Saturday, February 9, 2013

every one please take the time to watch and read all of this post it will show you what is going on

the anitchrist
 please take the time to read and watch all of these it will tell you whats going on i am putting this together for all the lost
Yahoo search reveals the final AntiChrist (playlist): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM4q6yKzDUI&list=PL1BD4493359066604 via @youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZEuyC16oh4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58qwAL-vEsM
Prophecy Alert: EU Could Be Reducing To Ten Nations: http://youtu.be/1fiBDVezrBg via @youtube

British Israelism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An 1890 book advocating British Israelism. According to the doctrine, the Lost Ten tribes of Israel found their way to Western Europe and Britain, becoming ancestors of the British and related peoples.
British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a doctrine based on the hypothesis that people of Western European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. The doctrine often includes the tenet that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David.
The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological and philological research. The doctrine continues, however, to have a significant number of adherents.
The movement has never had a head organisation or a centralized structure. Various British Israelite organisations were set up across the British Commonwealth and in America from the 1870s; a small number of such organisations are active today.

The RAM and the HE-GOAT!

 

Just as Muhammed took the place of Jesus Christ our Lord, so the Moslem Dome of the Rock occupied the place where the temple once stood. The Moslem Dome of the Rock enshrines a rock in the center of the dome. This is the spot from which MUHAMMAD supposedly ascended for a night-long journey to heaven in AD 621, accompanied by the angel Gabriel. There he supposedly met many prophets like Abraham and Moses and was given the Islamic prayers before returning to Earth.
Although at first Christians themselves were not put to death, Gibbon informs us that during the ten years of the administration of the second Caliph, Omar (634-644 A.D.), four thousand churches or temples were destroyed (prayer and preaching were therefore the sacrifices taken away) and everything possible was done to humiliate Christians. For example, as signs of their degradation, they were made to wear "a turban or girdle of less honourable color; instead of horses or mules, they were condemned to ride on asses in the attitude of women. Their public and private buildings were measured by a diminutive standard; in the streets or in the baths it was their duty to give way or bow down before the meanest of people. Thus Moslems "trampled on" Christians. Moslems "cast down the truth to the ground" (8:12).
Although Moslems say they worship the same God as Christians, the Koran declares that they are infidels who say that God is Christ, the son of Mary. Jesus, it says, is no other than a servant who was favored with a gift of prophecy. Although the Moslem creed declares a belief in one God, it makes Mohammed his prophet, thus placing Mohammed next after God, and superior to Jesus Christ. In this way the little horn "magnified itself even to the Prince of the host" (8:11), namely the Lord Jesus Christ. Mohammed "magnified himself" by putting himself above Moses or Christ.

12 Because of rebellion, the army of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to the horn. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
The Moslem goat horn "cast down the truth" by putting the Koran in place of the Bible,
Then verse 13 asks, "How long will the Temple and saints be downtrodden?
Verse 14 answers, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be restored."
Omar captured Jerusalem in 655 A.D. and erected the Mosque of Omar on the site of the Temple. Islamic Turkish Caliphate that grew out of Asia Minor and persecuted the Jews and defiled their Temple Mount. If we add 2300 years, we come to 1821 when the Greeks revolted from the Ottoman Turks and defeated them in war. From the goat attacking the ram to the cleansing of the sanctuary, how long was it (Dan . 8:17; 8:13; and 8:5-7)? Alexander's campaign against Medo-Persia began in 334 B.C. when he crossed from Europe into Asia and it continued till he died eleven years later in 323 B.C. when the Greek Empire reached its zenith. If we add 2300 years to these dates we come to 1967 and 1978. These should be the dates when the Moslem presence is removed from the Holy Land. On June 5, 1967, in less than three hours, the Israeli air force destroyed 300 Egyptian aircraft on the ground, losing only 3-4 planes in exchange. Then they defeated the Arab armies. By June 8, Israeli troops occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and Jordanian territory west of the River Jordan (the West Bank), including Jordan's half of Jerusalem. On June 10th, Israel captured Syria's Golan Heights. The war was over in six days. In 1967, as a result of the Six-Day War, the old city of Jerusalem, including the important Temple area, passed from Moslem into Jewish hands. A nation of 2.5 million defeated the forces of Arab nations with a combined population of over 40 million. In 1978, at the Camp David Conference in America, the Israeli prime minister insisted that, although the Arabs might be allowed a self-governing state on the West Bank, the Jews would not give up sovereignty of this territory, and the right to station troops there. Concerning the old city of Jerusalem, he reminded President Carter of the saying, "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, Let my right hand forget her cunning" (Ps. 137:5). Also, from the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C., we add 2300 years to get 2000 A.D. On September 11, 2001 the twin towers in New York were attacked. This began a great anti-Islamic response by the U.S., not only against Iraq and Afghanistan but also against radical Islam everywhere.

 Rapture RollCall coming!!! Netanyahu setup to sign 7 year peace treaty: http://youtu.be/fJTmXbBsWic via @youtube

 Evidence the Vatican created Islam?: http://youtu.be/6LJUtWUcwGI via @youtube

Compare Prince William's DNA to DNA on the Shroud of Turin

The Sudarium cloth that was on Jesus' face (John 20.7 "And the napkin, that was about his head") which arrive in Spain in the early 7th century from Palestine in a large silver tomb has the blood type of AB positive. 3% of the population have that blood type.

The Shroud of Turin also has the blood type of AB positive.

Prince William (Will "I AM" and whose name comes to 666 in Greek as King William V) is expected to be the Antichrist starting late 2015 after the Total Lunar Tetrad in 2014-2015 (Rev. 6.12) which falls on Passover or Tabernacles all four instances.

Find out what Prince William's blood type is, then compare the DNA of both cloths and William's. Let me know what you find out because I am stuck!

Do this for Harry also. Prince Charles has O Negative.

A quick search of the web indicates that Princess Diana's
blood type was AB. Apparently, O-type is recessive, so
Prince William should also have type AB. Most interesting. - Mike Fischer

It is true that the blood type on the Shroud was determined to be type AB, as was the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Lanciano miracle.

