Conspiracy News Now

Friday, May 24, 2013

Officials: Boston Suspect Had No Firearm When Barrage Of Bullets Hit Hiding Place

By Sari Horwitz and Peter Finn

Although police feared he was heavily armed, the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing had no firearms when he came under a barrage of police gunfire that struck the boat where he was hiding, according to multiple federal law enforcement officials.

Authorities said they were desperate to capture Dzhokhar Tsarnaev so he could be questioned. The FBI, however, declined to discuss what prompted the gunfire.

Other law enforcement officials said the shooting may have been prompted by the chaos of the moment and some action that led the officers to believe Tsarnaev had fired a weapon or was about to detonate explosives.

These new details emerged as investigators continued their examination of the movements and motives of Tsarnaev, 19, and his brother, Tamerlan, in last week?s coordinated bombing, which killed three people and wounded more than 250.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Cover-Up/Deceptions
- Boston Bombings: State Trooper Fired Over 10 Shots At Unmarked Police Car, Transit Officer Likely Victim Of Friendly Fire
- 7-Eleven robbery not related to Boston bombing suspects
- Boston Marathon Witness Interview: Police Told Us Bomb Drill Was 'Training Exercise'
- Why the DA Murder Publicity Stopped
- Eyewitness: Authorities "Must Have Known" About Bombing
- ATF Sting Operation Used Brain-Damaged Man, Then Charged Him
- Esquire's Bin Laden Killing Story "Complete BS," Says SEAL Team 6 Member
- Cops Pay Convicted Sex Offender $100,000 Dollars To Set-Up Terror Patsy

chris, what about him shooting himself in the neck? I think that was another false report, it seems the police are the ones who shot him in the neck, not himself.

Here's from the article:

"In the immediate aftermath of Tsarnaev?s capture, police officials said he had fired from the boat and he was reported to have been captured with several weapons. There were also reports that the gunshot wound he suffered to the throat might have been an attempt to kill himself as police moved in."

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Ron Paul: Shutdown After Boston Bombings More Frightening Than Attack Itself

Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston
by Ron Paul

Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.

What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state -- and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us -- the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.

The "shelter in place" command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:

"Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property."

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

Latest Commentary
- Is Pot too Potent to Legalize?
- What's Bad About a House-to-House Search?
- 'Boston Strong': Marching in Lockstep with the Police State
- The Day the Music Died for Good
- Government Should Stop Its Own Violence First
- Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
- The Rodney Dangerfields of the Ideological Universe
- The Company That Owns Your Genes

View the original article here

'Boston Strong': Marching in Lockstep with the Police State

By John W. Whitehead

?Of all the tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.??C.S. Lewis

Caught up in the televised drama of a military-style manhunt for the suspects in the Boston Marathon explosion, most Americans fail to realize that the world around them has been suddenly and jarringly shifted off its axis, that axis being the U.S. Constitution.

For those like myself who have studied emerging police states, the sight of a city placed under martial law?its citizens under house arrest (officials used the Orwellian phrase ?shelter in place? to describe the mandatory lockdown), military-style helicopters equipped with thermal imaging devices buzzing the skies, tanks and armored vehicles on the streets, and snipers perched on rooftops, while thousands of black-garbed police swarmed the streets and SWAT teams carried out house-to-house searches in search of two young and seemingly unlikely bombing suspects?leaves us in a growing state of unease.

Mind you, these are no longer warning signs of a steadily encroaching police state. The police state has arrived.

Equally unnerving is the ease with which Americans welcomed the city-wide lockdown, the routine invasion of their privacy, and the dismantling of every constitutional right intended to serve as a bulwark against government abuses. Watching it unfold, I couldn?t help but think of Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering?s remarks during the Nuremberg trials. As Goering noted:

It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

As the events in Boston have made clear, it does indeed work the same in every country. The same propaganda and police state tactics that worked for Adolf Hitler 80 years ago continue to be employed with great success in a post-9/11 America.

Whatever the threat to so-called security?whether it?s rumored weapons of mass destruction, school shootings, or alleged acts of terrorism?it doesn?t take much for the American people to march in lockstep with the government?s dictates, even if it means submitting to martial law, having their homes searched, and being stripped of one?s constitutional rights at a moment?s notice.

