Thursday, December 5, 2013

Was 48 Bishop, Cambridge, MA, where Obama lived, joined with 50 Cambridge MA, as one property, just as Obama’s house in Chicago annexed the property next door? We need all assessor’s records going back to 1980s. I need names and SSNs of people connected to 48 and 50 Bishop

Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 4 Comments
Hi Orly
Bishop Allen Drive is in CAMBRIDGE MA and not Boston MA.
The good news is that there is a website for the assessor’s office in Cambridge:
There are 2 things wrong. There IS NO #48 Bishop Allen Drive. What’s bizarre is that the assessed value
of housing (e.g 50 Bishop Allen Drive, 56 Bishop Allen Drive) is between  $1.100,000 and $1,700,000 !!!!!

Here is the address in the apartment complex in Cambridge, MA, where Obama lived with his uncle, even though Obama denies it

Posted on | December 5, 2013 | No Comments
only took a minute– google maps– street view– the LH door is #48, RH door is #50 ( I zoomed in)
from the looks of all the mail boxes– they rent single rooms in that building– looks like 5 rooms at 48 and 8 live at 50- a perfect flop house for a student or someone who is living incognito–
Marc Smith
ps- I have also called the postmaster of a postoffice and they have answered questions about specific address locations  ( before the internet)
Attack: Rep. Coffman Wants To Sue Obama; Also Says Obama Not Born In America

Attack: Congressman Mike Coffman Wants  To Sue Obama; Also Says Obama Not An AmericanThe De…

China tells Biden to go and pund sand. Time to withdraw from WTO-GATT, assess tariffs on all imports from China or ban all imports from the aggressor-Communist dictatorship of China and bring 28 million good manufacturing jobs with healthcare benefits back to th United States, to unemployed and impoverished American workers. End WTO-GATT or throw corrupt puppets out of the WH and Congress

Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 2 Comments
USA TODAY  - ‎14 minutes ago‎

BEIJING – After getting no concessions from China on its new air defense zone, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden flew to Seoul on Thursday to meet South Korean leaders also worried by Beijing’s claim that it now controls all air space over the vast East China …

Press release: conflict of interest uncovered, David O’Carter, presiding in Obama challenges by former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes in 2009 and in Judd case in 2012

Press release: conflict of interest uncovered, David O’Carter, presiding in Obama challenges by former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes in 2009 and in Judd case in 2012

Posted on | December 5, 2013 | No Comments
Press release
Law offices of Orly Taitz
Attorney Orly Taitz conducted legal challenges against Barack Obama on behalf of the former UN Ambassador and 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes and on behalf of 2012 Presidential candidate Keith Judd.
In both cases the presiding judge was David O. Carter in the Central District of California. It was discovered recently that while presiding in both challenges Judge Carter worked for the State Department. This presumes conflict of interest, as it makes Judge Carter an employee of the executive branch, where the defendant Barack Obama as the U.S. President is the chief executive of this branch.
Judge Carter was obligated to disclose this conflict of interest and recuse himself from the case, which he did not do. Attorney Taitz continues with legal challenges against Obama. There are 7 ongoing cases in different courts. All of the work is done pro bono. Donations  are appreciated and can be made through paypal at or at 29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688

May 11, 2012
Judge Carter mentioned in record from Georgia Monitoring Project, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

B.Training Seminars for Judges
…On request of the HSJ, the RLAs also organized two workshops on “Presiding over Complex Organized Crime and Terrorism Cases” in June and July 2011 for 60 criminal court judges, in both Tbilisi and Kobuleti. The workshops were in response to several terrorism incidents in both Tbilisi and Western Georgia and the subsequent arrests.[23] U.S. Federal Judge David Carter and Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Hernandez were the expert presenters. [24] INL Training After Action Report, Presiding over Complex Organized Crime and Terrorism Cases, July 23-24, 2011, p. 3.

This website below is the same report as above, in .pdf format,
with Judge Carter mentioned on page 12:



The initiative’s founding members include U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G.
Larson of the Central District of California,
U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California and former Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Dr. Kerry Healey.

Look for Judge Carter in the photo to the right of members with
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.


Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan: Executive Committee Members

The Hon. David O. Carter
United States District Court Judge
Central District of California

Here’s Why Israelis Are Once Again Angry With Obama: ‘Absolutely Perplexing’


Here’s Why Israelis Are Once Again Angry With Obama: ‘Absolutely Perplexing’

Israeli officials and media are voicing dismay and anger over yet another leak of sensitive military information by the Obama administration, with one veteran broadcaster asking if the White House is fine with Hezbollah obtaining advanced weaponry.
As TheBlaze reported on Thursday, an Obama administration official told the Associated Press that Israeli aircraft attacked a military site in the Syrian port city of Latakia early Thursday morning, targeting advanced Russian-made SA-125 missiles and other equipment the Israeli government believed would land in the hands of Hezbollah.
CNN and other American news outlets also quoted “an Obama administration official” revealing that Israel was behind the attack.
While the Israeli government is not commenting on the reports, Israeli media and officials are expressing annoyance at the repeated leaks about Israeli military activity by U.S. government officials.
“It is unclear why the US would leak such information, as it could increase the pressure on Syria to retaliate against Israel,” the Jerusalem Post wrote.
Israel Army Radio devoted an extended segment to the issue on its Friday morning news program during which veteran broadcaster Micha Friedman asked if it’s possible that while the Americans are saying “no” to Syrian chemical weapons, they are okay with weapons being transferred to Hezbollah.
Member of Knesset and retired Israeli Defense Forces General Amram Mitzna told Army Radio Friday morning, “There is something absolutely perplexing that I don’t understand its meaning whereby American sources leak to the American press. The Americans know what’s happening in the region and it’s possible there’s even strategic coordination [with Israel]. It sounds very, very jarring as there are strategic relations between Israel and the U.S. for years.”
“I can tell you that the State of Israel has to maintain its strategic goals and regarding absolute and necessary security not to hesitate to act even when it’s not pleasant for our friends in the West,” Mitzna added.
Mitzna explained that Israel cannot afford to allow Syrian President Bashar Assad to transfer sophisticated weaponry like land-to-sea missiles to Hezbollah. Israeli defense officials are concerned that if Hezbollah obtains advanced weaponry that would change the strategic balance in the region, the Israel Defense Forces could face difficulty countering the radical Shi’ite group in the future.
This isn’t the first time the Obama administration has been accused of leaking sensitive military information regarding Israel’s reported operations in Syria. In July, Israeli officials were upset when unnamed Pentagon officials told the media that Israel was behind a missile attack again in Latakia that targeted Russian-made anti-ship missiles.
Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon reported over the summer that when Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter was in Israel, “The Israelis argued in private meetings and other exchanges that the disclosures could lead to Syrian counterattacks against Israel and should have been coordinated first with the Israeli government.”
In May, Israel Radio reported that the Obama administration had apologized to Israel for leaking that Israel was responsible for airstrikes on Damascus Airport that month. According to Israel Radio, the administration blamed “low-level” officials for the unauthorized leak, as TheBlaze previously reported.
Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center, told TheBlaze at the time, “Can you imagine if things were reversed and somebody did that to the U.S.?”
Source: The Blaze

Connecting The Dots of Agenda 21

Nancy Sarowski 12-4-13  Let’s connect a few dots.  Then you decide if there’s anything to worry about in Agenda 21.
One goal of  UN Resolution Agenda 21 is “Adopting innovative city planning strategies to address environmental and social issues by reducing subsidies on, and recovering the full costs of, environmental and other services … provided to higher income neighborhoods (e.g. roads & telecommunications).”
In other words, governments should no longer provide road repair, snow removal, and new roads to “higher income neighborhoods.”  So not only would some taxpayers continue to pay the gasoline (road) tax but now they would also pay the full cost of their own roads as well.  This is another way in which wealth is redistributed.  Also, who defines “higher income neighborhoods?”
Another goal of Agenda 21 is to move citizens out of the suburbs and less populated areas and into more densely populated urban areas. 
Two ways of accomplishing this are first, stop repairing their roads and second, stop improving their cell phone and broadband capabilities.  When the roads fail, trucks can’t bring in necessary supplies and farmers/merchants can’t move their products out.  When no one can access the internet, stores close, jobs disappear, families move to the cities, and the area dies a quiet death.  Mission Accomplished.
The United Nations 1976 Vancouver Declaration, the first attempt at Agenda 21, stated, “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth; therefore (it) contributes to social injustice.”
In 1992, Maurice Strong, as the U.N. Secretary-General and co-creator of Agenda 21, said, “The affluence of Americans is a threat to the planet, it’s unsustainable. Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
The global warming and Agenda 21 supporters are advocates for miles-traveled taxes, higher gasoline taxes, higher cost and limited parking as part of the solution to drastically reduce gas driven vehicles in an area.  They want people to be able to walk to work, church, grocery stores, doctors, and retail shops.
In America, we resent being treated like animals needing to be herded. 
Do you think it will never happen?  There’s a project currently underway in the San Francisco Area called the “Planned Bay Area Project.”  Its goal is to move people out of large, single family houses and into more dense developments near public transportation.  One of the ways they will be able to accomplish this is by raising the taxes so high on single family dwellings that no one will be able to afford to stay or be able to sell.
Rewriting laws and raising taxes to force people into more dense living conditions, for instance, is objectionable to most of us.  However, the weakening of private property rights is most egregious to conservatives and should be at least distressing to every American.
The Preamble to the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Realtors, states, “Under all is the land.  Upon its wise utilization and widely allocated ownership depends the survival and growth of free institutions and of our civilization.”
Pay attention to what your city planners are doing.  Question them about unintended, or intended, consequences such as loss of private property rights.
To read the entire UN Resolution, go to