However, according to blood experts, the enzymes responsible for the various blood types degrade dramatically over time until little if any remain present. The absence of these enzymes always yields the same result: blood type AB. Consequently, blood type is not really a valid point of comparision with other blood related ancient objects.

Apparently, all old and degraded blood types turn to AB.

Compare Prince William's DNA to DNA on the Shroud of Turin

The Sudarium cloth that was on Jesus' face (John 20.7 "And the napkin, that was about his head") which arrive in Spain in the early 7th century from Palestine in a large silver tomb has the blood type of AB positive. 3% of the population have that blood type.

The Shroud of Turin also has the blood type of AB positive.

Prince William (Will "I AM" and whose name comes to 666 in Greek as King William V) is expected to be the Antichrist starting late 2015 after the Total Lunar Tetrad in 2014-2015 (Rev. 6.12) which falls on Passover or Tabernacles all four instances.

Find out what Prince William's blood type is, then compare the DNA of both cloths and William's. Let me know what you find out because I am stuck!

Do this for Harry also. Prince Charles has O Negative.

A quick search of the web indicates that Princess Diana's
blood type was AB. Apparently, O-type is recessive, so
Prince William should also have type AB. Most interesting. - Mike Fischer

It is true that the blood type on the Shroud was determined to be type AB, as was the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Lanciano miracle.

However, according to blood experts, the enzymes responsible for the various blood types degrade dramatically over time until little if any remain present. The absence of these enzymes always yields the same result: blood type AB. Consequently, blood type is not really a valid point of comparision with other blood related ancient objects.

Apparently, all old and degraded blood types turn to AB.

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Prince William
Duke of Cambridge (more)
Prince William in his Royal Air Force uniform on 12 June 2010
Spouse Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
(m. 2011)
Full name
William Arthur Philip Louis[fn 1]
House House of Windsor
Father Charles, Prince of Wales
Mother Diana, Princess of Wales
Born 21 June 1982 (age 30)
St Mary's Hospital, London
Signature
Religion Church of England
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge KG KT (William Arthur Philip Louis;[fn 1] born 21 June 1982), is the elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales, and third-eldest grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.[2] He is second in the line of succession, behind his father, to the thrones of sixteen independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
Prince William was educated at four schools in the United Kingdom and obtained a degree from the University of St Andrews. He spent parts of a gap year in Chile, Belize, Tanzania, and Kenya where he has lived and holidayed several times. Prince William has also taken Kiswahili studies at universities in Kenya and

Welcome to Prince William Islamic Center | Manassas, VA

www.pwicva.org/
Prince William Islamic Center is a family-oriented facility for Muslims in Northern Virginia providing recreation, leisure and services necessary to promote the ...2 Google reviews - Write a review

Queen Elizabeth II is descended from the Prophet Muhammad.



It brings a whole new meaning to “God Save The Queen.” According to Burke’s Peerage, the genealogical guide to royalty, Queen Elizabeth II is descended from Muhammad, prophet of Islam. The revelation came about when the publishing director of Burke’s asked Great Britain’s then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for better security for the royal family.
Revealing that the Queen was descended from Muhammad, the publishing director said ”The royal family’s direct descent from the prophet Mohammed cannot be relied upon to protect the royal family forever from Moslem terrorists.” The connection was a surprise to many, so he also added “It is little known by the British people that the blood of Mohammed flows in the veins of the queen. However, all Moslem religious leaders are proud of this fact.”
Apparently, the British royal family is descended from Muhammad through the Arab kings of Seville, who once ruled Spain. Through marriage, their blood passed through the European kings of Portugal and Castille, until it reached King Edward IV in the 15th century, where it has descended since.
Winter Gala - Queen Elizabeth Jubilee Medal Recipients Entrance: http://youtu.be/U4YKxem8t8U via @youtube
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/3678828/1940-Congressional-Record-About-British-World-Government
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html

Federal Court Indicts President Obama Will not see end of his second ter...: http://youtu.be/nX2dwrI_ZEw via @youtube





 



Last week MPs revived the corpse of the 'Secret Justice' Bill. Here we spell out the full terrifying implications of life in... Secret Britain

Last week MPs revived the corpse of the 'Secret Justice' Bill. Here we spell out the full terrifying implications of life in... Secret Britain

  • Vote on Bill took place at same time as gay marriage vote
  • Bill could give power to cover-up details on events such as Hillsborough
  • Legal system would be weighted in favour of the powerful