As journalist Andrew O?Hehir observes in Salon:

In America after 9/11, we made a deal with the devil, or with Dick Cheney, which is much the same thing. We agreed to give up most of our enumerated rights and civil liberties (except for the sacrosanct Second Amendment, of course) in exchange for a lot of hyper-patriotic tough talk, the promise of ?security? and the freedom to go on sitting on our asses and consuming whatever the hell we wanted to. Don?t look the other way and tell me that you signed a petition or voted for John Kerry or whatever. The fact is that whatever dignified private opinions you and I may hold, we did not do enough to stop it, and our constitutional rights are now deemed to be partial or provisional rather than absolute, do not necessarily apply to everyone, and can be revoked by the government at any time.

Particularly disheartening is the fact that Americans, consumed with the need for vengeance, seem even less concerned about protecting the rights of others, especially if those ?others? happen to be of a different skin color or nationality. The public response to the manhunt, capture and subsequent treatment of brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is merely the latest example of America?s xenophobic mindset, which was also a driving force behind the roundup and detention of hundreds of Arab, South Asian and Muslim men following 9/11, internment camps that housed more than 18,000 people of Japanese ancestry during World War II, and the arrest and deportation of thousands of ?radical? noncitizens during America?s first Red Scare.

Moreover, there has been little outcry over the Obama administration?s decision to deny 19-year-old U.S. citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his due process rights and treat him as an enemy combatant, first off by interrogating him without reading him his Miranda rights (?You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law...?).

Presently, under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule, if law enforcement agents believe a suspect has information that might reduce a substantial threat, they can wait to give the Miranda warning. For years now, however, the Obama administration has been lobbying to see this exception extended to all cases involving so-called terror suspects, including American citizens. Tsarnaev?s case may prove to be the game-changer. Yet as journalist Emily Bazelon points out for Slate: ?Why should I care that no one?s reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights? When the law gets bent out of shape for him, it?s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.?

The U.S. Supreme Court rightly recognized in its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona that police officers must advise a suspect of his/her civil rights once the suspect has been taken into custody, because the police can and often do take advantage of the fact that most Americans don?t know their rights. There have been few exceptions to the Miranda rule over the last 40 years or so, and with good reason. However, if the Obama administration is allowed to scale back the Miranda rule, especially as it applies to U.S. citizens, it would be yet another dangerous expansion of government power at the expense of citizens? civil rights.

This continual undermining of the rules that protect civil liberties, not to mention the incessant rush to judgment by politicians, members of the media and the public, will inevitably have far-reaching consequences on a populace that not only remains ignorant about their rights but is inclined to sacrifice their liberties for phantom promises of safety.

Moments after taking Tsarnaev into custody, the Boston Police Dept. tweeted ?CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won.? Yet with Tsarnaev and his brother having been charged, tried and convicted by the government, the media and the police?all without ever having stepped foot inside a courtroom?it remains to be seen whether justice has indeed won.

The lesson for the rest of us is this: once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny. And it doesn?t really matter whether it?s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government. Increasingly, those on the left who once hailed Barack Obama as the antidote for restoring the numerous civil liberties that were lost or undermined as a result of Bush-era policies are finding themselves forced to acknowledge that threats to civil liberties are worse under Obama.

Clearly, the outlook for civil liberties under Obama grows bleaker by the day, from his embrace of indefinite detention for U.S. citizens and drone kill lists to warrantless surveillance of phone, email and internet communications, and prosecutions of government whistleblowers. Most recently, capitalizing on the nation?s heightened emotions, confusion and fear, government officials used the Boston Marathon tragedy as a means of extending the reach of the police state, starting with the House of Representatives? overwhelming passage of the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which opens the door to greater internet surveillance by the government.

These troubling developments are the outward manifestations of an inner, philosophical shift underway in how the government views not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but ?we the people,? as well. What this reflects is a move away from a government bound by the rule of law to one that seeks total control through the imposition of its own self-serving laws on the populace.

All the while, the American people remain largely oblivious to the looming threats to their freedoms, eager to be persuaded that the government can solve the problems that plague us?whether it be terrorism, an economic depression, an environmental disaster or even a flu epidemic. Yet having bought into the false notion that the government can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave?that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes, we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.
_
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).

