WACO


WACO FEB 20 Genome Blood Quanta Nov 19 Dec 13

The Waco siege and business negotiation – tkfpc.com *

Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum War

A fire erupted, killing 76 Branch Davidians, including 25 children and two pregnant women. Koresh, who had been wounded earlier by FBI gunfire, died in the attack, but may have asked Schneider to shoot him and put him out of his misery. Schneider also died, possibly by his own hand. The source of the fire has been the subject of much argument.

The Texas Protocol used in WACO, in Corpus Christi with me though under Gregg Abbot Ken Paxton direction against me. On February 20 David Koresh had a hearing on sex abuse allegations, and to tank him in the scheme, he was not served the notice to appear on Feb 20 court hearing, The February 28 slaughter then ensued. As with me fabricated allegations garner support for police operation to quell sex abuse rings, allegedly David Koresh, allegedly Tom Dunham, allegedly Ed Donegan. It is FBI backed CIA NSA backed Agent Provocateur’s who manufacture the basis for CIA FBI NSA response by creating seeming child victimization. #CrisisInstigators

Wounded Knee assault began February 21

Benjamin Lloyd Roden (January 5, 1902 – October 22, 1978) was an American religious leader and the prime organizer of the Branch Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Association.

By 1940, the Rodens were members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA) in Kilgore, Texas. It is possible that the appeal of the SDA lay at least in part in its similarities to some aspects of Judaism, such as practising the sabbath on the seventh day and abiding by the dietary laws of the Old Testament, but in addition the couple had been given Bible Readings for the Home Circle as a wedding present by Lois’s mother. That book was a publication of the SDA and it is probable, although not certain, that somewhere in Lois’s family there was already an involvement with that church.

The Rodens later moved from the church at Kilgore to that at Odessa, where Ben became a head elder. Somewhere around this time, in the early- to mid-1940s, the couple became influenced by the Shepherd’s Rod movement, which had splintered from the SDA, and probably visited its base at the Mount Carmel Center, near Waco, Texas, even if only briefly. They were disfellowshiped from their SDA church, which caused them offence because they had helped to finance the church building and felt that they therefore had a right to use it. Various accounts exist of a stand-off between Lois and the church, with her occupying it for several days and receiving supplies from Ben and their son, George.

In 1948 Odessa was also the home of First Lady Barbara Bush, and the onetime home of former Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. Former President George H.W. Bush has been quoted as saying “At Odessa we became Texans and proud of it.”

Barbara Pierce Bush (June 8, 1925 at Booth Memorial Hospital, which at that time was located at 314 East 15th Street in Manhattan, New York City, – April 17, 2018) was the first lady of the United States from 1989 to 1993 as the wife of President George H. W. Bush.

Booth Memorial Hospital is the name of any of the hospitals affiliated with The Salvation Army

It is my belief the FBI and Free Masonry are a single Fuedal power which includes use of assets, criminal elements, eploited by the fbi endangering the assets and others, in a fusion of criminal and Free Masonry sapient and color of law Gang capabilities, able to stand down for insertion of Confidential Informants to Conspire Against Rights of enemie of Masonry in the USA and then act under Color of Law responing to planted evidence, Abuse of Proccess which the FBI specializs in with COINTELPRO.

In this system is not only arbitrary targeting it also includes shake downs benefiting Masonic causes in asset siezures, and the bail out of guilty Masonry moles who need to cover their past or currentl illegal activities building their own image of glamour as they accuse the innocent of being criminals and fake cases under COINTELPRO.

Russian Rough Music Machine, or was a Free Masonry Gangstalk Machine?

‘Mind control’ machine – FBI so desperate it considered using Russian device on Koresh retrieved from ROWLAND NETHAWAY Senior editor https://wacotrib.com/ and copied or modified to here

A wire story reveals that several weeks before Koresh and 78 of his followers died in the inferno that destroyed their home, some Russian scientists demonstrated a machine that U.S. intelligence, military and law enforcement officials that supposedly sent subliminal messages over the telephone. These subliminal messages were supposed to take over Koresh’s subconscious and cause him to peacefully lead his flock out to waiting FBI agents.