While all attention at Westminster was focused on whether to allow gay marriage, this Coalition Government did something furtive – something that is not only much less liberal, but coldly terrifying.
Under the cover of the furore, it quietly disinterred the corpse of its ‘Secret Justice’ Bill. This Bill creates extraordinary new legal powers to keep official dealings hidden from us. It changes all the comforting certainties about the rule of law in Britain.
Most of us have some kind of grasp of what is officially called the Justice and Security Bill.
Focus: While the attention was on MPs voting on gay marriage in the House of Commons the Government revived work on the 'Secret Justice Bill'
Focus: While the attention was on MPs voting on gay marriage in the House of Commons the Government revived work on the 'Secret Justice Bill'
But it can be hard to imagine what it would actually mean  in practice.
The Government wants us to think its scope is limited to rare and arcane disputes, perhaps born of foreign battlefields. Or ones that sound as if they belong in spy novels, involving CIA ‘black ops’ and ‘dark jails’. But if it becomes law, the effects will be felt much closer to home.
The shocking outcome of the recent Hillsborough Inquiry, bringing justice at last to 97 families? If similar circumstances were to arise again, it is likely that justice would never be delivered: if the families tried to sue, alleging a bungled police operation and a subsequent cover-up, the Bill would give the authorities the ability to keep the truth concealed.
Decider: Ulster Democratic Unionist Ian Paisley Jnr cast the critical vote on the revised draft of the Bill
Decider: Ulster Democratic Unionist Ian Paisley Jnr cast the critical vote on the revised draft of the Bill
A case brought against the Ministry of Defence by families of soldiers killed in a foreign deployment, alleging their loved ones’ equipment was defective? This is not mere hypothesis. Many argue now that the British death toll in Afghanistan has been higher than it should have been because some of our military vehicles were too vulnerable to roadside bombs.
With this law enshrined, the Government could insist on a closed, secret hearing. There, it could present evidence denying such claims. No one could challenge it, because no one directly affected by the case would ever know what it was.
Or take the very real, current scandal of the women green activists who unknowingly entered sexual relationships with undercover police officers.
 Those defending such a case could be entitled to a secret hearing, at which they could claim that such tactics were entirely justified, on the basis that the women posed some kind of threat to national security.
This is the reality of a society regulated by secret justice:  a legal system weighted irredeemably in favour of those in power. The legislation had previously been watered down considerably, and wisely, by the House of Lords. Now, it is not just as bad as it was when introduced last year. It’s even worse.
Under the resuscitated Bill, matters involving State security will usually be heard at secret ‘closed material procedure’ hearings. They will be attended only by security-vetted ‘special advocates’. Those involved in cases against official bodies will be permanently unable to know about the evidence deployed against them.
The new revised draft, the product of the final session of the Bill’s committee stage, was forced through by a majority of one. The Ulster Democratic Unionist Ian Paisley Jnr cast the critical vote.
This took place at precisely the same time as the same-sex marriage debate was happening in the main Commons chamber, which is why all this went virtually unnoticed.
Justice: Under the new powers information revealed by the recent Hillsborough inquiry could have remained concealed by the authorities
Justice: Under the new powers information revealed by the recent Hillsborough inquiry could have remained concealed by the authorities
The consequences are draconian. The Government’s actions, prompted by intense lobbying from MI5 and MI6 security chiefs, mean there is now less than three weeks to stop the enactment of a ruthless measure that amounts to a charter for cover-ups.
A real recent example of a case that will be affected is that of Abdelhakim Belhadj. He is the Libyan opposition leader abducted with his family from Bangkok with the help of British intelligence, then  tortured by Gaddafi’s brutal regime for years.
Like other victims of ‘extraordinary rendition’, Mr Belhadj,  who has never been alleged to have committed a single hostile act against Britain, its citizens or its allies, is suing the UK Government. But the official evidence of what was done in our name will be deemed far too ‘sensitive’ to be aired in open court.
Once the Bill becomes law, his chances of success are remote. And the prospects for enforcing the merest whiff of accountability on the agencies responsible for torture cases, and, indeed, a vast range of official activity from national security to the country’s ‘economic wellbeing’, will be just as distant.
Safeguards: Conservative backbencher David Davies said it was 'appalling' that the Government reneged on its promise to allow full judicial discretion
Safeguards: Conservative backbencher David Davies said it was 'appalling' that the Government reneged on its promise to allow full judicial discretion
Previously, the Lords had passed two crucial safeguards to stop this. The first said judges could grant the Government a secret hearing only if other alternatives had already been considered, like, for example, asking permission from the judge in a case to withhold sensitive evidence altogether, under the longstanding system of ‘public interest immunity’. The second Lords safeguard was more fundamental.
It stated that judges could allow a secret hearing only after balancing the Government’s demand for one against the historic legal principle that justice must always be open.
Last week, with the passage of Amendment 55, moved by the junior Justice Minister James Brokenshire, both these safeguards were swept away. ‘In practice, it will now be very difficult for a judge to resist a closed hearing,’ one legal analyst said yesterday.
Under this Bill, it is now possible a prisoner in a British jail who tried to challenge his detention in the courts would remain incarcerated without hearing the evidence against him.
The battle is not over. Pending is a High Court action by The Mail on Sunday which seeks to make public a secret judgment issued in an Afghan alleged torture case two years ago, which resulted from an earlier form of secret hearing, now deemed illegal by the Supreme Court.
As this newspaper has pointed out, the Bill will inevitably lead to a body of secret law and secret legal precedents. Our case also asks the court to issue guidelines on how such secret judgments should be reviewed, and whenever possible, published.
Meanwhile both Labour and several influential Tories are determined to try to reinstate the Lords’ safeguards when the Bill returns to the full House of Commons later this month.
David Davis, the leading Conservative backbencher, said: ‘It is appalling that the Government has reneged on its promise to allow full judicial discretion as enacted by the Lords.’
Andrew Tyrie, the Tory who campaigned for years against torture and rendition, says: ‘Not only must all of the Lords’ amendments remain in the Bill, they need to be underpinned by further improvements.’
Mr Davis added: ‘What the Government did last week is a massive dilution of the protections put in place by the Lords. I can only hope they will summon up the courage to reinstate them.’
It is a hope anyone with even the vaguest interest in open justice would surely share.

Biden: “It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public”

Biden: “It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public” suck my mother fucking dick

LANSDOWNE, Va. — In a speech Wednesday night, Vice President Joe Biden implored House Democrats to continue to fight for gun control legislation despite the potential political ramifications of doing so.
Biden was visibly emotional as he spoke of the December school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that took the lives of 20 children and six adults and called it a “profound loss” for America.
“I can imagine how we will be judged as individuals, we will be judged as a Congress, we will be judged as a nation if we do nothing,” Biden told House Democrats at their retreat in Lansdowne, Va. “It’s simply unacceptable.”
The vice president said he rejected those who would say the political risk “is too high, the outcome is too certain.”
His voice rising, Biden said that in the 54 days since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, there have been 1,600 shooting deaths, and specifically mentioned the death of Hadiya Pendleton, a Chicago teenager who had marched in the inauguration parade only a few weeks ago.
“Enough is enough is enough,” he said to applause from House Democrats, who are spending three days at the Virginia retreat. President Obama and former President Bill Clinton will also address the group.
“Many of you have scars on your back like I do from having acted, attempted to act, and contining to try act to deal with the senseless gun violence in America,” he said.
The former Delaware senator recalled the 1994 bill he helped craft, that included a now-expired federal assault weapons ban, and shortly after they passed it, Democrats “lost the Congress.”
“Some people attribute that to the tough stands people had to take, particularly on the assault weapons ban,” he said. “People have walked away learning the wrong lesson from that saying, ‘You know what? It’s demonstrable but it’s too risky to take on some of this stuff because look what happened last time we did this.’”
Biden declared that the world had changed, as had public attitudes on gun control. Additionally, through things like social media, “the ability to misrepresent our positions has changed.”
He also said there was not a simple solution to the problem of mass shootings: Biden said there was “no single answer to ensure this will never happen again.”
The vice president has been charged with leading the President’s task force on gun violence prevention. He told the members attending the retreat that he was unwavering in his belief that the recommendations the task force has put forward are not in violation of the Second Amendment.
“It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.”
“Don’t tell me because we can’t solve it all, we can’t act at all. … when people tell me you cant prevent these kinds of occurrences that doesn’t mean we can’t do something so god forbids if it happens again, diminish the carnage,” he said.