Latest Commentary
- Ron Paul: Shutdown After Boston Bombings More Frightening Than Attack Itself
- Is Pot too Potent to Legalize?
- What's Bad About a House-to-House Search?
- The Day the Music Died for Good
- Government Should Stop Its Own Violence First
- Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
- The Rodney Dangerfields of the Ideological Universe
- The Company That Owns Your Genes

Problem? Most didn't even know that anything was wrong with what and how they did these actions. The deliberate dumbing down of Amerika. If you write and impress in your articles the points with the actual facts as to why this is unlawful and must be resisted than they just might catch on and resist and a massive outcry might just be heard that insures these things don't happen again because they have a viable remedy because they know the actual disease and not just the symptoms.This that follows is from another post and letter and I do not have the time or patience to edit and tailor it for this piece as I know that the information it contains should be self explanatory in this context:
The individuals in question have 2 roles.Peace officer and policy enforcement officer.The policy enforcement officer is an agent and principle for the corporation (a soulless legal fiction)whose "legal"( not lawful) statutes only apply to the artificial corporate person (another soulless legal fiction) who is not you .Legal Fiction = JOHN DOE. You = John Doe.>look at all your "legal documents including SScard,DRivers Lic,Birth cert...
The principle and agent cannot claim personal injury as an agent nor for the state. The only time he can engage you is when there is a breach of the peace that he personally views and there must be a real living human soul claiming personal injury. The STATE corporation does not qualify as a living human soul, hence the reason the mafia murders witnesses. No witness ,no crime no charge no personal injury for that incident. They can later get them for murder if they can prove it.All forms of government are actually corporations that are for profit that must seek out revenue under misrepresentation and fraudulent color of law. They provide you services.under implied contract.This is why they ask you for the ID that has JOHN DOE on it, it's a contract for services " I do not consent to contract and I waive all the benefits."
There is remedy under their own system...
Under 18 USC 241, CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. ?If two or more persons conspire to injure, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or if two or more persons go in disguise on the highway or the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured ? they shall be fined not more that $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both: and if death results they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life?.
The Legitimate Political Power of a corporate entity is absolutely dependent upon its possession of Commercial Bonds against Public Hazard, because no Bond means no responsibility, means no power of Official signature, means no real corporate political power, means no privilege to operate statutes as the corporate vehicle.These corporate entities and their principles and agents must exercise and act in equity.An official (officer of the court, policeman, etc.) must demonstrate that he/she is individually bonded in order to use a summary process.

An official who impairs, debauches, voids or abridges an obligation of contract or the effect of a commercial lien without proper cause, becomes a lien debtor and his property becomes forfeited as the pledge to secure the lien. Pound breach (breach of impoundment) and rescue is a felony.PUBLIC HAZARD BONDING OF CORPORATE AGENTS All officials are required by federal, state, and municipal law to provide the name, address and telephone number of their public hazard and malpractice bonding company and the policy number of the bond and, if required, a copy of the policy describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance. Failure to provide this information constitutes corporate and limited liability insurance fraud (15 USC) and is prim-a-facie evidence and grounds to impose a lien upon the official personally to secure their public oath and service of office.If a person in office, such as a Judge or police officer, fails in their duty,acts in inequity or commits fraud, an affected Sovereign Freeman can claim and thus lawfully acquire any bonds or security funds that hold/held that person in office.