Buying sales pitch

The only evidence that the Russian mind-control machine actually works seems to be the fact that the FBI was buying this sales pitch. Most people would have thought there was something odd about the Russians, who lost the Cold War, trying to peddle a super-secret mind-control weapon to the Americans, who won the Cold War.

Still, according to the newspaper, Killion told the Russian mind-control pitch men that he wanted to use the device on Koresh. The Russian who demonstrated the machine then said he only brought an “entry level” device to the United States.

Only after the FBI offered to fly to Russia to pick up one of their professional mind-control machines did the Russians admit that the machine might not function as hoped. As a matter of fact, the Russians said it was possible that their mind-control machine actually could have the reverse effect and make Koresh more violent. Perhaps that explains the sudden collapse of the Soviet empire.

Then the FBI began its nightly high-amp assault on the compound with Tibetan chants, Christmas carols, bugle calls, sounds of locomotives, dentist drills and rabbits being slaughtered. Each new provocation was a sign to the Davidians that what they had been told was true.

As it turned out, it appears that all of the FBI’s psychological warfare ploys had the reverse effect on Koresh and his followers.

After the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms botched the raid on the compound, the FBI took control of the siege. It turned out to be a case-study of the worst ways to coax an apocalyptic cult into surrendering.

This was a group that believed with religious fervor that government agents would come to destroy them. It had been foretold by their messiah and the Bible. Their duty was to battle and die for their beliefs, which would lead to their salvation.

After the initial 45-minute gunbattle, the surviving Davidians saw an army of federal troops surround their home. They were menaced day and night with government helicopters and tanks. They watched FBI tank drivers destroy their property.

Then the FBI began its nightly high-amp assault on the compound with Tibetan chants, Christmas carols, bugle calls, sounds of locomotives, dentist drills and rabbits being slaughtered. Each new provocation was a sign to the Davidians that what they had been told was true.

Irritated and tired, the FBI came up with the idea to drive Koresh and his devoted followers out with a tank and tear gas assault. For the Davidians, it was another sign. At least 78 Davidians, mostly women and children under 15, died in the resulting inferno.

A Justice Department investigation of the siege found no one guilty of making any mistakes. But mistakes abound, and so should lessons.

Waco Siege Investigator Found Dead In His Home *

By Cindy Loose
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 29, 2000; Page B03

Carlos Ghigliotti, who had been retained by a U.S. House committee to help investigate the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Tex., was found dead in Laurel under unexplained circumstances yesterday.

“We’re investigating it as a homicide,” said Laurel police spokesman Jim Collins. Ghigliotti, 42, was found about 1:30 p.m. in the 600 block of Washington Boulevard. His body was badly decomposed, said police. There were no signs of a break-in or a struggle at the home, where Ghigliotti ran his business, Infrared Technologies Corp., police said. An expert in thermal imaging and videotape, Ghigliotti told the House Government Reform Committee in October that his analysis of tapes at Waco indicated that an FBI agent fired shots at the compound on April 19, the final day of the siege-a view disputed by the FBI.

Michael Caddell, lead lawyer in a $100 million wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the Waco siege, said last night that he recently had discussed the findings with Ghigliotti and intended to retain him-not only because his work was impressive but also because Caddell’s first expert had suffered a stoke recently. Caddell said that two weeks ago he wrote to Waco Special Counsel John C. Danforth, urging that he interview Ghigliotti immediately. Caddell said he’d heard of Ghigliotti’s death yesterday from Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), chair of the committee that retained Ghigliotti. Police called Burton, Caddell said, because his business card was found in Ghigliotti’s pocket.

A building manager, concerned that no one had seen Ghigliotti for some weeks, contacted police, who found the body. Michael McNulty, who made a documentary film about Waco that was instrumental in reopening the investigation, said he had been looking forward to seeing Ghigliotti’s conclusions. He added, “My impression is that the work he did was significant and important.”