China poised to play debt card – for U.S. land

China poised to play debt card – for U.S. land

by Dr. Jerome Corsi
obamachinesetroops
Communist nation could control American land as ‘development zones’
NEW YORK – Could real estate on American soil owned by China be set up as “development zones” in which the communist nation could establish Chinese-owned businesses and bring in its citizens to the U.S. to work?
That’s part of an evolving proposal Beijing has been developing quietly since 2009 to convert more than $1 trillion of U.S debt it owns into equity.
Under the plan, China would own U.S. businesses, U.S. infrastructure and U.S. high-value land, all with a U.S. government guarantee against loss.
Yu Qiao, a professor of economics in the School of Public Policy and Management at Tsighua University in Beijing, proposed in 2009 a plan for the U.S. government to guarantee foreign investments in the United States.
WND has reliable information that the Bank of China, China’s central bank, has continued to advance the plan to convert China’s holdings of U.S. debt into equity owned by China in the U.S.
The Obama administration, under the plan, would grant a financial guarantee as an inducement for China to convert U.S. debt into Chinese direct equity investment. China would take ownership of successful U.S. corporations, potentially profitable infrastructure projects and high-value U.S. real estate.
The plan would be designed to induce China to resume lending to the U.S. on a nearly zero-interest basis.
However, converting Chinese debt to equity investments in the United States could easily add another $1 trillion to outstanding Obama administration guarantees issued in the current economic crisis.
As of November 2012, China owned $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities, according to U.S. Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve Board calculations published Jan. 16.
Concerned about the unrestrained growth in U.S. debt under the Obama administration, China has reduced by 97 percent its holdings in short-term U.S. Treasury bills. China’s holding of $573.7 billion in August 2008, prior to the massive bank bailouts and stimulus programs triggered by the collapse in the U.S. mortgage market, dwindled to $5.96 billion by March 2011.
Treasury bills are short-term debt that matures in one year or less, sold to finance U.S. debt. Holdings of Treasury bills are included in the $1.17 trillion of total Treasury securities owned by China as of November 2012.
In addition to a national debt in excess of $16 trillion, the U.S. government in 2010 faced over $70 trillion in unfunded obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits scheduled to be paid retiring baby boomer retirees in the coming decades, with unfunded obligations showing no sign of being reduced with Congress at a deadlock over reducing federal government spending.
Yu Qiao observed that if the U.S. dollar collapsed under the weight of proposed Obama administration trillion-dollar budget deficits into the foreseeable future, holders of U.S. debt would face substantial losses that the Financial Times estimated “would devastate Asians’ hard-earned wealth and terminate economic globalization.”
“The basic idea is to turn Asian savings, China’s in particular, into real business interests rather than let them be used to support U.S. over-consumption,” Yu Qiao wrote, reflecting themes commonly suggested by Chinese government officials. “While fixed-income securities are vulnerable to any fall in the value of the dollar, equity claims on sound corporations and infrastructure projects are at less risk from a currency default,” he continued.
The problem is that, in a struggling U.S. economy, China does not want to trade its investment in U.S. Treasury debt securities, with their inherent risk of dollar devaluation, for equally risky investments in U.S. corporations and infrastructure projects.
“But Asians do not want to bear the risk of this investment because of market turbulence and a lack of knowledge of cultural, legal and regulatory issues in U.S. businesses,” he stressed. “However if a guarantee scheme were created, Asian savers could be willing to invest directly in capital-hungry U.S. industries.”
Yu Qiao’s plan included four components:
China would negotiate with the U.S. government to create a “crisis relief facility,” or CRF. The CRF “would be used alongside U.S. federal efforts to stabilize the banking system and to invest in capital-intensive infrastructure projects such as high-speed railroad from Boston to Washington, D.C.
China would pool a portion of its holdings of Treasury bonds under the CFR umbrella to convert sovereign debt into equity. Any CFR funds that were designated for investment in U.S. corporations would still be owned and managed by U.S. equity holders, with the Asians holding minority equity shares “that would, like preferred stock, be convertible.”
The U.S. government would act as a guarantor, “providing a sovereign guarantee scheme to assure the investment principal of the CRF against possible default of targeted companies or projects”.
The Federal Reserve would set up a special account to supply the liquidity the CRF would require to swap sovereign debt into industrial investment in the United States.
“The CRF would lessen Asians’ concern about implicit default of sovereign debts caused by a collapsing dollar,” Yu Qiao concluded. “It would cost little and help the U.S. by channeling funds to business investment.”

The Number of his Name χإلىς The BEAST χξς AntiChrist

The Number of his Name χإلىς The BEAST χξς AntiChrist 

 The Number of his Name  χإلىς  The BEAST  χξς  AntiChrist: http://youtu.be/w3dKxAa-LiE via @youtube

Obamacare Mandate Micro Chip Implants?

Meme Busting: Does Obamacare Mandate Micro Chip Implants?


Facebook hoaxThis week’s installation of found on Facebook* is a photo accompanied by the claim that the Health Care Act “requires all US citizens” to have an RIFD implant that will contain “personal data heath and bank accounts.”
So where did eyebrow-raising claim originate?
With our favorite conspiracy theorist from Texas, Alex Jones.
In 2010.
Forget the national ID card, implantable microchips are coming to a clinic near you no later than 36 months after the bill is signed into law.
There was nothing in any version of the legislation that became the Affordable Health Care Act that requires US citizens to be implanted with an RFID chip.
How did this man get a national following? Why are there so many Americans who exhibit no critical thinking skills?
About the images.
One is a fake x-ray. The other is an RFID VeriChip introduced in 2007 for diabetics.
There are more details at Snopes on the specifics of the claim that the health care act contains this requirement. (It doesn’t.)
So, please. Don’t share the photo but feel free to share this post in a comment.
* This photo showed up in my Facebook as an example of conservative rhetoric. It had almost 40K shares at this writing.

