There’s a famous photo of Jim Morrison on the bridge of the USS Bon Homme Richard in Jan. 1964 with his father Rear Admiral George S. Morrison. In the photo Jim looks clean cut and sober. A few months later on Aug. 4th, 1964 his father oversaw the false flag operation of the 2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident, the one that Pres. Johnson used as a pretext to start the war in Vietnam. Shortly after that Jim Morrison began his descendent into drugs & Rock and Roll. “Father, I want to kill you” were his famous lyrics. Also the Doors song, Unknown Soldier is very telling. The official Doors video is prophetic. On July 3rd, 1971, Rear Admiral Morrison attended the decommission ceremony for the USS Bon Homme Richard while Jim Morrison deliberately overdosed on Heroin in Paris–killing himself. Oliver Stone forgot to tell this part of the story in his movie. The problem of being born in an Illuminati family is that if you have any morals at all–it just kills you.
These programs are ongoingDr. Colin Ross MD speaks in 2009 in Los Angeles with Roseanne Barr, Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips about CIA mind control, MK-Ultra and the documented history of Project Blue Bird and Project Artichoke.
There’s a myth that these mind control/psychiatric torture programs stopped in the 1970s.
No they did not
They were outed in the 1970s – and the all future work has been classified.
It’s the 50th anniversary of JFK’s untimely death. So why is the Obama Administration still refusing to release assassination records? Abby Martin, host of RT’s show Breaking the Set, interviews WhoWhatWhy editor Russ Baker about this. Russ also articulates the larger picture surrounding this enduring mystery.
The government has essentially invoked the 5th amendment to avoid self-incrimination. But we don’t need them to admit official complicity in JFK’s assassination. The evidence is in and it’s overwhelming. See “JFK: An Unsolved Murder” in the reference section, for instance. We don’t know the names of everyone involved, but we know they must still be in positions of power for the coverup to continue this long.
In this sixth part of the ongoing Sibel Edmonds Gladio B conversation, we ask the question: Who is at the top of the pyramid. We look beyond the usual suspects and follow the money back to the industries and lobbies whose existence depends on the perpetuation of boogeymen enemies.
See Previous Gladio Episodes Here:
A federal district court judge in San Francisco has ruled that National Security Letter (NSL) provisions in federal law violate the Constitution. The decision came in a lawsuit challenging a NSL on behalf of an unnamed telecommunications company represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
In the ruling publicly released today, Judge Susan Illston ordered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stop issuing NSLs and cease enforcing the gag provision in this or any other case. The landmark ruling is stayed for 90 days to allow the government to appeal.
“We are very pleased that the court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “The government’s gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience.”
The controversial NSL provisions EFF challenged on behalf of the unnamed client allow the FBI to issue administrative letters — on its own authority and without court approval — to telecommunications companies demanding information about their customers. The controversial provisions also permit the FBI to permanently gag service providers from revealing anything about the NSLs, including the fact that a demand was made, which prevents providers from notifying either their customers or the public. The limited judicial review provisions essentially write the courts out of the process. …
Well it’s a start anyway. Maybe someday the FBI and atty general holder will be forced to testify under oath as to their complicity in the OKC bombing.
LINK TO FABIAN THERAPY PDF
The Jesuits have openly taken the Vatican. Adam Weishaupt was a Jesuit trained lackey. This has lead to many conspiracy theories Some believe that There will never be another King of Vatican city. Jesus Christ instructed us to pray for our enemies. I think we should pray for everyone, these are strange times.
A week from now on March 21st, there will be a day in which Satanists around the world sacrifice human lives to Ishtar. I know this and so do many of you. Some of you reading this will be involved in such rituals. I feel sad and disturbed that such ancient rituals are still performed in this modern age of Aquarius. It really isn’t necessary to shed blood in order to honor Nature’s cycles. By Jupiter, any rational person knows that such rituals are now immoral. All I can do is pray for the souls of the innocent victims and pray for the misguided Illuminati members who perform and witness such rituals.
