from that you can see how the bases were set up right across this whole continental area, and then of course, the other bases that we have in Asia, particularly Guam, which is no more than an armed aircraft carrier and the Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.  It is appalling.

But what’s appalling is that we buy into it.  You know why?  Because if you cut the defense budget you’re going to have a lot of unemployment.  That’s the problem we have right now.  So we’re in a quandary.  Every member of Congress —and this is not by accident that every congressional district has a little bit of the honey bucket, the honey jar, in their district – jobs.  And so if they don’t vote right they’re threatened with that.  They will move the manufacturing of this airplane over to this state away from your state.  I lived through this with Alan Cranston and the issues in southern California and it’s a conundrum.

It’s totally soluble.  You know?  It’s really so simple.  Close the factories down but keep paying the people.  [applause].  What’s so – you’re going to spend the money anyway.  You’re going to spend the money anyway on weapons that do nobody any good.  So you’re going to cause an unemployment problem?  Hell, give them two, three years of full salary.  And there’s a psychological aspect to this.  That is, the people will go find other jobs within that period of time.  People just don’t want to be unproductive.  That’s part of our psychological id.  And so that’s the problem that we face in the United States that is not soluble within the context of representative government.

Now, let me describe to you how we got to this mess structurally because the problem is representative government.  There’s two venues for change:  One is the government, wherein the problem exists; the other’s the people.  But the people have to have a tool to be able to do something.  There’s nothing that drives me up the wall more than great, great authors – and I include my friend, Noam Chomsky – where I say, “Well, here, Noam.  You can describe the problem but what’s the solution?”  “Oh, the people should and the government should.”  Well, that and $1.75 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.  No more than that.  And that’s the tragedy of it that we don’t realize that the solution is a lot more apparent than we’ve been led to believe.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Top US Spy Chief Quits After Obama Orders 2 Americans Assassinated

ABA.com

May 23, 2010
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

An interesting Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report prepared for Prime Minister Putin circulating in the Kremlin today states that Obama’s top spy chief Admiral Dennis Blair [photo top left with Obama] abruptly resigned on Friday after the US President ordered the “immediate assassination” of an anti-government dissident and his 16 year old son in the US State of Arkansas.
As the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair controlled 16 US spy agencies (including the Homeland Security Department, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Coast Guard) and had warned the US Congress this past February that for the first time in American history Obama’s government was asserting the right to assassinate any American citizen they deemed wa
s a terrorist.
Obama’s power to order the assassination of American citizens without benefit of trial, this reports says, was derived from what is called the “Memorandum Opinion For the Deputy Counsel To The President” that was issued to former President George W. Bush on September 25, 2001 granting him (and all future American Presidents) extraordinary “constitutional power” to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States.
Now according to this SVR report, Jerry Kane Jr. and his 16 year old son Joseph Kane [photo 2nd left] were put on the US terrorist watch list by Obama Federal Police officials because of Kane’s growing following of Americans seeking to find relief from the financial crisis imposed upon their country by their banking system.
Kane and his son were reported to have left Las Vegas, Nevada this past Tuesday where they had given one of their financial seminars (May 15-16) and were enroute to Safety Harbor, Florida to deliver another one on May 28-29 when while traveling through the State of Arkansas they were intercepted by what the US media is calling one of Obama’s “interrogation teams” at an Interstate highway roadblock where a shootout occurred killing 2 US police officers.
US media further reports that Kane and his son were “tracked down” 90 minutes after the initial roadblock shootout to a Wal-Mart parking lot where in a hail of bullets both Kane and his son were killed and another 2 US police officers were wounded.

Bill Sadler, an Arkansas State Police spokesman, is reported by the New York Times to have said it is “unclear” why Kane and his son were targeted in this roadblock in the first place.
This SVR report, however, states that upon nearing the roadblock Kane and his son came under fire from US military snipers targeting them for assassination whereupon fire was returned from Kane’s vehicle allowing them to escape death but resulting in the other police officers deaths.
After escaping, this report continues, a “furious” Admiral Blair called the White House to “demand” an explanation of what was occurring only to be “firmly rebuffed” by Obama officials who had set up this assassination plot causing Blair to “angrily retort” he would have nothing more to do with Obama and his resignation would be on the President’s desk “as write the f**king thing up”.
Once Admiral Blair was “sidelined” by the White House, this SVR report further states, Obama officials ordered their forces to “terminate” both Kane and his son so the true facts of this assassination would never reach a court of law, and which occurred when Kane and his son were gunned down by an estimated 80 military, federal and local police personal.
To the treasonous crime Kane and his son were assassinated for, a Maryland-based insurance analyst, who had previously testified before the US Congress, named JJ MacNab, said she had been tracking him for 2 years and claimed Kane’s seminar business was “centered on debt-avoidance scams”. An SVR analysis of Kane’s seminar though (posted in 7 parts on YouTube) states that far from being a “scam” it appears to offer a legitimate course of action, that if taken by Americans would indeed free them from the stranglehold put upon them by their banking system.

Also interesting to note in this SVR report is that earlier in the week another American anti-tax dissident group named [delete for US-EU report] located in Williamsport, Pennsylvania was assaulted by United Nations troops (UN) allowed to operate in the United States by Obama and destroyed the entire facility with an explosion so loud it was heard throughout the region.
Though not reported by the mainstream propaganda US media, the existence of this UN assault convoy roaming rural Pennsylvania this past week was reported on by their dissident news reports, and as we can read as reported by one of them named InfoWars.Com:
“At approximately 0715 a convoy of 25-30 camouflaged military, Humvees and armored vehicles with UN markings was observed traveling westbound between State College, PA, and Milroy, PA on US. Route 322.
At approximately 0900 the same member encountered another convoy of UNMARKED military vehicles, refueling at Toms’s Travel Center on U.S. Route 322 at Milroy, PA. The member tried to engage the troops, but was ignored. They were in uniforms without insignia, but the covers did have ranks, from colonel to private. Convoy was a similar size, with Humvees and personnel carriers.”
To all of these latest events occurring in the United States the most surprising thing about them are that so many Americans are still unaware of what is happening to them, or why. But to the future they are entering into it can be best summed up by the quote of the great English writer George Orwell who warned them all many years ago…. “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.”
Unfortunately for the Americans who now have a government ordering the assassination of all who oppose them, that future is now.
© May 23, 2010 EU and US all rights reserved
[Ed. Note: Western governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagrees with in believing that it is every human beings right to know the truth. Due to our missions conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ against us has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit and which is addressed in the report “Who Is Sorcha Faal?”.]