Ghigliotti’s body was transported to the chief medical examiner’s office in Baltimore for an autopsy.

HENCH adds: An expert in thermal imaging and videotape, Ghigliotti told the House Government Ref

Was WACO, the Branch Davidians secretive compound, Part of a Middle East North Africa MENA Airport tied plan?

Image

WACO as a think tank for undercover CIA work in Middle East North Africa was well positioned a short flight from WACO Texas to Little ROck Arkansas in the Oil plains

Paul Wilcher

Paul Wilcher was the lawyer to whistle blowers Rodney Stich and Gunter Karl Russbacher. Wilcher died in disputed circumstances a month after writing a letter to then-new US Attorney General Janet Reno alleging that the CIA was killing people to cover up mind control experiments, and that the Waco incident was one of these events.

[Manufacture of Propaganda based on Hebrew or other Bible quotes to signal device plans of what God wants, putting religious populations under Scriptures guidance via Treatise].

Wilcher alleged that the David Koresh cult in Waco was a front operation for a CIA team of sleeper-agent assassins, these being Koresh and six others, and that similar CIA-sponsored cults were run in five other locations

Wilcher claimed that Koresh and earlier cult leaders Jim Jones and Charles Manson had received mind control training from the CIA.

WACO was on contract to pump propaganda out for the CIA in the Middle East

A PANORAMIC HISTORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

* * *

REMARKS TO THE WESTERN NEW YORK LIBRARY RESOURCES COUNCIL

By James Ostrowski March 22, 1995

Tonight I will attempt to provide you with a panoramic history of the first amendment. Since I have about 400 years to cover, I will not stop long in any one place. Along the way, I hope to at least show that the history of the first amendment is inextricably linked with the whole history of the nation and that the opposing sides in the struggle for free speech have been the same figures who have fought one another, both literally and figuratively, over the central political issues America has faced.

The First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” As they pertain to the issue of free speech, we may narrow the words down to the following: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.”

The First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. Its history cannot be understood apart from the history of the Bill of Rights. It is now virtually forgotten that for its first twelve years, this country was ruled by a Congress of the States, an arrangement that was formalized by the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. While operating under this system–which historians now assure us was unworkable–all the United States did was defeat the most powerful nation on earth in a major land war which lasted eight years.

There is no time here to present a complete history of the events that led up to the replacement of the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution. Suffice it say that certain influential Federalist thinkers believed that the nation needed a stronger and more centralized government. They disingenuously arranged for a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation. What they actually did, however, and what they probably had in mind all along, was to replace the Articles entirely with a completely new constitution.

When they presented this new constitution to the public, however, in 1787, contrary to the popular image of universal approval, the document engendered great opposition from what we now call the anti-Federalists. In addition to their belief that life under the Articles really wasn’t all that bad, the Anti- Federalists’ main objection was that the new constitution lacked sufficient guarantees of individual rights. What would prevent this powerful new government from simply turning into a tyranny, an event which Benjamin Franklin predicted on the floor of the Constitutional Convention?

A bitter struggle ensued between the Federalists and anti- Federalists in various state conventions called to consider the new Constitution. The Constitution was barely ratified in several states. The vote in New York was 30 to 27 in favor. Many other states insisted that the price of their ratification was that a Bill of Rights be added. It was at that time that Alexander Hamilton made the now-quaint argument that a Bill of Rights was not needed since the Constitution did not give the government the power to violate individual rights. It is good that this argument was rejected because the Supreme Court has virtually never ruled that an act of government was unconstitutionally beyond the scope of the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

In any event, the Anti-Federalists rejected Hamilton’s argument and the Bill of Rights became the price the Federalists had to pay to get the strong central government they wanted. The first eight of the ten amendments constituting the Bill of Rights define certain individual rights that the federal government may not violate. The first protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The second protects the right to bear arms. The third protects us against having troops quartered in our homes. The fourth protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The fifth guarantees due process of law. The sixth protects the right to a fair trial in criminal cases. The seventh protects the right to trial by jury in civil cases. The eighth forbids excessive bail and cruel punishment.

