KafkaWinstonWorld
*****************************************************************************************************
Published on Apr 14, 2013
In the past few weeks there has been a Huge Uptick in Military Activity in the Northern Kentucky Region ! I have lived here All My Life …..and have NEVER Seen Movement of this Nature in the past 30 Years !
WASHINGTON | Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:01pm EDT
(Reuters) – The United States sent F-22 stealth fighter jets to South Korea on Sunday to join military drills aimed at underscoring the U.S. commitment to defend Seoul in the face of an intensifying campaign of threats from North Korea.
The advanced, radar-evading F-22 Raptors were deployed to Osan Air Base, the main U.S. Air Force base in South Korea, from Japan to support ongoing bilateral exercises, the U.S. military command in South Korea said in a statement that urged North Korea to restrain itself.
“(North Korea) will achieve nothing by threats or provocations, which will only further isolate North Korea and undermine international efforts to ensure peace and stability in Northeast Asia,” the statement said.
Saber-rattling on the Korean peninsula drew a plea for peace from Pope Francis, who in his first Easter Sunday address called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis on the Korean peninsula.
“Peace in Asia, above all on the Korean peninsula: may disagreements be overcome and a renewed spirit of reconciliation grow,” he said, speaking in Italian.
Tensions have been high since the North’s young new leader, Kim Jong-un, ordered a nuclear weapons test in February, breaching U.N. sanctions and ignoring warnings from North Korea’s closest ally, China, not to do so.
************************************************************************************************
How potent are North Korea’s threats?
Lucy Williamson reports from the heavily-guarded inter-Korean border
South Korea has promised a “strong response” to North Korean aggression, amid high tensions on the peninsula.
Speaking to defence officials on Monday, President Park Geun-hye said that she took the series of threats from Pyongyang “very seriously”.
North Korea said on Saturday that it was entering a “state of war” with South Korea.
On Sunday, the US sent stealth fighters to South Korea, as North Korea pledged to build up its nuclear arsenal.
“If there is any provocation against South Korea and its people, there should be a strong response in initial combat without any political considerations,” Ms Park said.
In recent days North Korea has issued multiple warnings of attacks on US and South Korean targets – to which the US has responded with an apparent show of military hardware.
The communist state has been angered both by UN sanctions imposed after its nuclear test in February and the joint US-South Korea annual military drills.
‘Nation’s life’
The US flew F-22 planes from Japan to South Korea’s Osan Air base on Sunday, as part of ongoing joint military exercises with South Korea, officials said.
“[North Korea] will achieve nothing by threats or provocations, which will only further isolate North Korea and undermine international efforts to ensure peace and stability in Northeast Asia,” the US military command in South Korea said in a statement reported by Reuters news agency.
Read Full Article and Watch Video Here
************************************************************************************************
Published on Mar 18, 2013
At CPAC 2013, WeAreChange questioned Senator Lindsey Graham on Obama’s Disposition Matrix (kill list) and the ability to use drone strikes on American citizens.
********************************************************************************
Published on Mar 7, 2013
Read the information at the link below and join the Stop NDAA 2012 group:
https://www.facebook.com/events/20512…
NDAA 2012 (H.R. 1540) allows Americans to be classified as unlawful enemy combatants and indefinitely detained by the military, without access to an attorney or a trial by jury, on orders of the executive branch. Amendments to exclude American citizens were rejected by the Obama administration and senate vote (See numerous links below).
Our Congressmen have declared that America is part of the battlefield. As such, President Obama and congress believe the laws of war apply to us. The last time America was declared a military zone President Roosevelt authorized the internment of Americans with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942.
Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA 2012 allow the indefinite military detention of Americans without due process. Congress needs to repeal sections 1021 and 1022. Call your congressmen today – contact and voting information below.
NDAA 2012 is unconstitutional. Sections 1021 and 1022 repeal the 1st,4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and declares our right to due process. No law can supersede it. We have a right to our day in court with a jury of our peers.
U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed.
From Oath Keepers:
We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.
The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/0…
Our Declaration of Independence also states our right to trial by jury.
Senator Graham said that America is part of the battlefield, and as such, Americans can be captured, interrogated, and killed with no due process. Senators Graham, Kyl, and McCain say the laws of war (military law) apply to us.
The senators argue the 2001 AUMF is in accordance with 1971 Non-Detention Act and allows Americans to be detained indefinitely without access to an attorney.
Non – Detention Act 1971:
No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress
The senators say the act of congress that allows us to be detained indefinitely is the AUMF 2001. So, no, the paragraph below from NDAA 2012 Section 1021 (d) does not protect you. We are talking about the laws of war applied to American citizens, not criminal law, which includes due process. You can now be considered an unlawful enemy combatant.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force.
