Secret Government Panel Could Target Americans for Assassination

Last night a guy at work and I were having a conversation on the assassination of JFK.  And his response, like all the other inane responses I’ve heard was, “Well, if someone wanted us to know something, they would’ve told us.” 

“Corruption keeps to itself!” I replied.  Meaning, if someone is doing something corrupt, they’re not going to run down the street, waving a “red flag” for all the world to see.  They will keep it secret.  Just like the following.
Wednseday, January18, 2012

Last October, Reuters published news about a secret U.S. government panel which “nominated” militants for murder or capture, including U.S. citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki.  The story peered into the opaque process by which a government bureaucracy decides to take a human life.  And it was disturbing:

…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 names suggested are then brought before the president, who may veto them.

What’s astonishing about all this is that the names of those on the panel are unknown, how they decide someone should die is unknown, and what evidence is used to determine on a death sentence is unknown.  Everything about this process is deliberately opaque.  And there is no written record of the panel’s deliberations in order to further insulate participants, especially the president himself.  This fact alone reminds me of some of the more nefarious plots in recent history including Pol Pot’s genocide, Hitler’s Final Solution and Ben Gurion’s plans for the Nakba.  All wisely left little or no written evidence of their plans that could be used later by authorities or history to judge them.  Not that targeted killings rise to the level of genocide in terms of crimes against humanity, but they are grievious breaches of international law nonetheless.

The hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton swearing on a stack of Bibles that the U.S. had nothing to do with the last Iranian scientist assassination is laughable considering that our own behavior isn’t that dissimilar.  In a conversation with a journalist a few days ago who’d had discussions with CIA officers who justified the U.S. killing of al-Awlaki, the agent asked the reporter whether it would be justified to kill someone during World War II who fought right at Hitler’s side.

He was attempting to liken the Yemeni-American cleric to such a figure, when the evidence offered so far doesn’t justify it.  Is the CIA saying that Osama bin Laden was Hitler and al-Awlaki was his commander-in-chief?  Since when, on both counts?  I have no doubt that both were enemies of the U.S. who deserved to be tried and punished for their crimes.  But as Mehdi Hassan argues so persuasively in this commentary on the subject, “targeted killing is just the death penalty without due process.”

Barack Obama doesn’t get to be judge, jury and executioner under the U.S. Constitution.  In fact, he’s violating the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits taking a citizen’s life without due process.  A secret National Council panel is NOT due process.  It’s just death by bureaucratic fiat.  It is no different from Israel’s targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants and Iranian scientists.



What did I do wrong?

According to Bullock, Hitler was an opportunis...
Image via Wikipedia

As you watch the following video, ask yourself, “what did this six-year-old do besides wanting to get on a plane?”  Watch as she begins to cry because some stranger is putting their hands on her.  Adolf Hitler knew the proper way to warp a society – you go after the children.  The only thing that rules such as this create is an absolute paranoia.

An idea that a child would merit a body search is completely asinine.  But then again, we have a complete asinine governmental system. 

Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

Are American’s that fed-up to resort to a second armed war?

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, October 20, 2010

With protesters in France entering a seventh day of strikes and demonstrations against draconian austerity measures, many political observers in the U.S. are now wondering how long it will be before similar scenes unfold on American streets, with even Time Magazine now conceding that the prospect of a civil war in the States “doesn’t seem that far fetched”.

To be clear, Stephen Gandel’s article entitled Will the Federal Reserve Cause a Civil War? largely dismisses the possibility that the Fed’s upcoming November 3rd meeting, during which Ben Bernanke is expected to announce a fresh round of money printing, will prompt national uproar, but it doesn’t exactly debunk the notion of longer term social dislocation as a backlash to the crumbling economy, as many are now forecasting.

As we highlighted yesterday in a piece that was later picked up by the Drudge Report, it’s only a matter of time before Americans are hit with almost identical austerity measures to those that have caused the French to set up fuel blockades, stage running battles with riot police, halt air and rail travel, and virtually shut down some areas of the country.

The question remains – how will Americans react if the Obama administration pushes ahead with its plan to seize all private 401(k) pensions, which will be swallowed up by the Social Security Administration under the banner of mandatory Guaranteed Retirement Accounts? How will Americans react to the upcoming announcement that the Federal Reserve will further eviscerate the value of the dollar by purchasing junk assets from big banks at exorbitant prices with money printed out of thin air?