The ninth and tenth amendments are in a different category. The Ninth Amendment states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to respond to the second argument Alexander Hamilton made against attaching a bill of rights to the Constitution. Hamilton argued that the expression of certain rights such as free speech and the right to bear arms could, by longstanding rules of legal interpretation, be construed to deny other possible rights. The Ninth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to make clear that rights other than those specified were indeed retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Tenth Amendment makes clear that a right or power need not be expressly granted to the States or the people by the Constitution. Rather, the States and the people are irrebuttably presumed to have such a power, unless that power is expressly taken from them by the Constitution.

The ninth and tenth amendments are the forgotten amendments. I know of no case where either was used to support the case for freedom of speech or of the press. The truth is that these amendments are out of favor in those circles that select the federal judges who construe the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is best understood as the enactment of a philosophy of individual natural rights that dominated American political thought in the Eighteenth Century. Natural rights philosophy emerged in the Seventeenth Century as an explanation of the proper function of government that was in sharp contrast to the philosophy that had prevailed in the Middle Ages. During that time, Europe was ruled by kings who had acquired power basically by invading countries, defeating the natives in battle, and ruling them by force of arms. Kings soon found propaganda useful in subduing their subjects and there was no shortage of intellectuals who would curry favor with the king by announcing in obscure treatises that kings ruled by divine right and their authority was absolute.

Along about the Seventeenth Century, however, certain authors like John Locke offered an alternative explanation of the basis for political authority. Locke and others less famous argued that individuals possessed certain rights by virtue of their nature as rational human beings. They had the rights to life, liberty and property, for example. To secure these rights, governments were established, whose powers were delegated to them by the people for the limited purposes of maintaining order and protecting natural rights. While governments were to protect rights, these philosophers emphasized that the rights belonged to individuals by nature, and were not granted by the government.

The philosophy of natural rights was a powerful ideological weapon against kings and tyrants during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries in England. During that time King Charles I lost his head and later kings lost much of their authority to an elected parliament.

Throughout the Eighteenth Century, radical political tracts published in England made their way over to America and the highly literate colonists devoured them and passed them along to their neighbors. Historians now say that the two most influential writers of that period were the Englishmen John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. 138 of their essays were collected and published in the colonies as Cato’s Letters, after the Roman statesman who committed suicide over the death of the Roman Republic. Clinton Rossiter states:

“No one can spend any time in the newspapers, library inventories, and pamphlets of colonial America without realizing that Cato’s Letters rather than Locke’s Civil Government was the most popular, quotable, esteemed source of political ideas in the colonial period.”

In four of Cato’s Letters, Trenchard and Gordon set forth their views of freedom of speech. As Jonathan Emord writes:

“Trenchard and Gordon believed free speech ‘essential to free Government.” They perceived a property in one’s speech and also understood the rights of property and speech to ‘always go together.'”

Trenchard and Gordon identified three central values that the right of free speech is designed to advance. First, freedom of speech allows people to criticize the government and make it more responsive to popular will. Second, freedom of speech is necessary for the pursuit of truth in science and art. Third, freedom of speech is essential for individual self-fulfillment and expression.

By the time Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1787, it was accepted by the leading political thinkers in America that freedom of speech and of the press were natural rights belonging to each citizen. Jefferson, away in France, chastised his protege Madison for failing to include a bill of rights in the Constitution which should include, among others provisions, “freedom of the press.” Madison, then a congressman, drafted a bill of rights, drawing heavily upon the Virginia Declaration of Rights that was the work primarily of anti-Federalist George Mason. Madison’s First Amendment, modified in various ways of no great importance to us now, became the law of the land in 1791.