The Moderate Voice (http://s.tt/1zxdh)

if any congress man or woman any man or woman voted into office you sigh off on this gun ban your days in office are over

if any congress man or woman any man or woman voted into office you sigh off on this gun ban your days in office are over

Gun Confiscation Bill Proposed in California: ‘We Can Save Lives’

Gun Confiscation Bill Proposed in California: ‘We Can Save Lives’

Gun Confiscation Bill Proposed in California: We Can Save Lives
Credit: Getty Images
Law abiding gun owners in California have to feel uneasy after Democrats rolled out a massive gun control package on Thursday, which includes strict ammunition regulations and even a bill that allows potential confiscation of the state’s 166,000 legally registered semi-automatic rifles.
Under the sweeping gun control bills introduced by state Senate Democrats, all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines would be banned, all guns would be registered and gun owners would need a special permit just to buy ammunition.
The proposals appear to be even more draconian than New York’s recent gun control legislation, considered to be the toughest in the nation.
The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state’s 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners.
This first unified California plan comes less than a month after New York adopted its own sweeping package of new gun controls and President Barack Obama announced a package of executive actions, all in the wake of December’s Connecticut schoolhouse massacre. Even as this plan emerged Thursday, House Democrats’ gun violence task force was announcing 15 “policy principles,” including protecting Second Amendment rights but also instituting universal background checks and reinstating a federal assault weapons ban.
State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) on Thursday defended the huge gun control package, saying “California’s tough gun laws have been exploited long enough.” He also said he respects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to have firearms for hunting, sport and home defense.
Gun Confiscation Bill Proposed in California: We Can Save Lives
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, second from left, glances to a pair of semi-automatic rifles as he discusses a package of proposed gun control legislation at a Capitol news conference in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, Feb. 7, 2013. Senate Democrats unveiled a package of 10 proposed laws designed to close loopholes in existing gun regulations, keep firearms and ammunition out of the hands of dangerous person and strengthen education relating to firearms and gun ownership. Also seen are Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, left, Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, third from left, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, second from right. Credit: AP
That being said, he believes the sweeping gun regulations will “save lives.”
“We can save lives by curbing the proliferation of guns designed to be fired and reloaded rapidly,” he said. “We can save lives by getting guns and ammunition out of the hands of the wrong people. We can save lives if every gun owner knows how to safely handle those guns. And if we can save lives, we must act to do so.”
However, pro-gun advocates argue that the bills are unconstitutional and infringe on the Second Amendment.
“[A]lmost every item in the proposal is wildly unconstitutional,” said Gene Hoffman of Redwood City, co-founder and chairman of the Calguns Foundation gun rights group. He also said the state’s overreach may “accelerate the speed at which the Supreme Court takes these ideas off the table.”
Mercury News reports other bills would also include the following regulations:
  • Require anyone wishing to buy ammunition to first get a permit by passing a background check, as Los Angeles and Sacramento already do.
  • Update the definition of a banned shotgun with a revolving cylinder to include the new technology of a shotgun-rifle combination.
  • Prevent unregulated gun loans, with some exceptions, including hunting, in order to keep weapons from those who haven’t passed background checks.
  • Require all handgun owners obtain a safety certificate every year, rather than the every-five-years requirement for purchases of new handguns.
  • Prohibit anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept and to expand the list of crimes for which convictions result in being barred from gun possession.
  • Let the state Justice Department use money from the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale system to eliminate the backlog of people identified as no longer allowed to own guns but not yet investigated and contacted by law enforcement.

The Fema Camp Bill is Back!

The Fema Camp Bill is Back!

February 9, 2013
EEUU FEMA camp.
It looks as if Representative Alcee Hastings a Democrat from Florida has decided to reintroduce his FEMA Camp bill. A few years ago I was the first person to write an article about this awful piece of legislation. Fortunately, I was successful in exposing it to a much larger group of people via the alternative media and the bill did not move forward in the legislative process. The latest iteration of this bill has been introduced as House Resolution 390 otherwise known as the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. This bill would authorize not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers to be run by FEMA under the command of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
I was extremely critical of an earlier version of the bill which was proposed in the 111th Congress as HR 645. The bill used vague language to give the Secretary of Homeland Security carte blanche power to use these facilities for anything that the Secretary felt was appropriate. In other words if the Secretary of Homeland Security felt like using them as death camps than potentially that could have been considered a lawful use of the facilities according to the language in the bill. In this new version it looks like Representative Hastings got the message and decided to remove the vague language even though the Secretary of Homeland Security would still be in charge of the proposed facilities.
One of the minimum requirements of a national emergency center as defined by the bill is that it is capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster. It basically sounds like a concentration camp. Similar types of facilities were setup by Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II to house large numbers of Japanese Americans. In other words, there is historical precedence for the federal government forcibly relocating large numbers of people into government run concentration camps. There is an increasing amount of rhetoric from the federal government and corporate media that Constitutionalists, gun owners and other liberty minded people might be considered potential terrorists. Would it really be a stretch to think that these facilities could be used to house people that they consider to be enemies?
Considering how much the federal government has lied to the American people in the past, you would be absolutely insane to set foot in one of these proposed national emergency centers. For anybody who believes this is conspiracy theory talk, you have to understand that nobody in the federal government is going to openly propose that they are building facilities to detain large numbers of Americans during a martial law scenario. If they did they’d be widely criticized and the legislation would go nowhere. Instead they are going to make it sound as if these facilities are to be used for a beneficial purpose in order to conceal what they could ultimately be used for which is why they are called national emergency centers instead of FEMA camps or concentration camp facilities. It is the same concept used by the power structure in George Orwell’s book 1984 where the government agency called the Ministry of Love is in reality the Ministry of Torture.
Not only that, but why do we need the federal government specifically establishing national emergency centers on closed military installations? These are places that were designed to control who can enter and who can leave. Interestingly enough, one of the limitations included in the new version of the bill is that it does not authorize any federal officer or employee to force an individual to enter a national emergency center or prevent an individual from leaving a national emergency center. This is funny because a member of the U.S. military is technically not considered a federal officer or employee. So even though a federal officer or employee wouldn’t be able to force a person into one of these facilities or prevent them from leaving, it does not necessarily prevent a member of the military from performing these functions. Considering that members of the military would most likely be the ones responsible for the security of such a facility, it makes the limitation entirely meaningless.
To summarize, it looks as if the new bill has been changed to deflect the most damning criticisms posed towards earlier versions but it still is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is no secret that the federal government already has facilities that can hold large numbers of people if they have the need to do so. The Bush 43 regime approved the refurbishment of the old Japanese internment camps and in the mid-2000s KBR was literally given a multi-million dollar contract to build detention facilities.
In the 1980s, Lt. Col. Oliver North was questioned during the Iran Contra hearings about his role in the development of a continuity of government plan known as Readiness Exercise 1984 or Rex 84 for short. This plan involved the implementation of martial law which included the detainment of large numbers of American citizens who the federal government deemed to be threats to national security. Subsequently, the Miami Herald on July 5th 1987 did a story on this same continuity of government plan even going into how FEMA would run these internment facilities during a declaration of martial law.
In addition to what we just covered with KBR and the refurbishment of the old Japanese internment camps, there have been many people who have identified strange government facilities around the United States that appeared to be setup for the purpose of holding large numbers of people. As a result, this bill if passed into law would simply expand upon pre-existing facilities and create a more robust FEMA camp infrastructure. Keep in mind that the bill authorizes a minimum of 6 national emergency centers but that’s just the minimum. Potentially this bill could authorize the establishment of many national emergency centers or FEMA camps and that is not