Senator Kyl on the section D amendment:
Unfortunately, on December 1, when the defense bill was considered on the Senate floor, an amendment was approved that added language providing that the bill does not expand or contract “existing law or authorities.” I opposed this meaningless amendment.
http://files.meetup.com/1275333/Lette…
Senator Graham: Under domestic criminal law, we can’t hold someone indefinitely.The only way to do that legally is under the law of war.
http://files.meetup.com/1275333/Senat…
Senator Kyl – I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement that makes very clear where military detention is necessary: to allow intelligence gathering that will prevent future terrorist attacks against the American people.
********************************************************************************
US senator says 4,700 killed in drone strikes |
Revelation by Lindsey Graham marks the first time any US official has given a numberfor drone fatalities.Last Modified: 21 Feb 2013 12:06
|
|
Graham’s office insisted that the senator did not disclose any classified information [EPA]
|
| A US senator has said that an estimated 4,700 people have been killed in America’s secretivedrone war, the first time a government official has offered a total number of fatalities caused
by nearly a decade of drone strikes, local media reported.Republican senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch supporter of the drone raids, revealed the figure in a speech on Wednesday in his home state of South Carolina. “We’ve killed 4,700,” Graham was quoted as saying by the Easley Patch, a local website covering the small town of Easley. ”Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of al-Qaeda,” he told the local Rotary Club. Graham’s office did not dispute his reported remarks, but said that he had not divulged any classified information. A spokesman told the AFP news agency that the senator “quoted the figure that has been publicly reported and disseminated on cable news.” US officials have sometimes hinted at estimates of civilian casualties, but never referred to an actual total body count. “Now this is the first time a US official has put a total number on it,” said Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘Tactical weapon’ If there was an official death toll estimate, it would be classified as secret, he added, raising the prospect that Graham could have broken secrecy laws. Several organizations have tried to calculate how many militants and civilians may have been killed in drone strikes since 2004 but have arrived at a wide range of numbers. The figure cited by Graham matches the high end of a tally by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It says the number killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia is between 3,072 and 4,756. The Washington-based New America Foundation says there have been 350 US drone strikes since 2004, most of them during Barack Obama’s presidency. And the foundation estimates the death toll at between 1,963 and 3,293, with 261 to 305 civilians killed. US intelligence agencies and the White House have refused to divulge details about the strikes, which are officially termed classified, but officials have suggested that few if any civilians have been killed inadvertently. In confirmation hearings this month for John Brennan, Obama’s nominee to lead the CIA, senator Dianne Feinstein said she understood that the number of civilians killed was in the “single digits.” Despite criticism from lawmakers and rights advocates who have questioned the secrecy and the legality of the drone attacks, Graham defended Obama’s reliance on the unmanned, robotic aircraft. “It’s a weapon that needs to be used,” Graham said. “It’s a tactical weapon. A drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle that is now armed.” The Obama administration has insisted the “targeted killings” are “a last resort” against those plotting to attack the United States but who cannot be captured. Opponents, however, say drone strikes amount to extrajudicial assassinations that sow resentment among local populations and lack oversight by Congress or courts. ************************************************************************* Correct me if I am wrong Mr Graham, however , I believe that we had onlyONE Commander in Chief in 2001 as well……************************************************************************** Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11Created on Friday, 08 March 2013 18:45
What Else Did He Lie About? The New York Times In a documentary soon to appear on Showtime, “The World According to Dick Cheney,” [Cheney said] “I got on the telephone with the president, who was in Florida, and told him not to be at one location where we could both be taken out.” Mr. Cheney kept W. flying aimlessly in the air on 9/11 while he and Lynn left on a helicopter for a secure undisclosed location, leaving Washington in a bleak, scared silence, with no one reassuring the nation in those first terrifying hours. “I gave the instructions that we’d authorize our pilots to take it out,” he says, referring to the jet headed to Washington that crashed in a Pennsylvania field. He adds: “After I’d given the order, it was pretty quiet. Everybody had heard it, and it was obviously a significant moment.” When they testified together before the 9/11 Commission, W. and Mr. Cheney kept up a pretense that in a previous call, the president had authorized the vice president to give a shoot-down order if needed. But the commission found “no documentary evidence for this call.” In other words, Cheney pretended that Bush had authorized a shoot-down order, but Cheney now admits that he never did … and Cheney acted as if he was the president on 9/11. Cheney lied about numerous other facts related to 9/11 as well. For example, Cheney:…. ************************************************************************* |
********************************************************************************
Uploaded on Feb 3, 2010
http://www.RevolutionNews.us — This film exposes how every major war in US history was based on a complete fraud with video of insiders themselves admitting it. Battleship Maine, Sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty (not covered in this clip), 911 … The film is “The New American Century”.
be sure to watch this video as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aepfsJ…
This film goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present.
This film exposes how every major war in US history was based on a complete fraud with video of insiders themselves admitting it. This film shows how the first film theaters in the US were used over a hundred years ago to broadcast propaganda to rile the American people into the Spanish-American War.
This film shows the white papers of the oil company Unocal which called for the creation of a pipeline through Afghanistan and how their exact needs were fulfilled through the US invasion of Afghanistan. This film shows how Halliburton under their “cost plus” exclusive contract with the US Government went on a mad dash spending spree akin to something out of the movie Brewster’s Millions, yet instead of blowing $30 million they blew through BILLIONS by literally burning millions of dollars worth of hundred thousand dollar cars and trucks if they had so much as a flat tire.