Having been ratified, the first amendment seemed to attract little attention for the next 126 years. The amendment did not stop the Federalists from enacting the Alien and Sedition laws in 1798 which outlawed speech critical of the government. Thus, in ten short years, the wily Federalists went from arguing that no first amendment was necessary because the federal government was not delegated any power over the press, to arguing that the federal government could regulate political speech even after the passage of the first amendment.

Jefferson, typically, saw the contradiction. He wrote to the naive Madison, who had seen no need for a first amendment:

“Among other enormities, [the Sedition act] undertakes to make certain matters criminal tho’ one of the amendments to the Constitution has expressly taken printing presses, etc., out of their coercion.”

No one challenged the Sedition law in the Supreme Courts, but Jefferson, the ever-vigilant libertarian, took action which was to have consequences far beyond the narrow issue of free speech. He authored–anonymously–the Kentucky Resolution. Jefferson wrote:

[T]he several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated to that government certain powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect.”

Thus, Jefferson invented the controversial theory of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws in order to deal with the free speech crisis caused by passage of the Sedition act.

Hannis Taylor called Jefferson’s compact doctrine the “Pandora’s Box” out of which flew the “closely related doctrines of nullification and secession,” which he notes, with less than perfect foresight, “were extinguished once and forever by the Civil War.” Jefferson’s biographer, Willard Sterne Randall agrees:

“[Jefferson] forthrightly held that where the national government exercised powers not specifically delegated to it, each state ‘has an equal right to judge . . . the mode and measure of redress.’ . . . He was, he assured Madison, ‘confident in the good sense of the American people,’ but if they did not rally round ‘the true principles of our federal compact,’ he was ‘determined . . . to sever [Virginia] from that union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government . . . in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.'”

Sixty-three years later, a man named Lincoln would condemn the doctrine first forged by Jefferson as “an insidious debauching of the public mind.” Much of American history can be seen as an on- going debate between Jefferson and Lincoln and this is true on the issue of free speech. In 1839, Alexis de Tocqueville had written:

Among the twelve million people living in the United States, there is not one single man who has dared to suggest restricting the freedom of the press.”
Just twenty-five years later, Lincoln, true to his Federalist and Hamiltonian roots, felt no compunction whatever about jailing during the Civil War a total of thirteen thousand civilians who had expressed pro-Southern views. According to historian Arthur Ekirch, this was often done “without any sort of trial or after only cursory hearings before a military tribunal.”

Another twist on the Lincoln-Jefferson dichotomy is their respective positions on habeas corpus. Jefferson complained that the “eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws” was not protected in the new Constitution. Lincoln in contrast, illegally suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and simply ignored an order by the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court to release a political prisoner.

I think it is clear then that once again the first amendment failed to protect free speech in time of crisis. The next time free speech was challenged during wartime was World War I. During that war, run by a liberal Democratic president, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, which forbade among other things, promoting insubordination or refusal of duty among the armed forces. Three persons convicted under this act appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court, arguing that their activities were privileged and shielded from prosecution by the first amendment. In these cases, the illegal behavior consisted of publishing a pamphlet opposing the draft, publishing a pamphlet sympathetic to Germany, and speaking out in favor of socialism.

Had the three defendants, including Eugene V. Debs, been judged by a Supreme Court sympathetic to the natural human right of free speech, their convictions would certainly have been overturned. History, however, played a cruel trick on them. The judge assigned to write the opinions of the court in all three cases was thoroughly Hamiltonian and Federalist and was the most vociferous critic of natural rights theory America has ever seen– Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Holmes had nothing but scorn for the man who first insisted that a free speech amendment be added to the Constitution: Thomas Jefferson. On the one hundredth anniversary of John Marshall taking the bench as chief judge of the Supreme Court, 1901, Holmes made reference to Jefferson’s political enemy and cousin. He spoke of:

“the fortunate circumstance that the appointment of Chief Justice fell to John Adams, instead of to Jefferson a month later, and so gave it to a Federalist and loose constructionist to start the working of the Constitution.”