District Court: Obama Can Continue NDAA Indefinite Detention

District Court: Obama Can Continue NDAA Indefinite Detention

October 3rd, 2012
http://img.dprogram.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/amberNDAA.jpg
(HigginsBlog) – A three panel federal district court has ruled to extend Obama’s power to continue indefinite detention pending a final appeals court ruling.
The temporary stay which overturned a ban on indefinite detention as authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act has now been extended indefinitely pending a final appeals court ruling.
The extension of the stay comes from a three panel district court ruling which ruled that Judge Forrest made erred in issuing a ban on indefinite detention.
However, merely stating that Judge Forrest erred is misleading although technically correct.
Furthermore while the ruling does allow President Obama to continue the indefinite detention the ruling is actually a partial victory for Americans.
Before anyone gets worked up let me explain.
As previously pointed out, during the trial Obama’s lawyers refused to define or clarify the terms “substantially supporting”,  “terrorism” or who the “associated forces” where that the NDAA allowed the United States government to indefinitely detain.
Worse is during the course of trial Obama’s lawyers refused to assert to Judge Forrest that the plaintiffs, which is a collection of journalists and public advocacy activists, not be targeted for indefinite detention simply for their participating in constitutionally protected activities.
To be clear, the government refused to say that journalists such as Chris Hedges and Naomi Wolf wouldn’t be subjected to indefinite detention for exercising their Freedom of Press activities.
The government also refused to state that activists wouldn’t be targeted for exercising Free Speech.
Moreover the government refused to state that American Citizens would not be indefinitely detained under the NDAA.
Obama’s lawyers had pinned their hopes on winning the case based simply on the claim that the plaintiffs did not have jurisdiction
Judge Forrest in ruling on the original case issued a preliminary temporary and then a final permanent ban on Indefinite Detention on grounds the provision violated the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments based on how Obama argued the case.
That forced Obama to change his tune in filing his motion to delay the ban on indefinite detention.
In that motion Obama was forced to clarify who indefinite detention applied to and to state that the Plaintiff’s would not be targeted for indefinite detention for their activities.
Obama was further forced to provide clarification of the terms “substantially support” and “associated forces” although the terms are still not clearly defined.
However, Obama was forced to limit the scope of those terms to what the original 2001 Authorization of Military Force granted following 9/11 which means the NDAA can only be applied to those who directly supported or aided in the 9/11 terror attacks and in direct hostilities against the United States and its allies in the war on terror.
Most importantly it made Obama’s lawyers clearly assert that the United States would not be applied to American Citizens or those captured on United States soil, at least no in respect to engaging in constitutionally protected free speech activities.
In the three judge panels ruling this is reiterated, allowing Obama to continue indefinite detention of those engaged in hostilities overseas.
The ruling further makes it clear that the NDAA provision authorizing indefinite detention can not be invoked to detain U.S. citizens, short of those citizens being directly engaged in the activities of supporting actual hostilities against the United States.
Now that Obama has been forced to change his legal arguments and not only define these terms but also assert NDAA indefinite detention would not apply to the journalists, activists or American’s in general the district court had no choice to but to rule Judge Forrest erred in her ruling.
To be clear prior to Obama’s motion to stay the NDAA was open to vague interpretation and could have, and possibly already is, been invoked to detain American citizens for a broad variety of reasons.
That indeed was why Judge Forrest agreed to the plaintiff’s interpretation they could be detained and that interpretation was only reinforced by Obama’s given Obama’s refusal to deny it.
Even when repeatedly and bluntly asked if the government’s interpretation of the provision could be used in the manner the plaintiffs feared..
Now that the Obama administration has finally stated on the record that not their interpretation, hence preventing them from using that interpretation without being held in contempt of court, Judge Forrest is now viewed as an interpretation made in error.
However, this is only a partial victory because while the government can’t locked you up for free speech and journalistic activities they still can alleged that you “substantially supported” or “aided” in hostilities against the United States.
The ruling will most like stand as it is now, but will continue to be fought all the way to the Supreme Court because there still is gray area left to be clarified.
For example, while the district court found that journalists are not in danger of being detained by Military for their activities there are many circumstances which this would be untrue.
A journalist embedded with Taliban forces in Afghanistan or rebel forced in Yemen in example would clearly be at threat to capture by the United States military.
However, as long as Obama is forced to provide such person’s constitutional protections as the district court ruling make’s clear he is obliged to there is little room for appeal.
Here’s today’s ruling followed by a complete background of the case.

