May 312014
 

J.T. Waldron

GW

One of history’s most ironic statements was made by then president George W. Bush on September 20th, 2001.  Addressing the world arena in a highly publicized address to a joint session of the House, he declares: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Once again,  our contemporary Orwellian world is realized through Merriam-Webster’s definition of terrorism:

ter·ror·ism

noun ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

For example, the state uses violent acts of torture to extract a confession, which serves the political purpose of supporting the torturer’s narrative.  Fear is the message received by both the gullible and the suspicious.  The gullible accept the establishment’s fable and fear the purported enemy du jour.  Those who suspect the reliability of a confession extracted through torture live in fear for a different reason. Anyone can be tortured into confessing anything.

Imagine if our country was the genuine recipient of an attack by rogue, extra-governmental outside invaders.  If the state had a sincere desire to locate and prosecute the culprits, it would recognize the absurdity of using torture to achieve its end.  In today’s reality, torture is a tool for propaganda aimed at promoting the official doctrine of state terrorists.

State torture is an act of terrorism.  It adheres to the definition of terrorism unless the state throws that definition into the memory hole where the Bush legal team dropped a previous definition of torture.

Under the watch of George W. Bush, the U.S. Attorney General’s office attempted to legally sanctify the use of torture by introducing a variety of ‘permissible methods of interrogation’ in the wake of 9/11. Sleep deprivation, binding in stress positions, and waterboarding were some of the techniques approved by the Bush administration’s legal counsel. Over a year ago, the Constitution Project released a 600 page report about detentions and torture since the 9/11 attacks. The project’s report clearly states “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and further elaborates about the extent to which torture was entertained in the Bush administration. While atrocities occurred in past wars, members of the Constitution Project have never before seen:

the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”

There was careful deliberation over political outcome of various torture atrocities after 9/11. Below is an illustration of those in the Bush hierarchy involved with the planning, justification, and execution of torture policies still in effect under the Obama Administration.   If forensic evidence fails to overcome the cognitive dissonance of those who still believe the official explanation for 9/11, remind them of today’s suspicious, extreme measures used in the continual harvest of 9/11 patsies.

tortaccount

Picture courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union. Click here to access the interactive version.

Apr 102014
 

J.T. Waldron

holder

It is the aim of a nation ruled by terrorists to render its population defenseless. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, having no qualms about the fast and furious distribution of arms to the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, wants to hamper U.S. gun owners with biometric locks.

To get an idea of the extent of Holder’s desire to disarm the public, a video of his address to the Women’s Democratic Club in 1995 shows him instructing the group to promote distaste, contempt and fear of a common tool that was historically essential for winning their freedoms. Gun hysteria must metastasize with “every day, every school, and every level”.

This earlier campaign planted the seed for the now infamous incidents of children being disciplined for pointing pencils like pistols or eating pop-tarts in an impressionable manner. This is the culture diverting generations away from their natural rights through the diminished expectations behind a curriculum like Common Core which is designed to accommodate a fresh damaged batch of impressionables crippled by environmental toxins, geo-engineering, deadly food additives, genetic modifications and vaccines,

Like any other terrorist, Eric Holder clearly intends to avoid any pushback from his victims. He has actively paved the way for an ideal circumstance that creates a gross imbalance of power. One intimidating demonstration of this imbalance is the act of terrorism that killed U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process. Under the banner of the so-called ‘war on terror’, this particular U.S. war crime relies on the executive branch as a ‘suspected’ citizen’s accuser, judge, jury and executioner. The public is to understand that there would be no opportunity for this undesirable citizen to realize he is targeted, know what he is accused of or confront his accusers. That unruly person has somehow already sealed his fate according to Obama’s executive star chamber. Eric Holder serves as an accessory to this crime by actively misleading the public as to the legality of such extrajudicial executions and pushing public acceptance of a government without a constitution. Clouding the appearance of these types of crimes, Holder cries “extraordinary circumstance” and ironically refers to the two most preventable of extraordinary circumstances – 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. See how he pretends to be obtuse about the U.S. Constitution under a gentle inquiry:

Holder is fully aware of how the Constitution constrains government over-reach. He’s simply violating his oath of office by misleading the public about the purpose of various rights like the 2nd Amendment. In the first video clip above, he talks about how a citizen is able to “enjoy their Second Amendment rights” by using an electronic bracelet that enables the ‘authorized owner’ to use a specific gun. Holder is perpetuating the illusion of the 2nd amendment being useful only for outdoor sports. When somebody is exercising their 2nd amendment rights as they were intended, it is hardly an enjoyable experience. Expect life threatening situations involving the stress of combat for fending off an attacker or a tyrannical government. It’s Holder’s intent to make it difficult to exercise what the 2nd Amendment was truly intended to protect. This is a logical goal for a terrorist regime and the Constitution has a remedy for situations like these:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence, 1776

Mar 272014
 

J.T. Waldron

smallobama

When, in an effort to fight terrorism, you send a drone to murder a U.S. citizen without due process, you are committing an act of terrorism. It is terrorism regardless of how many unconstitutional executive orders were created to justify the murder of a U.S. citizen without due process.  One unique U.S. Senator recognizes this dilemma and is willing to act within her power to call for the impeachment of Barack Obama.  Texas Senator Kesha Roberts states:

with the avowed assassination of at least four American citizens, Anwar Al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son, Samir Khan, and Jude Mohammed, without benefit of due process of law. Indeed, the death warrants against these individuals were effectively signed in secret, in a committee which is overseen directly by the president.