Then he obliquely noted that:

“Time has been on Marshall’s side, and the theory which Hamilton argued, and [Marshall] decided, and Webster spoke, and Grant fought, and Lincoln died, is now our corner-stone.”

I say “obliquely” because Holmes never states just what that “theory” is that is now our corner-stone. Whatever that “corner- stone” is, however, it is safe to assume that Holmes thought Jefferson’s philosophy was now buried under it.

Is this the man you would want judging your first amendment case, with ten years in prison at stake? Let me tell you more. In a famous essay entitled “Natural Law,” Holmes tells us in stark terms just what he thinks of the natural rights philosophy that underlies the first amendment:

“There is in all men a demand for the superlative, so much so that the poor devil who has no other way of reaching it attains it by getting drunk. It seems to me that this demand is at the bottom of the philosopher’s effort to prove that truth is absolute and of the jurist’s search for criteria of universal validity which he collects under the head of natural law.”

Rejecting natural law, Holmes gives us his own theory of law: it is “the majority will of that nation that could lick all others,” a legal philosophy that is not surprising coming from an officer in the Union army in the Civil War.

What does this odd man do with the three defendants who claim to have been speaking freely? He creates out of thin air his own law of free speech:

“We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [The] question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of degree and proximity. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

Based on this clear and present danger doctrine, the court upheld all three convictions.

Holmes was finally put in his place by a contemporary who was even more cynical, more sarcastic and more brilliant: H.L. Mencken. In a review of a collection of Holmes’ dissents, Mencken wrote:

“In the three Espionage Act cases, one finds a clear statement of the doctrine that, in war time, the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment cease to have any substance, and may be set aside by any jury that has been sufficiently inflamed by a district attorney itching for higher office. . . . I find it hard to reconcile such notions with any plausible concept of liberalism. . . . If I do not misread his plain words, he was actually no more than an advocate of lawmakers. There, indeed, is the clue to his whole jurisprudence. He believed that the law-making bodies should be free to experiment almost ad libitum, that the courts should not call a halt upon them until they clearly passed the uttermost bounds of reason, that everything should be sacrificed to their autonomy, including, apparently, even the Bill of Rights. . . . Like any other man, of course, a judge sometimes permits himself the luxury of inconsistency. Mr. Justice Holmes, it seems to me, did so in the Abrams case, in which his dissenting opinion was clearly at variance with the prevailing opinion in the Debs case, written by him. But I think it is quite fair to say that his fundamental attitude was precisely as I have stated it.”

Ironically, and largely by accident as Mencken suggests, Holmes’ clear and present danger doctrine, originally used to provide the government with the power to regulate political speech during wartime, became the basis for later case law which offers much protection for political speech that urges unpopular or even illegal acts, except where such advocacy “is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

The present-day formulation of the clear and present danger doctrine has resulted in a substantial amount of protection for free speech. However, as the three World War I cases demonstrate, what constitutes a “clear and present danger” will differ from judge to judge, often because of the political and philosophical views of the judge. Judges who are hostile to the philosophical basis of the right of free speech and to the values that right promotes, could at any time shift first amendment doctrine back to the days when speaking out against the draft could land one in jail for ten years. That is why it is important to understand the history and philosophy of the first amendment.

It is important to understand that the first amendment is historically and philosophically a Jeffersonian creation, an expression of the natural rights of the individual against the state; that as such it is in continual danger of being abrogated and interpreted out of existence by the anti-Jeffersonians whose uncanny knack for achieving political power is the direct result of their love of that power: the Hamiltons, the Marshalls, the Lincolns, the Holmes’s, the Nixon’s, the Renquists, and Robert Borks of this world.

In the end, as Learned Hand said,

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution or court can save it.”