“A stunning film. It should be seen as widely as possible, in cinemas, bars, clubs, at meetings and, of course, through the internet. I’m sure the film will continue to be a source of debate and political education for many years.
Maybe until the war criminals have been brought to trial.” – Ken Loach
While Massimo Mazzuccos first political documentary, GLOBAL DECEIT (2006), focused on the long list of inconsistencies in the official version of the 9/11 attacks, THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY explores the historical, philosophical and economic background that suggests a matrix for such events that is much closer to home than the so-called “Islamic terrorism”.
The film provides solid evidence for the true reasons behind the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, whose unfolding is described in chilling detail in a document called “Project for the New American Century”, published in the year 2,000, that seems to have served as the actual blueprint for such dramatic events.
Watch the entire film:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc…
….
The Lusitania – Pretext for WW1
Pearl Harbour – Pretext for WW2
Gulf of Tonkin – Pretext for Vietnam War
USS Liberty – Israeli attack on USS Liberty – Pretext to bring the USA into Israel’s war with Egypt (Fail) resulting in 34 unnecessary US deaths and 141 casualties
9/11 Pretext for war with Iraq and Afghanistan
What’s next? USS Enterprise as a pretext for war? USA + Israel vs Iran + Russia + China? India vs Pakistan?
All the above with the exception of the USS Enterprise (as yet) have been false flag or attacks with foreknowledge used as pretexts for war with the exception of the USS Enterprise. This is how the USA gain public support for war with countries that have never posed a threat to America.
Iran haven’t acted as the aggressor with any country for over 200 years so why would they start now? But the USA and Israel’s war drums are beating.
When are America and Israel going to cease their endless aggression with the rest of the world? Even when they are not physically warmongering they are still quite happy bankrupting nations with their worthless fiat currency. Concerns about the soundness of U.S. credit and financial markets in 2008 led to tightening credit around the world and slowing economic growth in the U.S. and Europe.
********************************************************************************
Uploaded on Nov 26, 2011
Over 100,000 Japanese Americans were put into “internment camps” during WWII, a crucial yet often overlooked part of US history. We are joined by Madeleine Sugimoto, whose family was sent to Camp Jerome; this segment also features the paintings of her father, Henry Y. Sugimoto, documenting life inside the camps. From “The Broader Implications of War,” a series directed and co-produced by Gloria Messer for the Manhattan Neighborhood Network. Host and co-producer: Heather Wokusch.
********************************************************************************
Third Reich Began Persecutions
Years Before Laws Enacted in 1935The Nuremberg Laws made official the Nazi persecution of the Jews, but the “legal” attack on the Jews actually began two years earlier.
After the Nazis took power in Germany in 1933, they became increasingly engaged in activities involving the persecution of the Jewish and other minority populations. They did it under the color of law, using official decrees as a weapon against the Jews.
In 1933 Jews were denied the right to hold public office or civil service positions; Jewish immigrants were denaturalized; Jews were denied employment by the press and radio; and Jews were excluded from farming. The following year, Jews were excluded from stock exchanges and stock brokerage.
During these years, when the Nazi regime was still rather shaky and the Nazis feared opposition from within and resistance from without, they did nothing drastic, and the first measures appeared, in relative terms, rather mild.
After Germany publicly announced in May 1935 its rearmament in violation of the Versailles Treaty, Nazi party radicals began more forcibly demanding that Hitler, the party, and the government take more drastic measures against the Jews. They wanted to completely segregate them from the social, political, and economic life of Germany. These demands increased as the summer progressed.
On August 20, 1935, the U.S. embassy in Berlin reported to the secretary of state:
To sum up the Jewish situation at the moment, it may be said that the whole movement of the Party is one of preparing itself and the people for general drastic and so-called legal action to be announced in the near future probably following the Party Congress to be held in Nuremberg beginning on September 10th. One has only to review the statements made by important leaders since the end of the Party’s summer solstice to realize the trend of affairs.
…
Huffington post
It’s frustrating to see how muddled the debate over drones has become. Some people are wondering why we’re all so concerned over a new vehicle that delivers bombs, as opposed to planes. No, no, that’s not it at all. Drones don’t kill people, the U.S. government kills people. It’s just a tool. The problem isn’t the tool; the problem is how we are using it.
So, in order to clear up the confusion let me just state the three biggest problems with how we are using the drone program.
1. We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, the government seems to be indicating he was a really important operational leader for al-Qaeda. Their evidence for that — nothing. At least nothing they have presented to the public or any other branch of government. The old saying is that you could indict a ham sandwich, but apparently they couldn’t indict Awlaki.
Does that mean our government couldn’t produce any evidence at all on this supposed terrorist mastermind, or has such disdain for any other branch of government that they think it’s beneath them to show a shred of evidence to a court before they order the execution of a U.S. citizen?