S.D.N.Y.-N.Y.C.
12-cv-331
Forrest, J.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 2nd day of October, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
DENNY CHIN,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x
CHRISTOPHER HEDGES, DANIEL ELLSBERG,
JENNIFER BOLEN, NOAM CHOMSKY, ALEXA
O’BRIEN, US DAY OF RAGE, KAI WARGALLA,
HON. BRIGITTA JONSDOTTIR M.P.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
-v.
- 12-3176 (L)
12-3644 (CON)
BARACK OBAMA, individually and as representative of the United States of America, LEON PANETTA, individually and in his capacity as the executive and representative of the Department of Defense, Defendants-Appellants.
- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x
In this case, the government appeals from the district court’s September 12, 2012, grant of a permanent injunction barring the government from enforcing an act of Congress, § 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1298 (Dec. 31, 2011) (the “NDAA”). The government moves for a stay of the district court’s
order pending appeal. On September 17, 2012, an applications
-2-
judge granted a temporary stay pending a decision on the motion by a motions panel. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(D). We are that motions panel. For the following reasons, we conclude that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the government’s motion for a stay. First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, “based on their stated activities,” plaintiffs, “journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.” (Mot. for Stay 1). Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”). Third, the language of the district court’s injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government’s authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (Sept. 18, 2011). In light of these and other factors, see In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007), we conclude that the interests of justice would best be served by granting a stay of the district court’s permanent injunction.
-3-
Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the government’s motion is GRANTED. The district court’s order dated September 12, 2012, is stayed pending a decision on the appeal by a merits panel.
The parties are directed to file their briefs on the following expedited schedule: Appellants are to file their brief on or before November 2, 2012; Appellees’ brief in opposition shall be filed on or before December 3, 2012. Appellants shall file any reply brief by December 13, 2012. The Clerk of the Court is directed to place the case on the argument calendar for the first available week after the filing of appellees’ opposition brief.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
Source: Politico
Complete background leading up to the Judge Forests permanent ban on indefinite detention:

US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle As Judge Permanently Blocks NDAA Military Detention Provision

A federal judge has ruled against President Obama’s NDAA appeal issuing permanent injunction against the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.

After a long fought legal battle journalists and activists have won a major battle against one of the most totalitarian pieces of legislation in the history of the United States.
The legislation formally known as the National Defense Authorization Action has several constitutional trampling provisions.
The most outrageous of those provisions allowed the United States government to place U.S. citizens in jail indefinitely without ever filing charges, providing access to a lawyer or even allowing those thrown in CIA torture prisons the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations they are being detained.
That section of the NDAA has now been permanently blocked after a federal judge issued a final injunction banning the used of the indefinite detention provision in the so-called “homeland battlefield” bill.
The authority to do so was given because the bill gives the President the authority to conduct military operations in any country in the world, including inside the United States, to fight the so-called war on terror with the need for congressional approval to do so which is effectively a suspension of Posse Comitatus.
Back in January Journalist Chris Hedges filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration to fight the totalitarian powers given in the declaration of World War 3 known as the NDAA.
Given the fact the bill presented a clear and present danger to the US Constitution Hedges was joined by a coalition of activists and journalist.
Those journalist filed shocking briefs in the lawsuit detailing how the NDAA was being using to silence political dissent and journalism critical of the US government.
Per standard procedure the corporate media remained silent after not being given a press release from the government to parrot as the case went to trial.
Instead the Pentagon simply engaged in a psychological warfare operation on the internet which was the only place the lawsuit was being discussed which attempt to discredit proponents of the lawsuits as wing nut conspiracy theorists.
After the case was heard Obama revealed in court those conspiracy theorists were right and Obama planned on using the NDAA in the exact manner patriotic Americans feared it would be used – to detain American citizens in military detention indefinitely without charge or a trial.
As such US Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA provisions unconstitutionall and issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the use of NDAA military detention against American citizens.
Obama then openly defied the ruling claiming the ban on NDAA detention applied only to the plaintiff’s in the lawsuit.
Judge Forrest then issued another ruling clarifying the protection applies to all US citizens pending a final ruling.
Judge Forest even issued a follow-up warning stating she would find the Obama administration in contempt it had not complied with her previous ruling.
Obama appealed and fought back every step of the way failing to provide legal arguments beyond the vectors of national security secrecy and executive primacy in regard to foreign policy.
At the same time Obama refused to even assert that journalists would not be subject to the NDAA simply for their reporting while also refusing to define what actions constituted providing direct or indirect support for associated forces or who those associated forces were.
Obama appealed claiming the government had the right to determine as they see fit without judicial oversight while working under the cover of secrecy granted by national security through which the government could pick and choose U.S. citizens to detain without trial.
That appeals has now been ruled against and a permanent injunction was banning indefinite has been ordered.
Read Full Article
Continuing the background, Obama again appealed the permanent injunction in record time.

Obama Wins Right To Indefinitely Detain Americans Under NDAA

Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA
An appeals court has granted the Obama administration’s appeal to overturn a ban on the indefinite detention of American Citizens under the NDAA.
Read more »
The White House reiterated its appeal.
Then Obama won that appeal on a temporary basis, pending today’s decision.

Obama Wins Right To Indefinitely Detain Americans Under NDAA

Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA
An appeals court has granted the Obama administration’s appeal to overturn a ban on the indefinite detention of American Citizens under the NDAA.
Read more »
The the plaintiff countered filed with this motion being the latest filing prior to today’s district panel ruling.

Sobering! Latest Motion: NDAA Military Detention IS Martial Law

NDAA Detention Is Martial Law
The latest motion to fight Obama’s NDAA detention of US citizens provides a sobering picture of what the Corporate media is blacking out.
Read more…

California Announces Semi-auto Confiscation Plan February 8th, 2013 (KurtNimmo) – California lawmakers are proposing an anti-Second Amendment law that will rival the one recently passed in New York. Democrats in control of the state Legislature unveiled ten proposals they boasted will make California the most restrictive state in the nation for possessing legally purchased firearms.