Find out the truth here in the top 2 posts http://governmentprops.blogspot.com/

The implied contracts are null and void due to the factors of misrepresentation, fraud, coercion,duress,ignorance...etc. Anything that you signed is considered a contract and this is why they insist in getting your signature. What catches their attention immediately is losing their money and supposed power and being revealed for the frauds they are.Can you imagine if the word got out amongst the masses about what is actually going on?Getting a lawyer will not save you now or in the future for that lawyer is also aware of the fraud and is incorporated for profit and damn well knows he is also committing fraud..Look at the video Freeman Vs Cop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtkdDMSXMmc and see this knowledge in action against an ignorant cop...but not as arrogant as the one you dealt with.These people are a danger in ignorance and it is unexcusable, for this time they merely arrested you but because of the camera did not abuse or kill you. That camera is a defense righted under the 2nd also. If you do not .remedy this properly these sociopaths(ones that took an oath under God) will progress and next time you and your son will not be so lucky unless you combat ,disarm and hold them responsible and accountable with the right knowledge in the right context.In this incidence below I did not know what I know now that I described up above hence the reason the sociopaths and psychopaths kept coming after me.
" I went and bought a weapon and got some extra clips.Hollow points 380. So much power in such a compact size. I went to see the DA in the Cleveland County Court House.Mr. Sitzman.
Mr. Sitzman was not happy to see me.What can I do for you Mr.Leon?
" Mr.Sitzman, I would like to tell you that I am here to inform you that I am in fear of my life and my families lives and that I am armed according to the benefits of the constitution and as such ,if any law enforcement agent or officer or associates with your office attempts to stop me again I will shoot first and ask questions later, as your people would and if you had any questions you were to call this number on this card." I handed him the card and his face got really red."
http://violencerevengeforgive.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-i-came-to-be-stabbed-17-times.html

They all feel something is wrong but they just can't place their fingers on it.They don't know that most everything they know is a distortion, fraud, that nothing is as it seems

View the original article here

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

What's Bad About a House-to-House Search?

by Michael S. Rozeff

Unless the search passes certain legal criteria, it is illegal.

The search in Boston set a precedent, which means that such searches can be generalized to other places in America and to other situations, unless whoever authorized the Boston search is reprimanded and sanctioned for having ordered it. That seems to be Governor Deval Patrick, at a minimum.

Unless this search is clearly labeled and understood as being illegal and wrong, it creates a precedent. This changes the law de facto, even if not de jure. A de facto change will become a de jure change if only by interpretation

But what's bad about such a precedent? What's bad about the police having the power to make house-to-house searches routinely?

Consider what sorts of searches were common in totalitarian countries. This provides an inkling of the results of such police power.

First of all, America is in some respects following a path that Nazi Germany followed. I quote from one account:

"Police manpower was even extended by the incorporation of Nazi paramilitary organizations as auxiliary policemen. The Nazis centralized and fully funded the police to better combat criminal gangs and promote state security. The Nazi state increased staff and training, and modernized police equipment."

This has been happening in America for some time now. These are initial steps in creating a police state. The centralization is done through building authoritative organizations that control local deviations in behavior and through funding. The funding brings in militarization and central coordination, training, and routines.

From the same source, we next read

"The Nazis offered the police the broadest latitude in arrests, incarceration, and the treatment of prisoners. The police moved to take 'preventive action' that is, to make arrests without the evidence required for a conviction in court and indeed without court supervision at all."

We are seeing in America a broad latitude given to police in making charges against civilians, in mistreating them and getting off the hook, in killing civilians in some cases rather than arresting them, in bringing false evidence into courts, in lying under oath and having their words accepted, and in seizing property. We also see prosecutors suppressing evidence and bringing false charges. Add to these misbehaviors and others the fact that almost anyone can be guilty of one or more felonies. When all is said and done, police are subjecting a significant fraction of America's population to a police state.

Highway and transportation searches are already common. Here's a photo dated Feb. 27, 1933 of German police searching a car for arms:

America is not going to follow what Nazi Germany did in any kind of lockstep fashion. There is too much variation in situations and events and laws for any two societies to mimic one another precisely. The American police state already has some unique features such as the LOCKDOWN. The spectacle of Americans being routed from their homes with raised arms and herded down the street is not too far, however, from German soldiers arresting Jews in Warsaw in 1943:

In a house-to-house search, police can find evidence of many wrongdoings. This depends on other laws that are passed and what items may be searched. Police could find a copyright violation on most everyone's computer, for example. They could find drugs. They could find out-of-date prescription drugs. They could find weapons. They could find cash and seize it. It is the search power combined with other laws that become a powerful tool of repression.

"The Nazis took control and transformed the traditional police forces of the Weimar Republic into an instrument of state repression and, eventually, of genocide."

Even without other law, the mere interaction of common people with police in house-to-house searches can result in arguments, altercations, arrests, injuries and deaths. The police expect obedience and deference. In Watertown, they demanded that people leave their homes and raise their arms over their heads. There are many situations where people don't want to leave, or cannot due to illness, or who do not understand what's going on, or refuse to kowtow, or who naturally resist intimidation. Arrests and charges lead to criminal records and subsequently affect everything from employment to getting a loan to traveling to having a firearm.