In the case of the other two U.S. citizens who were killed, including Awlaki’s 16 year-old son who was struck in another bombing, the government refuses to say whether they meant to kill those citizens or if it was an accident. Shouldn’t we at least know if assassinations of U.S. citizens are done on purpose or accidentally (by the all-knowing, all-wise executive branch)?
…..
Written By: Michelle Sohn
Edited By: Laura Fishwick & Gillian Kassner
Editorial Policy
Photo By: Rennett Stowe – CC BY 2.0
At the end of the Civil War, Lambdin P. Milligan, a United States citizen, was arrested in his Indiana home, tried before a military commission, and sentenced to death on a number of charges including “[a]ffording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States”. Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 6 (1866). Milligan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the military commission had no jurisdiction to try or sentence Milligan. Even in a time of war, Milligan was entitled to his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nearly 150 years later, the U.S. finds itself embroiled in another time of war. Advances in military technology such as drones have greatly enhanced the government’s ability to conduct lethal operations anywhere in the world without ever having to put a single American soldier on the ground. Paradoxically, it is exactly these new advances in military technology that have dredged up a longstanding, yet important conflict between balancing national security with constitutional protections of due process.
The conflict between national security and due process recently regained national attention with the leaking of a Department of Justice White Paper. The White Paper detailed the legal framework under which the government can lawfully order lethal operations against a United States citizen who is outside a recognized battlefield and believed to be a “senior operational leader” or an “associated force” of al-Qa’ida. It concluded that when an informed high-level U.S. official determines that (1) a U.S. citizen poses an “imminent threat” of violent attack, (2) capture of the citizen is infeasible, and (3) the operation can be conducted consistently with law of war principles, lethal force does not violate international or domestic law. The White Paper expressed the latest of a long series of arguments put forth by the Obama Administration justifying its practice of requiring minimal due process procedures before taking lethal action against U.S. citizens far from the combat zone. In fact, as early as 2010, Harold Koh, Legal Advisor to the U.S. State Department, stated that a nation “engaged in an armed conflict or legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force…” In 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder in his address at Northwestern University declared that the President is not required to go through a federal court in order to take action, “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.” What is most striking about the Obama Administration’s collective arguments is the wide discretion afforded to the Executive Branch and the inchoate analysis of the constitutional expectations due process requires from each branch of government.
There are two components of due process: fair notice and the opportunity to be heard. The fundamental rationale behind due process is to check against arbitrary government action. At its core, due process is an amalgamation of what makes the separation of powers a powerful American ideal. The Legislative branch writes the laws—including the ones that dictate charges available against U.S. citizens—that the Executive branch enforces by bringing citizens in violation of the law to be tried before an impartial Judicial branch that the Constitution itself or the Legislative branch has established. Times of national crisis will necessarily render some procedures of due process more elastic than times of peace. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that in certain cases the procedures for due process must be narrowed in times of national crisis. For example, in Ex Parte Quirin, during World War II, the Court upheld the constitutionality of trying a U.S. citizen for offenses against the laws of war in front of a military commission rather than a jury. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 modified sub nom. U.S. ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, 63 S. Ct. 22 (U.S. 1942). At the same time, the Court has also recognized that “[w]hatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004).
The Hamdi opinion, which the DOJ White Paper cited, also recognized the need to balance the constitutional guarantee of due process with the Executive branch’s responsibility to keep the nation secure. Thus, in evaluating the constitutional protections afforded a U.S. citizen captured and deemed an “enemy combatant” by the U.S. military, the Hamdi Court used a balancing test that it had employed 28 years prior in Mathews v. Eldridge. The Mathews Court stated that the proper test for evaluating how much due process is required is the consideration of three factors: “First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest…”.Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). The DOJ White Paper conceded that “no private interest is more substantial” than the interest in avoiding erroneous deprivation of life. White Paper at 6. However, the DOJ reasoned that the government interest in ensuring national security by using force on those that pose an “imminent threat of violent attack” is compelling. As such, the DOJ concluded that the “realities of combat” justified the force rendered necessary to meet those realities. In fact, the DOJ White Paper quoted the Hamdi decision, “due process analysis need not blink at those realities.” Hamdi, 542 U.S at 531. However, this use of Hamdi is disingenuous. The “realities” the Court referred to were the necessities of detaining enemy combatants rather than the use of force.[1]
The DOJ White Paper’s use of Hamdi to justify drone strikes outside recognized combat zones is increasingly suspect due to the fact that Hamdi emphasized that petitioner Hamdi was captured in a foreign combat zone. In doing so, Hamdi refered to Ex Parte Milligan, the aforementioned Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of military commissions during the Civil War. The Milligan Court held that despite being in a time of declared war, the military commission had no jurisdiction to try and sentence Milligan. The Hamdi Court reasoned “[h]ad Milligan been captured while he was assisting Confederate soldiers by carrying a rifle against Union troops on a Confederate battlefield, the holding of the Court might well have been different”. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 522. Indeed, the Milligan Court pointed to the fact that in Indiana “…there was no hostile foot…[and] so in the case of a foreign invasion, martial rule may become a necessity in one state, when in another, it would be “mere lawless violence.” Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 at 126-27. The Court in both Hamdi and Milligan implicitly acknowledged the importance of recognized combat zones as a potential check on the Executive branch’s expansive war powers.