John Brennan brings heavy baggage to his new job as CIA Director – legal as well as moral – arguably making it risky for him to travel to more than 150 countries that are party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
It must be hard for Brennan to recognize that he cannot land in Europe, for example, without fear of being arrested and arraigned for kidnapping (also known as “extraordinary rendition”) and torture (now antiseptically called “EIT” for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which, by the way, is a direct translation of verschaerfte Vernehmungright out of the Gestapo handbook). …
Brennan’s checkered past has been an open secret. On Dec. 5, 2005, after finishing a stint as acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Brennan told Margaret Warner of the NewsHour that “rendition” (also known as kidnapping) is “an absolutely vital tool … producing intelligence that has saved lives.” (In his Feb. 7, 2013, testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on his nomination to be CIA Director, Brennan backed off the “saved lives” claim, since the committee had just completed its own comprehensive study disproving it.)
On the NewsHour, Brennan described rendition as “the practice or the process of rendering somebody from one place to another place. It is moving them, and the U.S. Government will frequently facilitate that movement from one country to another.”
Brennan’s co-panelist, another former CIA operations officer, objected to turning prisoners over to foreign intelligence services, insisting that, “It would be far better if the United States retained control of that terror suspect and did the interrogation itself.”
This drew a sharp rejoinder from Brennan: “Quite frankly I think it’s rather arrogant to think that we are the best in every case in terms of eliciting information from terror suspects.” Right. In the decades since World War II, many “friendly” intelligence services have acquired a lot more experience with verschaerfte Vernehmungthan the CIA, though it often served as the tutor.
(The term verschaerfte Vernehmung was not only coined by the Nazis, but the techniques were indistinguishable from those used during the presidency of George W. Bush, according to a 2007 article in the Atlantic. The major difference, so far, is that after WWII the torturers were punished as war crimes, with the penalty often death by hanging.)
NewsHour’s Warner asked Brennan if the U.S. employs rendition “because we want another country to do the dirty work?” Brennan replied: “It’s rather arrogant to think that we’re the only country that respects human rights.” …
In his prior letter, Holder answered a question about whether the President was claiming the right to kill citizens on U.S. soil. This follows the release of a memo showing that Holder’s description of the policy at Northwestern University Law School was narrower than the actual policy described within the Administration. A memo leaked to the press shows that the Administration has adopted a virtual limitless definition of imminence: “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Last week, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
It is not clear what Holder means by “engaged in combat” since the Administration memo shows that the Administration is using an absurdly broad definition of “imminent” threat under the kill list policy. Since the Administration has continued to assert that terrorists are engaged in a war against the U.S., the terse reply of Holder seems designed to preserve later flexibility.
Moreover, there is nothing in the constitutional claim of the Administration that reflects such a limitation. Deciding on where to kill a citizen would be an discretionary policy under the sweeping presidential authority described by the Administration. As noted in earlier columns (here and here and here), it is astonishing how citizens, including so many liberals and civil libertarians, Obama is saying that his appointment of a non-binding committee satisfied due process and relieves any need for judicial review. Moreover, if the President has the inherent authority to kill a citizen in Canada, it is not clear why such inherent authority would not exist a few hundred yards away in Detroit. The Administration has said that it can use the unilateral power when it considers a capture to pose undue risk to its personnel.
What is particularly striking is that we have a president who is asserting the right to kill any citizen but the Administration has classified memos on that authority and the Attorney General will only give a Senator a terse two line conclusory statement on scope. The Administration appears to believe that there is little need to explain the details on killing citizens, such as how it defines “combat.” Obviously, if there is a war occurring in the United States, a president has the right to put down insurrection or attacks on the federal government. These strikes concern targeting terrorists. One can easily foresee this or a future president insisting that an alleged terrorism conspiracy is a form of combat.
It would seem an obvious thing to explain how they define combat and whether an alleged terrorist would fall into it. Does this mean that there will be a category of non-combatant terrorists for domestic strikes? How is that defined? It seems like a hole big enough to fly a drone through.Since police can already use lethal force to stop an attack in progress, the answer leaves more questions than it answers in my view. For a citizen it would mean that he or she can be killed abroad on the basis of the Administration’s wildly broad definition of “imminent” but domestically would fall under a different “combat” definition. Where is the line between an “imminent” threat and “combat” drawn? Does Holder mean there is a different meaning to imminence when someone steps over the border? We already have the definition of “imminent” and the Administration’s new definition of “imminent.” Is this yet a third option? …