California Announces Semi-auto Confiscation Plan

February 8th, 2013
(KurtNimmo) – California lawmakers are proposing an anti-Second Amendment law that will rival the one recently passed in New York. Democrats in control of the state Legislature unveiled ten proposals they boasted will make California the most restrictive state in the nation for possessing legally purchased firearms.
State Democrats Propose Strict New Gun Laws http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8338848#.URbq4iqwUkw.twitter

Senate Intelligence Hearing: What Senator Mark Warner Asked CIA Director John Brennan

Senate Intelligence Hearing: What Senator Mark Warner Asked CIA Director John Brennan

brennan-hearing
When CIA nominee John Brennan faced the Senate Select Committee on So-Called Intelligence on Thursday, countless critical and cutting questions had been prepared by bloggers and journalists.  None of them were asked.
Brennan might have been asked why he’d lied about the killing of bin Laden or about the murder by drone program.  He had claimed that every target was known, even though he was fully aware that people were being targeted without identifying them (using so-called signature strikes).  He had claimed that there were zero collateral deaths, even though independent reports have produced hundreds of names, identities, and photographs, and even though the U.S. Ambassador in Pakistan told a delegation of peace activists that there was a U.S. government count of civilian deaths and he wouldn’t reveal what it was.
Brennan might have been asked how in the world it can be legal, according to a “white paper” leaked on Monday, for a “high official” to order the murder of a human being, American or non-American, without judicial or legislative or public or international oversight – or even with such oversight.  He might have been asked if he is one such high official. He might have been asked whether there was a memo to justify the murder of the three Americans thus far known to have been intentionally murdered, since none of them seem to fit the qualifications laid out in the “white paper.”  He might have been asked what the procedure would be if two “high officials” disagreed on the desirability of murdering a particular American.  He might have been asked what authority would certify that a targeted victim could not be captured rather than killed.  He might have been confronted with the rise in hostility toward the U.S. government being generated.  He might have been asked about the United Nations investigation of the murder by drone program as criminal.
We Virginians were represented in the hearing room by Senator Mark Warner.  He claimed what he called the “honor” of introducing the nominee, and expressed his pride that Brennan lives in Virginia along with much of the “intelligence community.”  Warner hyped his effort to create a U.S. Intelligence Professionals Day (which presumably we’ll celebrate silently in our minds), praised Brennan in the vaguest of terms by reading through his resume, declared him ready to be confirmed pre-questioning, and outrageously asserted that Brennan backed “greater transparency” and “adherence to the rule of law.”  A major news story in the preceding 24 hours had been the White House’s refusal to tell the public or even the legislature exactly what it was pretending that the law was.
The most informative and valuable portion of the hearing was produced by Toby Blome, Ann Wright, David Barrows, JoAnn Lingle, Alli McCracken, Eve Tetaz, Joan Nicholson, and Jonathan Tucker, who took turns interrupting the proceedings to ask what needed to be asked.  The message that some Americans do not favor murdering children abroad was thus communicated to the world.  Many others were prepared to add their voices in that room, but Chairwoman Feinstein kicked everyone out except for a handful of Good Americans, and the hearing proceeded with a mostly empty room.  The “Intelligence” Committee is of course used to holding hearings in an entirely empty room with the door locked.
Senator Warner’s chance to ask questions, despite having already declared his support, would come later in the hearing.  By that point, Warner had to work with not only Brennan’s pathetic written answers to a series of weak questions presented to him prior to the hearing, but all of his answers to other Senators during the hearing up to that point.  Remarkably, during the hearing, on more than one occasion, Brennan claimed to have believed (despite voluminous public evidence) that torture was an effective tool.  He did not claim to have believed that as a child, or to have believed it 10 years ago.  He claimed to have believed it up until last week when he took the time to read part of the Senate committee’s report, as he had been shamed and pressured into doing.  He said he was shocked to learn that torture was not an effective tool.  Also during the hearing, before Warner’s turn came, Brennan repeatedly refused to call waterboarding torture and claimed that only a lawyer could make that judgment.  Note that he was asking to direct an agency involved in torturing people, identifying himself as a non-lawyer, and declaring that only a lawyer could determine what torture was.  Brennan also, by the time Warner’s turn came around, had refused to list the nations in which the United States is murdering people.  He had also repeatedly confessed to having had “inside control” of the underwear bomber.
When Warner’s 8 minutes began, one might think he would have had something important to ask about.  Couldn’t you have thought of SOMETHING if it was you?  Even without prior experience on the committee (or law school) might you not have thought of something, ANYTHING, significant to ask about?  Wouldn’t you have asked specific detailed questions about past performance, about torture, rendition, warrantless spying, lying, or killing people?  Aren’t any of those topics worth touching on?
Warner framed his first question as a rambling, time-swallowing speech.  His question was: how can we be sure the CIA director is well informed?  The general vague answer he got to this line of questioning matched the generality and vagueness of the question.  If Mark Warner is afraid a CIA director might be uninformed, why not ask Brennan if he knows significant facts?  Why not ask him how many people have been killed and where?  Why not ask him how many are on the list to be killed?  Why not ask him what the criteria are for getting on the list?  Why not ask how young the youngest person on the kill list is?  Why not express any concern that an “informed high official” might be killing people with the same level of “intelligence” that put so many people into Guantanamo who have since been exonerated of any guilt?
Instead Mark Warner turned to vague questions about the federal budget.  Brennan’s response included hyping the extensive “intelligence” efforts within the “defense” department.  Wow, what an opening!  The Pentagon is not supposed to be doing the “intelligence” work.  Everyone knows how disastrously the Pentagon violated that rule in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.  Surely Warner would jump at this bait.
Warner instead moved on to asking Brennan, as many of his colleagues had already, how exactly Brennan would conduct himself in answering questions from the committee if, after he was confirmed, they were to actually ask him any questions.
By the time Warner might have had a second turn to question the witness, Warner was nowhere to be seen.
He will however be seen at the University of Virginia on Monday and if you sign up you can attend.  Maybe YOU can think of something to ask HIM.  If you need ideas for what to ask and how, or just want to attend as a group, you should get together with a concerned citizen who’s planning to attend by emailing shepherd@digitalelite.com