In an article on one of the Russian police agencies while under Communist rule, we read

"Leonid Brezhnev reverted the State and KGB to actively harsh suppression ? routine house searches to seize documents and the continual monitoring of dissidents."

Once searches become routine, i.e., without warrants or under very loose conditions, then police can intrude for any number of activities that the authorities have deemed illegal or a threat to the authority of the State itself. In Russia, this included political speech against the State. In America, all sorts of records of money transactions might be monitored or seized in order to detect "suspicious" political contributions or other activities, for example.

House-to-house searches, of course, make hash out of privacy.

So, in short, what is bad about these house-to-house searches that we have just witnessed?

They set a bad precedent in which Americans allow measures that significantly raise the likelihood of further repressive measures in the future. Why does the threat of further repression go up? It's because these searches are illegal. Undermining rights and respect for rights helps set the stage for further measures that repress liberty. It's because these searches follow closely upon the heels of other measures that have already laid the foundation of an American police state.

This is the direction in which America is headed.

The reason for this direction is terrorism directed at America. The reason for the terrorism is the conclusion among the men engaging in it that Islam is under attack and/or that the lands in which Islam is prominent are under attack.

Washington will continue to go into places like Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq, and therefore retaliation can be expected. The empire will continue to use drones that kill innocents. It will continue to pressure Iran. It will continue undermining Syria. It will continue to try to change the politics of these lands. It will continue with its benighted Israel policy. It will continue to support the military-industrial complex, which is one major source of all of this unnecessary expansion.

Consequently, at home, it will continue to turn America into a target for jihadist attacks, and it will continue police measures that can easily turn the whole country into a police state.
_
Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.

View the original article here

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

When Homeland Security Theater Goes Off-Script

by William Norman Grigg

While police in Watertown, Massachusetts closed in on the boat in which 19-year-old terrorist suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had concealed himself, FBI investigators in Chicago were snapping handcuffs on 18-year-old Abdella Ahmed Tounisi as he attempted to board an airplane bound for Istanbul. He intended to travel to Syria to fight on behalf an Islamic rebel group that seeks to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

There is reason to believe that the FBI had advance knowledge of the Boston Marathon bombing plot. On the other hand, we know that Tounisi was a pure product of the FBI's terrorist factory: He was the latest in a long procession of socially alienated teenage Muslim males who have been lured into an FBI-orchestrated plot by the Bureau's roving troupe of ?terrorism facilitators.?

What makes the terrorism charges against Tounisi more remarkable is the fact that he is accused of seeking to enlist in the service of a terrorist group that is presently receiving material aid from Washington.

Tounisi had been targeted by the FBI last fall after a friend named Abdel Daoud was snared in one of the Bureau's prefabricated terror plots.

The indictment against Daoud claims that he had ?attempted, without lawful authority, to use a weapon of mass destruction? ? in this case, a car bomb ? in a terrorist attack against a Chicago-area nightclub. In familiar fashion, the Bureau's informant/provocateurs sketched out the plot and provided the targeted patsy with all of the material necessities ? including the dummy bomb.

Daoud playedhis scripted role to perfection ? that is, he expressed entirely justifiable outrage over the U.S. Government's relentless campaign to kill Muslims overseas, while allowing himself to be seduced by agents of that same malevolent government into committing a proseuctable act.

The affidavit filed by the FBI claimed that in a conversation with an informant Doud said he wanted the bombing to ?send the message that the United States should `stop abusing people overseas.'? Like millions of Americans who see Muslims as an undifferentiated mass of hostility, Daoud reportedly saw Americans as anti-Muslim automatons, rather than as ?regular people.?

?They're like ? more like robots, even the decent, nice people, most people in this country,? Daoud reportedly told the FBI provocateur. From Daoud's perspective, this applied even to those who ?hate the president? (who, let it not be forgotten, is killing Muslim civilians through drone strikes practically every day) and who opposed ?the two wars.? This is because most Americans are still ?for the war on terrorism,? insisted Daoud.