On May 22nd, 2013, the Obama administration admitted to killing four U.S. citizens in drone strikes outside of Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder states in a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman:

Since 2009, the United States, in the conduct of U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Qa’ida and its associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities, has specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi. The United States is further aware of three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period: Samir Khan, ‘Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States.

KeshaAs a means to distract attention from the obviously facilitated attacks against U.S. citizens on 9/11/01, an unverifiable enemy whose name was derived from a database would give birth to unprecedented media craze. “Al Qaeda” blossomed into a supreme illusion to promote a distracting narrative that contradicts the implications of World Trade Center demolitions. This vague enemy remains a convenient justification for an endless war on terror that is ironically run by terrorists.

On 9/11, the wheels of justice ground to a halt and have been spinning backwards to this day. Kesha Roberts brings a modicum of sanity to a world gone mad with the endless ‘war on terror’.  Roberts cites the following violations that justify impeachment:

  1. Violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act with Libya,
  2. Violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments of the  Constitution with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),
  3. Violated the 4th Amendment with the NSA,
  4. Violated the 5th Amendment by committing an act of terrorism with drones
  5. Violated the Preamble of the United States Constitution through the Affordable Care Act and the Wall Street Bailout.
Feb 182014
 

Actual terrorists must continue to draw attention away from themselves.

This video shows FEMA agents telling new recruits that our founding fathers were “the first terrorists” and that any activist civilians who are dissatisfied with their current government are considered domestic terrorists by the CIA.

Feb 032014
 

J.T. Waldron

Merriem Webster provides the following two definitions:

Terrorist:  a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism:  the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Starting with 9/11.  There are at least three anomalies involving the three World Trade Center buildings that cannot be explained without the use of explosives.

First, the pools of molten iron found in the foundations of all three buildings.

Second is the complete annihilation of all three buildings and their contents.

Third, the rate of descent of all three buildings is much too fast to be a spontaneous collapse resulting from fires.

These three anomalies on their own are enough to demonstrate that 9/11 was facilitated and prepared by people most would refer as “insiders”.  Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an excellent source for analysis and evidence verifying these events.  They highlight many additions like the tiny microspheres of iron and trace elements of explosives found in all the dust samples recovered from ground zero.

Honestly the first three items are enough to convince any citizen with a background in high-school physics that 9/11 was an inside job.  Any attempts to distract the public from these facts are intended to protect the political objectives behind 9/11.

The definition of terrorism has two main elements.  The first is the “use of violent acts to frighten the people”.  What was this violent act in 9/11?  It is the murder of over 3000 people in four commercial flights, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center buildings.  This event was timed to maximize television exposure and fear among one of the largest television audiences in history.  All eyes were affixed upon the World Trade Center buildings after the first plane hit the North World Trade Center tower, so a maximum audience was achieved to witness the second plane hitting the South tower.  The final act in this theatre of horror was the destruction of the Twin Towers and, for the patient viewers, WTC 7, the building collapsing at freefall within its own footprint while never hit by a plane.

WTC7: The smoking gun.

The second part of the definition of terrorism, “in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.”  What is the political goal of 9/11?  9/11 promotes the false choice between security and liberty.  It helped create widespread apathy over torture, indefinite detention and rendition.  9/11 reunited modern America with German politics of World War II, complete with the re-emergence of “Homeland Security” and the “Patriot Act”.  It promoted widespread prejudice against Arabs and Muslims and tacit acceptance of unilateral attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Syria.  Using 9/11 for justification, modern leaders advance their perceived right to violate constitutional law with arrests and prosecution absent due process, complete and total surveillance of all electronic communications among U.S. citizens, and a unique star chamber calling for the assassination of U.S. citizens with or without the use of pilotless drones.

The term “terrorist” is a cliché used by every group hoping to invoke the fears of 9/11 to achieve their objectives.  Most recently, citizens who protest fracking were referred to as terrorists.  The FBI, CIA, NSA and TSA, along with any of the other organizations that have no business being a part of the U.S. governmental structure, find justification for their existence through 9/11.  Just as “Al Qaeda” was a label for a U.S. generated database developed after the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Sudan, the word “terrorist” is used as a brand to discourage home-schoolers, constitutionalists, 2nd Amendment advocates, preppers, “End the Fed”, and, ironically, the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Who are the terrorists behind 9/11?  We will begin by ignoring the patsies for whom the blame for 9/11 was so obviously intended.  Bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atta and the other fools hopping planes on behalf of their handlers could not have initiated the various war games intended to distract interceptors nor could they have altered the chain of command for shoot-downs months before the event.  Our attention should instead be drawn towards two levels of participants.  First, the people who were most likely involved directly with this complex, deadly theatrical presentation and, second, those who continue to defend the lies of 9/11 and the very political objectives 9/11’s act of terrorism was intended to achieve.  It is these two class of participants that have truly earned the label “American Terrorist”.