Time Magazine, which as a guardian of the establishment would normally be expected to disparage the potential of mass civil disobedience, actually lends the notion some spotlight by linking to a Zero Hedge story which paraphrased economic forecaster David Rosenberg, who warns that the Fed’s plan for more quantitative easing, “positions US society one step closer to civil war if not worse.”

The article also features a quote from a Washington’s Blog piece which warns that the Fed’s policies could lead to the very destruction of the republic.

“In a very real sense, Bernanke is throwing Granny and Grandpa down the stairs – on purpose. He is literally threatening those at the lower end of the economic strata, along with all who are retired, with starvation and death, and in a just nation where the rule of law controlled instead of being abused by the kleptocrats he would be facing charges of Seditious Conspiracy, as his policies will inevitably lead to the destruction of our republic.”

Lending the notion credence, Gandel writes, “With the Tea Party gaining followers, the idea of civil war over economic issues doesn’t seem that far-fetched these days.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Even Time Magazine is now conceding that the current economic course of the nation could lead to outright civil war and revolution.

Gandel finishes the article by leaving the prospect of widespread civil unrest as an open question.

“So it seems clear what the Fed is likely to do,” he writes. “How the economy, the militias and the rest of us react is up in the air. The count down is on. T minus 15 days to Fedamageddon. See you there, hopefully.”

Of course, people like Gerald Celente and a host of other economic forecasters have been predicting civil unrest, food riots and tax rebellions for the past two years, but to have Time Magazine seriously entertain the notion of civil war in the United States is a shocking reminder of just how close to the precipice we now stand.

How Americans will react to what many see as a make or break moment for the US economy, the Fed’s announcement on November 3rd, largely depends on how well they understand the fact that their financial future and that of their children now hangs in the balance like never before.

As the Economic Collapse Blog points out, QE2 represents the biggest bank robbery in history, and is nothing less than another huge transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to big banks. The money Bernanke prints out of thin air, which will further devalue the greenback and every dollar earned or saved by American citizens, will be used to purchase large quantities of “troubled assets” from U.S. banks at well above market price. Small banks will be allowed to wither and die, whereas the huge megaliths will collect mountains of free money at the expense of hard working Americans.

The long term impact of the Fed buying these toxic junk assets with money printed out of thin air will be an inflationary holocaust that does nothing to rescue the US economy but everything to depreciate the very real assets of the American taxpayer.

We are already on the road to serious inflation and the Federal Reserve has not even fired up the money hoses yet. So what is going to happen after they pump trillions more into the economy?

Printing more money and giving it to the banks is not going to solve our economic problems. It is just going to make them worse.

But unfortunately, American voters get no say about any of this. Our national monetary policy is in the hands of an unelected central bank that does pretty much whatever it wants.

If as many Americans were aware of what the Federal Reserve is about to do with their financial future as are knowledgeable about the intricacies of Dancing with the Stars, then the “civil war” that even Time Magazine is now presenting as a justifiable response to the crisis would be a very plausible prospect.

As it stands, according to the majority of voters in our poll on Prison, Americans will react to the situation not by organizing fuel blockades, marching in the streets and shutting down the country, but by scratching their butts and flipping the TV channel.

Bill O’Reilly and Fox News have no problem with Obama assassination program

Bill o'reilly

The fight for liberty and the Constitution is ongoing.  First, under George W. Bush it was torture.  Which Sean Hannity says waterboarding is not torture.  Now we have the “change” or “reform” administration exercising the right to “assassinate Amer’cans”.  And it is all in the name of “national security” and fighting “terrorism”.

Watch the clip below.  The journalists opinionated “pinheads” at Fox News have nothing against this.  And as you watch the video, you will see that they try to make it look like the CIA has some sort of credibility.  Yeah, right!

The words Constitution, Bill of Rights, Due Process of Law, go in one ear, swims around in the bullshit, and slides out the other ear with these people.  And the ACLU apparently doesn’t care about the safety of the United Sates.

Article of interest: The loss of American Citizenship and Assassinations.

Rick Sanchez says that “states rights” are “racist term”

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of th...
Image via Wikipedia

In the following video clip Rick Sanchez is talking to Wayne Slater about Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and that he will win the Governor’s race.  Sanchez had to throw in the “call to secession” quote by Perry.  Which I believe was nothing more than a political stunt.