As the FBI carefully reeled in Daoud, it made a play for Tounisi as well, but he was savvy enough to suspect that the operation was a law enforcement sting. Rather than using what influence it had to encourage this wayward young man onto the path of probity, the Bureau redoubled its effort to entice him into a prosecutable act: It set up a website intended to recruit fighters for the Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusrah (JAN), which used to be called al Qaeda in Iraq. After finding the website, Tounisi made contact with a purported recruiter for the group, who was yet another of the FBI?s seemingly inexhaustible supply of terrorism facilitators. It was the FBI?s asset who made arrangements for Tounisi to travel to Syria, by way of Turkey, to join the U.S.-supported terrorist group.

The FBI, whose chief occupation since 2002 has been the manufacture of ersatz terrorism plots, induced Tounisi into an act described as providing ?material aid? to a foreign terrorist group. If he is convicted, he will be found guilty of carrying out the Obama administration's official policy without official permission. He is not the only American presently facing the prospect of imprisonment on this charge. The administration has filed felony charges against a US Army Veteran from Arizona named Eric Harroun, who traveled to Syria to join the fight against Assad.

Harroun, who used his Facebook page to describe his role in the conflict, is charged with using a weapon of mass destruction ? namely, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher ? while fighting on behalf of JAN.

JAN is the dominant element of the rebel ?coalition? being supported by the US and NATO in its insurgency against the admittedly loathsome regime of Bashar al-Assad. JAN has demonstrated its worthiness as a recipient of taxpayer-extracted material support by carrying out undisguised acts of terrorism against civilians. Of particular interest in light of the Boston bombing is the growing role played by Chechen jihadists in the U.S.-backed JAN. Chechen Jidhadists were accused of carrying out the recent abduction of two Syrian Orthodox Bishops earlier this week.

As with Tousnisi, Harroun is accused of giving ?material support? to a foreign terrorist group; as in the case of Daoud, he is charged with using a ?weapon of mass destruction? ? a rocket-propelled grenade launcher ? ?without legal authority.?

The relevant section of Title 18 of the US Code specifies that the term "weapon of mass destruction" applies to the following "destructive devices": "[A]ny incendiary, explosive, or poison gas -- bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or ... any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter...."

John Mueller, who holds the Woody Hayes Chair on National Security Studies at Ohio State University, points out that under federal statutes dealing with WMDs "not only is a hand grenade a weapon of mass destruction ... so is a maliciously designed child's rocket even if it doesn't have a warhead. On the other hand, although a missile-propelled firecracker would be considered a weapon of mass destruction if its designers had wanted to think of it as a weapon, it would not be so considered if it had previously been designed for use as a weapon and then redesigned for pyrotechnic use or if it was surplus and had been sold, loaned, or given to you (under certain circumstances) by the Secretary of the Army."

The WMD designation would likewise apply to "all artillery, and virtually every muzzle-loading military long arm for that matter," continues Schneider.

For the Regime and its acolytes, ?terrorism? is committed when private individuals, singly or in groups, emulate the criminal violence of the State without receiving official permission. That principle was explained ? with admirable candor ? by Bill Clinton during an interview published in the December 2009 issue of Foreign Policy magazine. Clinton defined terrorism as "killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders." (Emphasis added.)

By reverse-engineering this definition we learn that "killing and robbery and coercion" carried out with "state authority" isn't terrorism; it's public policy. We can also infer that the "war on terror" is not meant to bring an end to such violence, but rather intended to eliminate challenges to the State?s monopoly on criminal violence.

Accordingly, an act of politically motivated armed violence carried out by ?non-state actors? can be described as an act of WMD-involved terrorism if it is carried out without what the Regime calls ?legal authority.? On the other hand, exactly the same acts can be consecrated as ?official policy? when they are committed by ?non-state actors? who operated on behalf of the Regime.

Three days before the Boston Marathon Bombing, the foreign policy establishment celebrated the opening of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance in Iran. This is the political front group for the so-called People?s Mujahadeen (or MeK), a Washington-backed Islamo-terrorist group that has carried out bombings and assassinations in Iran during the past decade. During the 1970s, the group staged several terrorist attacks that left U.S. citizens wounded or dead. It was part of the revolutionary coalition that brought Khomeni to power in 1979, but was forced to flee to Iraq following a purge. During the ten-year Iran-Iraq war, the MeK carried out attacks against Iran on behalf of Saddam Hussein?s regime.