……
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON, March 6 | Wed Mar 6, 2013 7:36pm GMT
(Reuters) – President Barack Obama will soon reveal more about the administration’s legal rationale for using drone strikes, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.
Holder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Obama would address the issue directly “in a relatively short period of time.”
Congress has been seeking access to at least 11 memos produced by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that lay out the legal rationale for using drone strikes to target individuals overseas, but until this week had only been allowed access to four of them.
“I heard you. The president has heard,” Holder said. As a result, the administration is prepared to make more materials available, he said.
The Obama administration has increasingly used drone strikes to target militants overseas. In 2011, for example, strikes in Yemen killed U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki, accused of being a leader of al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate, and his son, also a U.S. citizen.
Civilian casualties from drone strikes have angered local populations and created tension between the United States and Pakistan and Afghanistan. Washington has sought to portray civilian casualties as minimal, but organizations that collect data on these attacks put the number of civilians killed in the hundreds.
“We have talked about a need for greater transparency,” Holder told senators.
He predicted there “would be a greater level of comfort” about the use of drones after the information is shared.
On Tuesday, as part of a deal that led the Senate Intelligence Committee to approve the nomination of John Brennan as the new director of the CIA, the administration agreed to share two more of the documents with committee members and some staffers.
…..
Where are the civil libertarians in the president’s party that we must rely on a Tea Party Republican to champion this issue?
You could say that a filibuster occurs when a senator drones on and on. The problem with the US Senate was that there were too few senators speaking about drones this week.
President Barack Obama’s controversial nomination of John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency was held up Wednesday afternoon by a Senate filibuster. The reason: Brennan’s role in targeted killings by drones, and President Obama’s presumed authority to kill US citizens, without any due process, if they pose an “imminent threat”. The effort was led by Tea Party Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, joined by several of his Republican colleagues. Among the Democrats, at the time of this writing, only Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon had joined in the genuine, old-fashioned “talking filibuster”, wherein the activities of the Senate floor are held up by a senator’s speech.
Members of Congress, tasked with oversight of intelligence and military matters, have repeatedly demanded the memoranda from the White House detailing the legal basis for the drone program, only to be repeatedly denied. The nomination of Brennan has opened up the debate, forcing the Obama administration to make nominal gestures of compliance. The answers so far have not satisfied Senator Paul. Nearing hour six of his filibuster, Senator Paul admitted:
“I can’t ultimately stop the nomination, but what I can do is try to draw attention to this and try to get an answer … that would be something if we could get an answer from the president … if he would say explicitly that noncombatants in America won’t be killed by drones. The reason it has to be answered is because our foreign drone strike program does kill noncombatants. They may argue that they are conspiring or they may someday be combatants, but if that is the same standard that we are going to use in the United States, it is a far different country than I know about.”
Ellen Mariani’s petition to the Supreme Court sought to reinstate her wrongful death lawsuit against US government officials and others – a suit which had been denied, at lower levels, on the grounds that she had no standing to sue those responsible for her husband’s death! In fact, Ellen Mariani was cheated by lawyers who were secretly working for the other side, and by judges with massive conflicts of interest.”
Ellen Mariani, whose husband Neil was murdered on September 11, 2001, had turned down more than a million dollars in government hush money to pursue the real 9/11 criminals in federal court.
After eleven years, two separate lawsuits, and an unbelievable series of encounters with corrupt lawyers and Israeli-American judges, Ellen Mariani has finally heard from the United States Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court’s message is loud and clear: There will be no truth, and no justice, concerning 9/11… at least not in the US court system.
Ellen Mariani’s petition to the Supreme Court sought to reinstate her wrongful death lawsuit against US government officials and others – a suit which had been denied, at lower levels, on the grounds that she had no standing to sue those responsible for her husband’s death! In fact, Ellen Mariani was cheated by lawyers who were secretly working for the other side, and by judges with massive conflicts of interest.
Vincent Gillespie of the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund explains: “It’s politics. They don’t want any 9/11 cases to go forward… If this had come to trial, there’s all kinds of evidence that could have come out.”
Ellen Mariani’s case, like almost all 9/11-related litigation, was channeled through the courtroom of Judge Alvin Hellerstein. Gillespie charges:
“One of the problems was Judge Hellerstein. He’s an immense problem. First, we have Israeli defendants here. ICTS (the airline security company established in 1982 by members of Israeli intelligence) is one of the defendants. And Hellerstein is a Zionist Jew with all kinds of connections to the Jewish community. His sister lives in Israel, his son works in an Israeli law firm, he’s involved in a couple of Jewish organizations in New York. His wife is involved in a Jewish organization. Just that by itself is going to create a conflict of interest. He’ll want to protect Israeli defendants.”