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Food Preservation Survival 101


Obama Meets U.S. Jews, Defends Iran Deal

Obama Meets U.S. Jews, Defends Iran Deal

U.S. President defends his diplomacy with Iran before an audience of Israeli diplomats and senior members of the U.S. Jewish community.
AAFont Size
By Elad Benari
First Publish: 12/6/2013, 4:42 AM

Obama during Hanukkah reception
Obama during Hanukkah reception
President Barack Obama on Thursday defended his nuclear diplomacy with Iran before an audience of Israeli diplomats and senior members of the U.S. Jewish community and officials, reports AFP.
Speaking during a White House Hanukkah reception, Obama said that it was important for the United States to test Iran's intentions, and pledged to keep working for a comprehensive deal to deprive Tehran of a nuclear weapon.
"For the first time in a decade we have halted progress of Iran's nuclear program," Obama was quoted as having said.
"Key parts of the program will be rolled back even though the toughest of our sanctions remain in place,” he added.
"That is good for the world, that is good for Israel," Obama said, vowing to keep striving for a final deal with Iran over the coming months that takes care of the "threat of Iran's nuclear weapons once and for all."
Obama also said, however, that Washington must remain vigilant and that its commitment to Israeli security would remain "iron clad" and "unshakeable."
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has repeatedly expressed concern over the deal reached between world powers and Iran in Geneva, warning the agreement is dangerous and will allow Tehran to continue its nuclear program and give nothing back to the West while being rewarded with sanctions relief.
This position has placed the Israeli Prime Minister at odds with the U.S. administration, to the point where Obama reportedly told him to “take a breather” from his criticism and shift attention to the terms of the final deal still under negotiation.
Netanyahu, however, is not the only one who has rejected the deal. U.S. lawmakers from both the House and the Senate have expressed concern that the deal has allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium.
Senators are reportedly adamant on passing legislation that imposes new sanctions on Iran, despite heavy pressure by the Obama administration not to do so.
On Wednesday, Wendy Sherman, undersecretary of state for political affairs and the chief American negotiator with Iran, said the United States would be willing to consider allowing Iran some uranium enrichment in a final nuclear deal.

More on this topic

Obama's Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic

Obama's Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic

President Barack Obama takes the oath of offic...
President Barack Obama takes the oath of office. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By M. Northrop Buechner
Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance.
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.
The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?
The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).
Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class,” he has said. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.” There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.
If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe.
Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated Supreme Court Justices sitting helplessly before him during the 2010 State of the Union address—Justices who had not expected to be denounced and who were prevented by the occasion from defending themselves. Mr. Obama condemned them for restoring freedom of speech to corporations and unions.
Ignoring two centuries of practice, President Obama made four recess appointments in January 2012, when the Senate was not in recess. Three courts have found that his appointments were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case. If the Supreme Court finds against him, what will Mr. Obama do?
We can get a hint by looking at how other parts of his Administration have dealt with Court decisions they did not like.
The Attorney General’s Office is the branch of government charged with enforcing federal laws. After the Supreme Court struck down the key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Attorney General Holder announced that he would use other provisions of the act to get around the Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court has defined the standard for sexual harassment as “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” behavior to a “reasonable person.” In open defiance of that ruling, the Obama Department of Education has declared a new definition of sexual harassment for colleges, that is, “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct,” even if it is not objectively offensive—thus reinforcing the reign of terror over sex on college campuses. If a young man’s request for a date turns out to be unwelcome, he is guilty of sexual harassment by definition.
The lack of respect for the Supreme Court by the Obama administration is manifest. They feel bound by the Court’s decisions only if they agree with them. If they disagree, it is deuces wild; they will embrace any fiction that nullifies the Court’s decision.