Created in 1965 as part of a Soviet-sponsored international terrorist network that waged wars of "national liberation" throughout the developing world, the MeK was listed as a terrorist organization from 1997 until last September, when it was removed from the State Department?s terrorism roster following a high-pressure campaign that included scores of prominent elected officials and veterans of the National Security ?community.?

Several members of Congress, including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Michigan), received significant cash donations from MeK?s supporters as part of the de-listing campaign. Other paid supporters of the MeK included Newt Gingrich, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey (who supervised prosecution of federal ?material support? cases on much flimsier evidence), retired General Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retired General James Jones, former National Security Adviser to Barack Obama.

Every U.S. official who lobbied on behalf of the MeK committed the federal offense of providing ?material support? to a listed terrorist group. Under the Anwar al-Awlaki precedent, each of them was liable to summary execution by drone strike. Indeed, under the Abdel al-Awlaki codicil to that precedent, each of their children was likewise a fair target for a drone strike because of what White House mouthpiece Robert Gibbs would describe as the lethal irresponsibility of their parents.

As with the JAN in Syria, the Iranian MeK is considered a valuable asset in Washington?s program to foment warfare throughout the Middle East ? by providing luridly unreliable but politically useful ?intelligence? about the Iranian nuclear program, and carrying out assassinations and other acts of officially sanctioned terrorism within the country. One measure of the MeK?s value to the Regime is found in the fact that the office for the group?s political front group is located less than one hundred yards from the White House.

According to press accounts, Dzhokar Tsarnaev (communicating through a dense haze of painkillers and other pharmaceuticals) admitted to planting the Boston Marathon bombs and told investigators that he and his brother -- like Tounisi, Daoud, and dozens of other young men their age who had been shepherded into FBI-orchestrated false flag operations ? were aggrieved over the U.S. government?s unremitting state terrorism against Muslim populations abroad.

The fact that the FBI had previous contact with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, as well as ?multiple? warnings about his potential involvement in terrorism, would suggest culpable incompetence on the part of the Bureau ? if it weren?t for the fact that the bombing so perfectly fits the template from which scores of FBI-directed plots have been struck. This, when coupled with the fact that authorities were conducting a bombing ?drill? on the day of the marathon, suggests that something other than official incompetence is involved.

If the Boston Marathon bombing plot was a case of ?lone wolf? terrorism rather than an episode of Homeland Security Theater that went off-script, it would be an anomaly ? albeit a fortunate one for those who presume to rule us, given that they profit from the bloody misfortune of the population they supposedly protect.
_
William Norman Grigg publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

View the original article here

Mexico to Rein In US Agencies in Drug War

by Phillip Smith

In a sharp break with the policies of his predecessor, recently installed Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto is moving to restrict the open relationships US law enforcement, intelligence, and security agencies have developed with their Mexican counterparts as the two countries attempt to repress violent and powerful Mexican drug trafficking organizations, the so-called cartels.

The move was hinted at broadly in the Washington Post Sunday and confirmed by the Associated Press Monday. The AP cited deputy foreign secretary for North American affairs Sergio Alcocer as saying that all US law enforcement contacts with Mexican agencies will go through "a single window," the Mexican Interior Ministry.

Mexico has had a historically prickly relationship with US drug law enforcers, but under former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose term ended in December, US law enforcement and security cooperation with Mexican agencies expanded dramatically. The DEA, as well as the FBI, CIA, and Border Patrol, had agents working directly with units of the Mexican Federal Police, the army, and the navy.

US law enforcement and security agencies worked closely with their Mexican counterparts on a strategy that aimed at arresting or killing top cartel figures, but at the same time, prohibition-related violence only mounted, with the death toll somewhere above 70,000 during Calderon's six-year term. The incoming Pena Nieto administration has previously signaled that it wants to shift away from high-profile target strategy to one centered on crime prevention.

The Pena Nieto administration also represents a reversion to governance by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which had famously ruled Mexico as "the perfect dictatorship" for most of the 20th Century before falling to conservative National Action Party (PAN) presidential candidate Vicente Fox in 2000. Like Fox, Calderon ran under the PAN banner and cultivated closer relations with the US, especially on drug enforcement, than the PRI ever had. The PRI's relationships with US drug enforcers could be characterized as one of mutual suspicion and distrust, with occasional bouts of cooperation.