Israeli defendants? Were there Israelis involved in 9/11?
Gillespie explains: “There were over 180 Israelis arrested on and around 9/11. The person overseeing that was Michael Chertoff, a dual national Israeli-American. And he sent them all back with a slap on the wrist for visa violations.”
The attack on American Muslims’ free speech actually appears to have begun a few days before 9/11, when the FBI raided key Muslim organizations and shut down their computer servers. The FBI’s raids preemptively prevented Muslims from freely expressing and disseminating their view of 9/11: That it was an inside job, presumably orchestrated by Israel and its American agents.”
But starting next September 11th, a new group called AMPAC, the American Muslim Political Action Committee, will challenge AIPAC’s stranglehold on American political life.
AMPAC will be forcefully announcing its presence with a “Million Muslim March” on the White House on September 11, 2013. The goal, announced at AMPAC’s press conference in New York:
“We at AMPAC (American Muslim Political Action Committee) are planning a historic event for 9/11/13. One million Muslims will march to Washington D.C. and demand that our civil rights be protected by our government. We are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our First Amendment rights. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign for the Presidency of a transparent government. Lastly we are asking for the establishment of a real 9/11 Commission to reveal the truth to the American people.”
AMPAC founder M.D. Rabbi Alam, a well-known Missouri Democratic Party organizer, points out that
American Muslims, like other Americans, were targeted on 9/11. More than 60 Muslims were murdered in the explosive demolitions of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11, and a mosque in the South Tower was annihilated. Alam points out that “Muslim and non-Muslim alike were traumatized by 9/11, but we as Muslims continue twelve years later to be victimized by being made the villains.”
American courts have traditionally held that the Bill of Rights guarantees that all religions must be treated equally by the government. Alam cites “the ‘war on terrorism’ in Islamic countries, Congressional hearings on Islam in America, and changes to the NDAA” as infringements of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
AMPAC organizers also argue that the US government and media have lied about 9/11 and its aftermath. According to the AMPAC press release, “These lies told to the American population have made it impossible for us to do true Dawa (Islamic outreach).”
The attack on American Muslims’ free speech actually appears to have begun a few days before 9/11, when the FBI raided key Muslim organizations and shut down their computer servers. The FBI’s raids preemptively prevented Muslims from freely expressing and disseminating their view of 9/11: That it was an inside job, presumably orchestrated by Israel and its American agents.
Polls show that more than 80% of Muslims globally, and two-thirds of American Muslims, believe that 9/11 was an inside job – and these polls undoubtedly understate the real numbers. Yet the corporate media, dominated by Jewish Zionists, has refused to allow Muslims’ perspective on 9/11 to even be heard, much less debated. To this day, most Americans falsely believe that Muslims accept the official story of 9/11.
Published on Feb 1, 2013
With no soundtrack – Complete 33 minute video is here – Non-Compliance Resistance Evident at Buffalo vs New York State Q & A Forum on the Arms Bill – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1SzjHPFGw
Published on Jan 30, 2013
January 29, 2013
Residents of Erie County, New York overflow the
State’s dictating / Q & A forum concerning the
unconstitutional NY Safe Act arms bill.
The passion and anger from the people is evident
of Erie County resistance.
After the first speaker spoke, the second one was
introduced. A request from an audience member to
recite the Pledge of Allegiance was ignored by the
State. So the people took over and assertively
recited it anyway.
The State attempted to have private interviews with
the media which alienated the crowd further, who
then demanded transparency. Then the State wanted
the questions from the audience to be private, which
riled folks even more.
Questions asked by Western New Yorkers covered:
non-compliance, penalties, jury nullification, 2nd
Amendment profiling into domestic terrorists,
government tyranny, police, sheriff, and more.
Other topics, and especially on the people forming
militias was missed due to full camera memory.
Welcome to blue collar Buffalo.
* * *
Clarence, NY (WKBW) -
A question and answer session on New York’s new gun law turned testy, as gun owners unleash a fury of anger on the new legislation.
Frustration boiled over for people who feel as though they are law abiding citizens, being turned into criminals.
For many, it was a chance to vent anger at Albany.
One WNYer even said “You put a brown shirt on Mr. Cuomo and put him on
television, he would look just like Hitler.”
Another chimed in, “Angry people get together, they form militias
folks. This country, this WNY is prime for something like that!”
Western New York gun owners say they SAFE Act and its ban on assault weapons makes no sense.
One of the big concerns — who is footing the bill for making changes to guns that are now considered assault weapons. State officials told the crowd the gun owners are the ones responsible.
People in the crowd also had a lot of questions about the registration laws. One gun owner asked,”What is the penalty if you don’t register it? ‘Cause I guarantee there’s a lot of people that aren’t going to.”
At times, advocates felt answers were incomplete or political.
http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/Firey-Meeting-About-NY-SAFE-Act-18892719
Published on Jan 11, 2013
Please share this video with your family, friends, and co-workers. Most of all, share with people who are anti-gun.