The direction in which Mr. Obama is taking us would make possible the following scenario. A Republican Congress is elected and repeals Obamacare over a Democratic President’s veto. The President refuses to enforce the repeal. The Supreme Court rules that the President’s refusal is unconstitutional. The President denounces that ruling and refuses to be bound by it.
If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, the denouement would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces. Whatever side that was, our national self-esteem would be unlikely to recover from the blow of finding that we are living in a banana republic.
The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?
Mr. Obama is moving our government away from its traditional system of checks and balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries. He has said that he wants a fair country—implying that, as it stands, the United States is not a fair country—an unprecedented calumny committed against a country by its own leader.
What country does he think is more fair than the United States? He has three long years left in which to turn us into a fair country. Where does he intend to take us?
Mr. Obama got his conception of a fair country from his teachers. A fair country is an unfree country because it is regimented to prevent anyone from rising too high. Their ideal is egalitarianism, the notion that no one should be any better, higher, or richer than anyone else. Combined with a dollop of totalitarianism, egalitarianism has replaced communism as the dominant ideal in our most prestigious universities. Mr. Obama and his colleagues are the product of those universities, and they have their marching orders.
The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.
Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take—actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government had been created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”
We are losing it. If Mr. Obama’s reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that will be the end. Everyone who values his life and liberty should find some way to say “No!” “Not now!” “Not yet!” “Not ever!”
M. Northrup Buechner is Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University, New York.

CONFIRMED: Obama WH Turned Down Offer to Build O-Care Website for Free – Blew a $1 Billion Instead

CONFIRMED: Obama WH Turned Down Offer to Build O-Care Website for Free – Blew a $1 Billion Instead

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Jim Hoft
Gateway Pundit
December 5, 2013
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Bill Hemmer on America’s Newsroom today that an internet giant offered to build the Obamacare website for free.
This was confirmed during testimony today before a Congressional committee. Issa, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman, said the Obama White House turned down the offer.
Bill Hemmer: Was it proven today that an internet company offered to build the website for free but the government passed on it? Was that true? Did that happen?
Rep. Darrell Issa: It was stated under oath that it was true. No one argued that it wasn’t.
The Obama administration blew over a billion dollars so far to build the failed Obamacare website.
UPDATE: It looks like they were talking about IBM.
Via Politifact:
In a 2010 interview, IBM’s CEO said: “We could have improved quality and reduced the costs of the health-care system by $900 billion. … I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down.”
This article was posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 at 5:50 am

A Lie About Obama’s Past Relationship With Family Member Revealed?

A Lie About Obama’s Past Relationship With Family Member Revealed?

President Barack Obama’s uncle testified at a deportation hearing on Tuesday that Obama stayed with him while he was attending Harvard Law School in the 1980s, contradicting the White House’s claim that the two had never met. The uncle’s former landlord, who reportedly served as a witness at the hearing, also said the president once lived with his uncle.
A judge decided to let Onyango “Omar” Obama, a Kenyan national, remain in the United States after he was arrested for drunk driving in 2011.
Shortly after his arrest, the White House argued President Obama had never even met his uncle when reporters asked questions about their relationship.
The Obama White House has not commented on the new claim made by Omar Obama and his former landlord, identified as Alfred Ouma. The Boston Globe’s Maria Sacchetti reports:
If the claim is true, that Obama did indeed live with his uncle for a period of time, one has to wonder why the White House would even bother to tell such a seemingly inconsequential lie. It also wasn’t immediately clear what Omar Obama has to gain by making up a story about his nephew living with him for in Cambridge, Mass., for about three weeks.
“Omar Obama came to the United States when he was 19, with the help of his brother, Barack Obama Sr. He currently works as the manager of a liquor store,” the Washington Post reports.
“He is the second of Obama’s relatives to face deportation and win. Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, also avoided deportation in 2010,” the report adds.
Featured image via Getty

Other Must-Read Stories:

White House Makes Big Admission About Obama’s Uncle

White House Makes Big Admission About Obama’s Uncle

White House press secretary Jay Carney on Thursday said President Barack Obama did briefly stay with his illegal immigrant uncle while attending Harvard Law School in the 1980s.
This is a contradiction of what the White House told reporters in 2011, asserting Obama did not know his uncle.
“Back when this arose, folks looked at the record, including the president’s book, and there was no evidence that they had met and that was what was conveyed,” Carney told reporters. “Nobody spoke to the president.”
The president’s uncle Onyango “Omar” Obama, 69, said at a deportation hearing this week that Obama stayed with him when the president was a student at Harvard. The uncle, whom Carney stressed was the president’s father’s half-brother, was arrested for drunk driving in 2011 and faced deportation after living in the United States for five decades. The judge decided to let the Kenyan national remain in the United States.
Carney stressed that the uncle is the half-brother of the president’s father.
“When Omar Obama said the other day, and there were reports that he said the other day, that President Obama, back when he was a law school student had stayed with him in Cambridge, I thought it was the right thing to do to go ask him,” Carney said. “Nobody had asked him in the past and he said that he in fact had met Omar Obama when he moved to Cambridge for law school, that he stayed with him for a brief period of time, until his — the president’s — apartment was ready. After that, they saw each other once every few months while the president was in Cambridge and after law school they gradually fell out of touch. The president has not seen Omar Obama in 20 years and has not spoke with him in roughly 10 years.”
Carney said there was “absolutely zero interference” by the White House in Onyango Obama’s immigration hearing.
In 1992, an immigration judge had ordered Onyango Obama to leave the United States. According to the Associated Press, the uncle has held a Massachusetts driver’s license since at least 1992 and also had a Social Security number.
Onyango Obama was arrested in Framingham, Mass., in 2011 and charged with driving drunk. He had made a rolling stop at a stop sign and nearly caused a police cruiser to strike his sport utility vehicle, police told the AP.
After being booked at a police station, he was asked whether he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail.
“I think I will call the White House,” he said, according to a report written by Framingham police. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of operating an automobile under the influence of alcohol.
In his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” Barack Obama refers to his Uncle Omar, who matches Onyango Obama’s background and has the same date of birth. In the book, a young Barack Obama Jr. traces his roots and his 1988 trip to Kenya. He writes about a Kenyan expression about getting lost, meaning to not see someone in a while or to move away and stop communicating — “like our Uncle Omar, in Boston.”

Paul Walker: Murdered For Digging Too Deep? (Videos)

Paul Walker: Murdered For Digging Too Deep? (Videos)

[Update- 12/5/13] Death Photos and autopsy results.

[MAJOR UPDATE] – Two explosions seen on surveillance video footage [END UPDATE]

Conspiracy forums have posed an interesting theory on Paul Walker’s untimely death from a car crash on Saturday, where they tie it in, and call it murder to prevent Walker, who was part of the Phillipine relief effort, from exposing “a conspiracy to supply victims of Typhoon Haiyan with a prototype permanent birth control drug hidden in medicinal supplies and food aid.” Another theory is that Walker discovered dirty money in the Philippines disaster relief and that it “would make sense because he owned a company that specialized in rapid disaster relief.” 

Via the first thread over at GLP: (Direct quote)

Paul Walker and his friend were killed shortly after they discovered a conspiracy to supply victims of Typhon Haiyan with a prototype permanent birth control drug hidden in medicinal supplies and food aid. They had a damning recording and they were on their way to rendezvous with an ally who would have helped them get in touch with the right people. Turns out they were betrayed and someone rigged their car’s breaks to malfunction after a certain speed.
Now that the loose end has been tied up, and the recording destroyed, the people responsible have nothing to fear as this will become another “conspiracy theory” no one will take seriously.

Via the second thread: (Direct quote)

“Now here is another thread with a conspiracy on a possible motive here. Apparently, Paul Walker had discovered dirty money in the Philippines disaster relief and that would make sense because he owned a company that specialized in rapid disaster relief. “

Did Walker dig to deep into corruption or was it an Illuminati Death?

Then we have the massive damage to the car, the two videos below show the same car Paul Walker was killed in that had also been involved in an ultra high speed crash with fatalities and then the video of the aerial view of Walker’s car after the fatal crash.

The exemplar:

Walker’s crash:

If either of those theories over at GLP is correct, then the words Walker spoke in his 2000 hit The Skulls, when he said “If you keep digging you will dig your own grave,” were highly prophetic. (Shown below)

Example of a the same car after a high speed crash:

The car Walker was in after the crash:

“Fast and Furious” Star Paul Walker Assassinated by Obama Drone Strike?

“Fast and Furious” Star Paul Walker Assassinated by Obama Drone Strike?