As the Washington Post reported, high-ranking incoming PRI officials who met with US DEA, CIA, FBI, and other security representatives in December were stunned and "remained stone-faced as they learned for the first time just how entwined the two countries had become during the battle against narco-traffickers, and how, in the process, the United States had been given near-complete entree to Mexico?s territory and the secrets of its citizens."

Now, the Pena Nieto government is moving to get a better grip on the assistance it gets from its neighbor to the north. It was in the interest of Mexico to do so, Alcocer said. "The issue before is that there was a lack of coordination because there was not a single entity in the Mexican government that was coordinating all the efforts," he told the AP. "Nobody knew what was going on."

The DEA and other agencies declined comment, leaving it the State Department, which said it looks forward to "continued close cooperation" with Mexico. President Obama flies to Mexico City Thursday for a meeting with Pena Nieto, whose administration says it wants to expand its bilateral agenda with the US beyond drugs and immigration, as well as shift from dramatic law enforcement actions to crime prevention and public safety.

"For us the security theme is one of our top priorities, but it's not the only one," Alcocer said. "The relationship has issues such as the economy and trade, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure, energy."

Latest Geopolitics
- Political Assassination Prevented In Rome As Unemployed Man Tries To "Shoot Politicians"
- Singapore Death Row Drug Defendants Can Now Seek Review
- John McAfee Detained in Guatemala, Denied Asylum
- North Korean prisoner escaped after 23 brutal years
- John McAfee Interviewed on Alex Jones
- Uruguayan Deputies Say Legalize All Drugs
- Dutch Plan to Ban Potent Marijuana From Cannabis Cafes
- Israeli airstrike hits Gaza family's home, killing 12

View the original article here

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Cop Allegedly Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her For Protesting

Chris | InformationLiberation

Via 8 News Now/BCND:

LAS VEGAS -- Clark County taxpayers may have to pay settlement money to a sexual assault victim and the family court marshal accused of assaulting her.
The I-Team broke the story of a wide-ranging investigation into family court abuse last month. Marshal Ron Fox was fired for sexually assaulting a woman in court and arresting her when she spoke up about it.
The video the I-Team uncovered is spurring outrage with viewers and shaking up the court. But the marshal that internal affairs called a liar may still get a taxpayer funded payday. The I-Team uncovered video of marshal Ron Fox arresting Monica Contreras. She was in court for a protection order hearing.
Internal affairs documents reviewed by the I-Team conclude Fox took Contreras to a side room and inappropriately searched her. When Contreras told the hearing master, Fox arrested her for making a "false allegation against a police officer." There is no Nevada law supporting the stated reason for that arrest.

_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Video: Victims Of Boston Bombing Police State Lockdown Speak Out
- 16-Year-Old Girl Arrested and Charged With a Felony For Science Project Mistake
- High School Student Faces 20 Years For Obama Facebook Threat
- Honors Student & Eagle Scout Charged with Felony and Expelled After Accidentally Leaving Shotgun in Truck
- Video: Man Gets Arrested For Not Letting Undercover Cop Smell His Iced Tea (And No, It's Not Fake)
- Man Charged For Not Rolling Window All The Way Down
- Investigators Trashed Wrongly Accused Ricin Sender's House
- Cop Shot Himself While Driving, Let Car Crash Into Oncoming Traffic

Jesus girl friend you need to sue their asses- including that BS judge. You have a serious lawsuit against the corruption in your county. Sue for every other girl who didn't sue and was molested. Why do you think the court didn't tell you the marshall got fired??

View the original article here

Google Search

Friday, May 24, 2013

Officials: Boston Suspect Had No Firearm When Barrage Of Bullets Hit Hiding Place

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Ron Paul: Shutdown After Boston Bombings More Frightening Than Attack Itself

'Boston Strong': Marching in Lockstep with the Police State

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

What's Bad About a House-to-House Search?

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

When Homeland Security Theater Goes Off-Script

Mexico to Rein In US Agencies in Drug War

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Cop Allegedly Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her For Protesting