Please explain to them that losing the 2nd Amendment is not just about guns, but that it will open the door to the future restrictions of the Rights of ALL Americans.
Tell them to imagine what it would be like to lose the Right to Free Speech, or the Freedom of Religion. Explain to them that history has proven many many times that once a government starts restricting the Rights of their people, it quickly becomes easier to do so, and impossible to stop once it has started. Show them unbiased research.
Also explain to them that by restricting Law Abiding citizens from owning firearms, their safety will be placed further into jeopardy by even bolder criminal acts. Let them know that even though they themselves may not choose to own or carry a firearm, by the fact that other law abiding people do choose to arm themselves, it does actually make them safer. Criminals who commit their crimes now, do so with the full knowledge that there is a strong possibility they will run into a gun owner. And criminals choose their victims based on this knowledge. They try to choose victims who are unlikely be armed. But once criminals know the public is disarmed, they will be able to commit even more violent crimes with NO FEAR that a victim might have the ability to fight back.
Mirrored Under Fair Use. Please feel free to download and upload this video to your channel. Copy and Paste description text with video if you wish.
I do not own the copyrights to this or the contents of this video. Author has given fair use permission to copy and share, and is so stated in the video.
Description text is original work of Dave Gunslinger. As text author, I give fair use permission. DG All monetary rights have been removed.
Published on Jan 31, 2013
Calling ALL local, county, and state law enforcement organizations: please take note of the statement issued by the Utah Sheriffs’ Association (USA) on Jan 17, 2013 in refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws such as the AWB and its provisions. They are setting the standard for you to follow and we recommend you do so immediately. The proposed banning, registration, fingerprinting, taxing, road blocks, and no doubt coming felony arrests for non-compliance fly directly in the face of the 2nd Amendment. These freedom destructing laws are done on a LIE of so-called increased “public safety.” Wise Sheriff Associations such as UT, FL, GA, CO, NB, and NM have seen through this deception and see the omninous, real reasons: incremental but full civilian disarmament whereby the full Progressive agenda can and will be implemented. Get read to be impressed by these officers and AGENCIES who are standing by their oaths taken, even unto force of arms. We their good citizens will stand beside them (see vid) and give them our humble support. This TNP Call to Action will have you write USA (and YOUR Sheriff Agencies and Associations) in support of their constitutional and RULE OF LAW commitments. Likewise you need to write those agencies not on board with PROTECTING YOU. A good example of this would be SLC Sheriff Jim Winder whose statement in opposition is shocking (read). These agencies are pledging to enforce whatever laws come their way from socialist President Obama and whatever he sees fit to do with you. They seem unconcerned/unwilling/afraid to make a judgment call on these flagrant violations of our natural rights and say it is up to the Obama’s courts to decide. This is a critical and supremely important states rights issue that will gain serious momentum and you need to take a stand; make your voice heard. If the Federal govt presses the issue, you may see these agencies under the Constitutional Rule of Law rise up in arms to defend you against tyranny. They may need you too. You will see this list of agencies grow as the feel and hear from millions of GOOD, reasonable, and rational Americans the ask LE agencies to step up to the plate and do exactly what we elected them to do. In TNP we are unified, dedicated force defending freedom, defending good. Join us.///////////////////////Contact Utah Sheriff’s Association, Jim Robertson, at FAX 435-888-0842, Voice 435-888-2004, Address: 787 E Carbon, UT, 84520//////////////Also please search out the addresses and contact GA, FL, NM, CO Sheriff Associations (more coming too!) and send them the same letter, especially if constituent/////////////////Please support http://www.oathkeepers.org and http://www.cspoa.org. Link to updated Sheriff Associations/Agencies refusing enforcement of AWB: http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights///////////////////Stupid TNP Freedom Merchandise like hats, shell casings, engraved items at: http://www.nutnfancy.bigcartel.com//////////////////////////LINKS TO PDF LETTER FILES (you can cut and paste from them too!): TO SHERIFF WHO LIKES AWB (WINDER): http://www.scribd.com/doc/123254372/Sheriff-Winder-Reconsider-Letter TO SHERIFF WHO OPPOSES AWB: http://www.scribd.com/doc/123254373/TNP-Nutnfancy-Sheriff-Support-Letter/////… Sheriff Reach on 13 March 2013: http://www.facebook.com/events/491098824266882/
Text and Photos by Scott DeLarm
Edited by Prof. James F. Tracy
My partner and I became fed up with the mainstream media’s depiction of what took place in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012.
So on January 20 we traveled there from our home in Ottawa, Canada in an effort to visit the sites and respectfully approach the locals.
Before we even got off the highway there was a display of dozens of American flags on the shoulder. There is a large tented memorial located just off the freeway. The tent had a sign on the outside, “Sandy Hook Memorial Never Forgotten.”
Inside the tent was a chaplain who asked that I not take any photos. There were hundreds of stuffed animals and candles as well as children’s art from around the country–if not the world. Inside was also a donation jar that was at mid-afternoon close to full of money.