Posted: December 1, 2013 in Breaking News, Drone Terror, Paul Walker Assassination, SKYNET Terror
RIP Paul Walker
David Chase Taylor
December 1, 2013

SWITZERLAND, Zurich — Based on evidence acquired to date, it appears that Fast and the Furious star Paul Walker was assassinated in a drone strike while riding in a car in Los Angeles, California on November 30, 2013. While initial reports state that the car split in two after striking a tree at a high rate of speed, one look at the crash scene (see photo below) and it’s evident that the tree (no more than 6 inches in diameter) was not solely responsible for cutting in half, exploding and completely destroying the 2005 Porsche Carrera GT.
BREAKING NEWS: 10 Reasons Why “Fast and Furious” Star Paul Walker Was Assassinated
A few inches of wood are obviously no match for thousands of pounds of forged steel allegedly traveling at an extremely high-rate of speed.. In other words, what is being alleged as the cause of death by authorities is scientifically impossible. The Walker crash scene is eerily similar to what is known to be a missile strike on a civilian vehicle and almost identical to that of fiery crash witnessed when Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings was assassinated on June 18, 2013, in Los Angeles, California. As evidenced in a video taken by witnesses who arrived at the crash scene only moments after the explosion, pieces of Walker’s Carrera GT can be seen strewn across the street in every direction, characteristic of a high-impact missile strike.
It’s no secret that SKYNET killer drones are operating in American airspace, the only question is whether or not they are now openly assassinating U.S. citizens, something President Obama has already admitted doing. Roughly 4 months ago on July 26, 2013, the FBI informed U.S. Senator Rand Paul in an unclassified letter they have flown drones over U.S. airspace a total of 10 times in the past 7 years, a statistic which is likely much higher. Aside from the deaths of Walker and Hastings, other suspected drone strikes include the West Texas Fertilizer Company explosion on April 17, 2013,  in which a missile can be seen striking the building just prior to the explosion, as well as the explosion which killed the 19 elite firefighters near Yarnell Hill, Arizona, on June 30, 2013. Curiously, the autopsies and photos of the 19 firefighters are being withheld from the victims families  because they are most likely not consistent with the now retracted preliminary autopsy report which stated that burns and smoke inhalation were the cause of death in all 19 fatalities. Considering that the firefighters suffered a radio blackout just prior to the explosion (i.e.,  electronic blackouts generally precede black operations) and that drones are admittedly being used fight forest fires (or start them), the likelihood of foul play in the tragedy is exponentially higher. Although the FBI’s drone missions are still classified, they’re evidently comprised of assassinations which are intended to look like “accidents”.
UPDATE: Everybody wants to know why the Obama administration would want to assassinate Paul Walker. While I can only theorize, it’s possible that Walker was assassinated in order to highlight Operation Fast and Furious just prior to an unprecedented gun-related massacre in the United States stemming from one or more of the 2,000 assault rifles sold by the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) to Mexican drug cartels. Since Walker’s death, the words “Fast and Furious” have been in the news non-stop and have been subconsciously programming the public in a psychological manner for an impending state-sponsored terror attack that will likely be connected to Operation Fast and Furious. In the aftermath of said terror attack, Obama would likely attempt to ban and confiscate guns in America which would be unfair (since he supplied the guns) and highly anti-American. Suffice to say, the incident would inevitably lead to a second American civil-war over the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

About the Author
David Chase Taylor is an American journalist and the editor-in-chief of Taylor currently lives in Z├╝rich, Switzerland where he has applied for political asylum after the release of The Nuclear Bible, a book credited with foiling a state-sponsored nuclear terror attack upon Super Bowl XLV in Dallas, Texas on February 6, 2011. Taylor has also authored The Bio-Terror Bible, a book and website exposing the 2013 global bio-terror pandemic. To date, has identified and exposed over 50 Obama sanctioned terror plots, as well as the Alex Jones’ links to STRATFOR. Legal Disclaimer’s stated purpose is to prevent terror attacks by drawing unwanted global attention to these terror plots prior to their fruition. State-Sponsored Terror Threat Assessments (SSTTA), assertions, and forecasts made by DO NOT necessarily imply that these terror events will transpire in reality but rather that there is a distinct possibility they could theoretically occur based on the cited data. Historically speaking, once a major false-flag is exposed (e.g., the Super Bowl XLV Nuclear Terror Plot), the terror plot is immediately canceled or postponed. State-sponsored acts of terror must have a prior paper trail in order to set-up patsies, prime scapegoats, create plausible deniability, as well as mislead the public from the true perpetrators of terror. By first identifying and then connecting the dots of said terror paper trail, has successfully blown the whistle on numerous terror related plots. Please spread the word and help make terrorism a thing of the past. Blessed are the Peacemakers. Namaste
Truther RSS