Thus, we may wish to take Thomas Jefferson’s oath: “I have sworn on the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

https://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2013/04/assassination-incorporated-1600-penn.html?fbclid=IwAR3fWJwIdHfWdG2BUZwEfIEJUeJjGZy4c_PEW_0ViMO6uawxipercLd01JU

Once again another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter and anti matter……

The reason the CIA, NSA and Napolitano were informed of the Smedinghoff assassination, was this was one of their own and would bring high attention as Chris Stevens. There could not be “inquiries” into this, as Anne Smedinghoff like Chandra Levy left strings which if pulled would reveal other higher profile operations.

This cell in the NSA was cleverly put together, and the NSA director is disavows any direct knowledge of operations, so it is never under Congressional oversight. The coordinator for this cell is Eric Holder, and is why he was brought into the Obama regime for the beginning in order to run this cell, as it was Holder who was the hatchet man in the Clinton Administration who under Janet Reno ran the Waco operations that murdered the Branch Davidians and burned their children alive for political effect, and it was Holder who ran the mass assassination of the group around Sec. Ron Brown when he was executed with an ice pellet bullet, and the surviving flight attendent on ground after the crash was murdered as she wandered around ground zero. Vince Foster’s termination was coordinated by the hatchet man Eric Holder.

BARBARA WISE – Commerce Department Staffer. Died 11/29/96– As the scandals continued to swirl around the Commerce Department, and most of all about John Huang, one of Hang’s associates, Barbara Wise, was found dead in her locked office at the Department of Commerce, partially nude and covered with bruises *

CHARLES MEISSNER – Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Economic Policy. Following Ron Brown’s death, John Huang was placed on a Commerce Department contract that allowed him to retain his security clearance. Who gave it to him? Charles Meissner. Shortly thereafter, Charles Meissner died in the crash of a small plane.

#20 FOLLOW THE MONEY DEPARTMENT – FUNDRAISERS ACTUALLY NAMED “RAISER” 20. VICTOR RAISER II – National Finance Co-Chairman, Clinton for President Campaign C. VICTOR RAISER II DIES IN PLANE CRASH WITH SON; MAJOR FIGURE AMONG DEMOCRATS By Douglas Turner Aug 1, 1992

# 21. MONTGOMERY RAISER – Son of Victor. Both men died, 7-30-92, in a private plane crash in Alaska, en route to a fishing expedition.

#23. DUANE GARRETT – Radio Host and Al Gore fund raiser. Died: 7/26/95 – A lawyer and a talk show host for KGO-AM in San Francisco, Duane was the campaign finance chairman for Diane Feinstein’s run for the senate, and was a friend and fundraiser for Al Gore.

24. HERSHEL FRIDAY – Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.

#25 Ed Willey covered earlier,

In the summer of 1995, sources have told TIME, Willey was in the midst of a brief relationship with a British-born soccer coach whom she made the target of a bizarre ruse almost straight out of an Aaron Spelling production. In an interview with the FBI, Willey’s former confidant Julie Steele has claimed that the onetime socialite told her lover, Shaun Docking, she was pregnant with his twins-even though Willey had told Steele she was not pregnant. Willey’s motive? She wanted to get back at him for Fourth of July plans gone awry, Steele told the FBI. The plot grew more serpentine. March 30 1998

Barack and Michelle Obama have two daughters: Malia Ann born July 4, 1998

#27 James Bunch dead Feb 19 1994

# 29. JON PARNELL WALKER – Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. August 15, 1993. Was investigating Morgan Guarantee scandal. Mysteriously fell to his death from an apartment balcony. He was excited about this new apartment which was being fixed up for him, and was just visiting it, not living there yet, the same apartment which was alleged to have been a secret getaway (CIA safehouse) which Foster may have visited.

#32 Obituary for Calvin R. Walraven, of North Little Rock, ARwww.arkansasonline.com › obituaries › calvin-walrave… Mar 7, 2017 = Calvin R. Walraven died on February 19, 2017

#33 33. NEIL MOODY – son of Vince Foster’s Widow’s new husband. Died Aug. 25, 1996 Following Vincent Foster’s murder, Moody had discovered something very unsettling among his stepmother’s private papers and was threatening to go public with it just prior to the beginning of the Democratic National Convention. He was alleged to have been talking to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post about a blockbuster story. Witnesses said they saw Neil Moody sitting in his car arguing with another person just prior to HIS old clunker CAR SUDDENLY SPEEDING OFF OUT OF CONTROL AND HITTING A BRICK WALL.