Anyway Sanchez calls “states rights” racist to minorities.  Evidently Sanchez does not understand the meaning to “secession”.  It was meant as a roadblock of too much federal power.  Granted Texas, if they should ever decide to secede, would lose about $500 billion over night.  But principles, I guess.

If states rights are “racist”, then what can be said of the federal government’s slow action to ensure the rights of colored people during the 1960s?  Or the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during WWII?  Sixty-two percent of those imprisoned during that time were American citizens, by the way.  What can be said of the federal government’s genocide of Native Americans?

In the 1850s the federal government enacted the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793.  This was done on part of the federal government, and was not anti-slavery.  Abolitionists would call this a “Bloodhound Law”.  Anyone can read the history of Abraham Lincoln and find that he was not as anti-slavery as what people thought.

Secession is the right of the states and, in that, preserves the right of the people. Any such quotes to the contrary are just ill-informed.

Jerry Springer doesn’t back down from Sean Hannity

It’s always great to see a guest on Fixed News that doesn’t back down to the likes of Sean Hannity.  The debate was over Obama’s track record, healthcare, and spending. 

Somewhere in the interview Hannity says, “if you blame Bush I’m gonna come through this camera and strangle you.”  “Metaphorically.”  We won’t even go into the long and sordid history of Hannity’s rantings against Bill Clinton, but let’s just say Hannity is not “fair and balanced”.

Though I disagree with Obamacare, I must say the Springer held his own, and that is commendable.

Later in the interview Hannity went on another rant accusing Springer of “blaming Bush.”  Jerry fired back saying, “I never mentioned his name.”  And Bush inherited a recession, but did he?

As one economist points out, the economy did not begin to show signs of slowing down until September 2000.  Furthermore, the recession that “Bush inherited” didn’t come into full swing until March of 2001.  Conclusion: Bush did not inherit a recession, it happened on his watch.

Hannity named off a whole slew of things that are wrong with this country: housing bubble, debt, foreclosures, etc., and that Obama has had two years to fix it.  But praise Jerry Springer when he rubbed Hannity own propaganda crap in his face when he said that “not all things can be fixed in two years.”  Even Ron Paul has said that the economy cannot be corrected in that amount of time.  It’s impossible.

All history is relevant and is subsequent to historical ridecule.  One can only guess why Sean Hannity – even when the issue is not brought up – has to bring the name George Bush into the foray, but lets leave that to speculation.

Sean Hannity with his smug look of arrogance makes me want to come through this computer screen and bitch slap him.  Metaphorically.

This day in United States History…

On this day in 1869, the presidents of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads meet in Promontory, Utah, and drive a ceremonial last spike into a rail line that connects their railroads. This made transcontinental railroad travel possible for the first time in U.S. history. No longer would western-bound travelers need to take the long and dangerous journey by wagon train, and the West would surely lose some of its wild charm with the new connection to the civilized East.

Since at least 1832, both Eastern and frontier statesmen realized a need to connect the two coasts. It was not until 1853, though, that Congress appropriated funds to survey several routes for the transcontinental railroad. The actual building of the railroad would have to wait even longer, as North-South tensions prevented Congress from reaching an agreement on where the line would begin.

One year into the Civil War, a Republican-controlled Congress passed the Pacific Railroad Act (1862), guaranteeing public land grants and loans to the two railroads it chose to build the transcontinental line, the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific. With these in hand, the railroads began work in 1866 from Omaha and Sacramento, forging a northern route across the country. In their eagerness for land, the two lines built right past each other, and the final meeting place had to be renegotiated.

Harsh winters, staggering summer heat, Indian raids and the lawless, rough-and-tumble conditions of newly settled western towns made conditions for the Union Pacific laborers–mainly Civil War veterans of Irish descent–miserable. The overwhelmingly immigrant Chinese work force of the Central Pacific also had its fair share of problems, including brutal 12-hour work days laying tracks over the Sierra Nevada Mountains. On more than one occasion, whole crews would be lost to avalanches, or mishaps with explosives would leave several dead.

For all the adversity they suffered, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific workers were able to finish the railroad–laying nearly 2,000 miles of track–by 1869, ahead of schedule and under budget. Journeys that had taken months by wagon train or weeks by boat now took only days. Their work had an immediate impact: The years following the construction of the railway were years of rapid growth and expansion for the United States, due in large part to the speed and ease of travel that the railroad provided.

Courtesy of