We signed one of the boards with condolences from Canada. I saw adults and children inside the tent on the two visits we made. No one was there who was impacted directly. I asked the chaplain if she had seen any children whom had been impacted. She did not answer.
We spent January 21 in Newtown visiting the Sandy Hook School and Sandy Hook Volunteer Fire House, Gene Rosen’s residence, the 100 Church Hill Restaurant (and pub), the Newtown Bee offices, as well as the Newtown Police Department.
We found that the school can not be seen from the front when coming down Riverside Road which is the only access to the school passing the fire house. This may explain why there was no “media” photos of the broken / shot out glass at the front.
Dickenson Road was closed with layers of orange cones and numerous “No Trespassing” signs. The entire school is now enclosed with fencing, barbed wire, no trespass and surveillance signage.
Press TV
The attack on American Muslims’ free speech actually appears to have begun a few days before 9/11, when the FBI raided key Muslim organizations and shut down their computer servers. The FBI’s raids preemptively prevented Muslims from freely expressing and disseminating their view of 9/11: That it was an inside job, presumably orchestrated by Israel and its American agents.”
But starting next September 11th, a new group called AMPAC, the American Muslim Political Action Committee, will challenge AIPAC’s stranglehold on American political life.
AMPAC will be forcefully announcing its presence with a “Million Muslim March” on the White House on September 11, 2013. The goal, announced at AMPAC’s press conference in New York:
“We at AMPAC (American Muslim Political Action Committee) are planning a historic event for 9/11/13. One million Muslims will march to Washington D.C. and demand that our civil rights be protected by our government. We are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our First Amendment rights. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign for the Presidency of a transparent government. Lastly we are asking for the establishment of a real 9/11 Commission to reveal the truth to the American people.”
AMPAC founder M.D. Rabbi Alam, a well-known Missouri Democratic Party organizer, points out that
American Muslims, like other Americans, were targeted on 9/11. More than 60 Muslims were murdered in the explosive demolitions of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11, and a mosque in the South Tower was annihilated. Alam points out that “Muslim and non-Muslim alike were traumatized by 9/11, but we as Muslims continue twelve years later to be victimized by being made the villains.”
American courts have traditionally held that the Bill of Rights guarantees that all religions must be treated equally by the government. Alam cites “the ‘war on terrorism’ in Islamic countries, Congressional hearings on Islam in America, and changes to the NDAA” as infringements of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
With emotions running high in the aftermath of the Newtown Sandy Hook shooting, politicians on the State and Federal level have begun introducing legislative actions to curtail access to firearms protected by the Second Amendment. In Missouri, parents may soon be forced to register firearms with their child’s school under threat of criminal penalties. In Massachusetts, another proposal would require storage of semi-automatic rifles at government approved storage depots. And, in the State of New York, congressional representatives have already passed legislation that requires registration of every semi-automatic rifle and reduces maximum magazine capacity to 7 rounds of ammunition, and Governor Cuomo has floated the idea of gun confiscation.
Now, in what is sure to be a growing trend across the entire country, New York gun owners are organizing a resistance against what many believe to be the most, “brazen infringement on the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the nation,” according to The New American:
Preparations are already being made for mass resistance.
“I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said President Brian Olesen with American Shooters Supply, among the biggest gun dealers in the state, in an interview with the New York Post.
Even government officials admit that forcing New Yorkers to register their guns will be a tough sell, and they are apparently aware that massive non-compliance will be the order of the day. “Many of these assault-rifle owners aren’t going to register; we realize that,’’ a source in the Cuomo administration told the Post, adding that officials expect “widespread violations” of the new statute.
Threats of imprisoning gun owners for up to a year and confiscating their weapons are already being issued by governor’s office, headed by a rabid anti-Second Amendment extremist who suggested before the bill passed that “confiscation” of all semi-automatic rifles was being considered. If tens or even hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens refuse to comply, however, analysts say New York would either have to start raising taxes and building a lot more prisons, or give up on the scheme that experts say will do nothing to reduce violence and that lawmakers say is aimed at eventual confiscation.
Activists involved in the state-wide boycott against the unconstitutional statute who spoke to the Post almost taunted authorities, saying gun owners would essentially dare authorities to “come and take it away.”
According to the paper, leaders of some of the state’s hundreds of gun clubs, dealers, and non-profit organizations, citing the New York Constitution’s guarantee that gun rights “cannot be infringed,” are currently involved in organizing the resistance. Among the primary concerns is that, with registration, authorities would know where to go for confiscation, an idea already proposed openly by Governor Cuomo himself.
“They’re saying, ‘F— the governor! F— Cuomo! We’re not going to register our guns,’ and I think they’re serious. People are not going to do it. People are going to resist,” explained State Rifle and Pistol Association President Tom King, who also serves on the National Rifle Association board of directors. “They’re taking one of our guaranteed civil rights, and they’re taking it away.”
Opponents of the right to bear arms, take heed. The American people know what you’re up to and they will not stand for it.