#35 Barry Seal TWA pilot my father talked about. Adler Berriman “Barry” Seal (July 16, 1939 – February 19, 1986 Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, now known to have been a drug runner for the CIA, reportedly kept in contact with Bill Clinton’s head of security at the governor’s mansion, Raymond “Buddy” Young, the ex rodeo clown who is now the number 2 man at FEMA. He was murdered in 1986 by contract killers hired by the cartel. From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Can Ron Brown’s ghost stop Hillary? WND By Jack Cashill Published December 19, 2012

Exclusive: Jack Cashill reviews ugly details of commerce secretary’s death

Clinton told those gathered that Brown had been “so excited” about his trip to the Balkans because he hoped to “help people in that troubled place have the kind of decent, honorable and wonderfully ordinary lives that we Americans too often take for granted.”

In truth, Brown was not excited at all. When he met with Clinton earlier in the week, Brown begged not to go. At this, the most anxious moment of his life, he dreaded the prospect of the trip.

There was nothing decent or honorable about it. He was sick of being, in his words, “a mother-f-ing tour guide for Hillary Clinton.”

What troubled Brown more, however, was this trip had no point, not even the dark one of Hoovering up campaign cash. Worse, the trip was all too spontaneous and improvised. It bordered on chaotic.

For the first time on any of his trade missions, Brown had to twist arms to fill the plane and even then not successfully. Nor did he attract the caliber of business executives his pride demanded.

Still, Hillary insisted. And as much as Brown loathed the extortionate nature of the trips, he sensed that if he ceased to oblige the Clintons, “to carry the bag,” they would cut him loose.

The assassination of diplomat Anne Smedinghoff was directed from 1600 Penn Avenue, in a fringe control cell, run out of the NSA.

In the Smedinghoff sanction, Homeland Director Janet Naps Napolitano knew of this operation, the CIA knew of this operation as she was one of their “own” and the NSA proper knew of the assassination.

What this cell is, is a melding of the political wing of Val-erie Jarrett, David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Michelle Robinson Obama, with full knowledge by Birther Hussein Obama, in this “committee to re elect the birther” and to provide political opportunities in staged crisis to not take advantage of.

Rahm Emanuel never quite knew the depths to what his statement would devolve to.

The reason Smedinghoff was terminated, was her indirect knowledge in being the “cancer courier” who provided the wafer to the priest who fed this bio toxin to Hugo Chavez. Smedinghoff did not know her mission in Venezuela, but after reaching her new assignment in Afghanistan, became concerned over the perilous things that Birther Hussein was exposing the Israeli state to and the treatment of Jews, that in conversation with a Mosaad operative, a recruitment was initiated, and Smedinghoff divulged her part in the Venezuela operation which the Israeli operative helped fill in the details to bring to the conclusion of why international headlines were speaking of the cancer weapon, and Smedinghoff was made to realize she was the loaded gun.

This information found it’s way through the NSA network and Smedinghoff was sourced as the conduit. It was at this point that this double agent was sanctioned for termination to cover up what was becoming a story pointing fingers at the Obama regime as Murder Incorporated.

Bluntly put, there is no difference in Smedinghoff, Benghazi with Ambassador Stevens, the SEALS loaded into one helo and murdered and Hugo Chavez. All of these operations were run out of 1600 Penn Avenue by the cell operational with full knowledge of the NSA Director.

This cell, was behind the setting up of the fake bin Laden compound in Pakistan for a future political event.

Holder is the enforcer for the cartel at 1600 Penn Avenue. His cover is Attorney General, but in working the NSA cell, he never answers to Congress as they would never inquire to him about NSA matters, as he is not overtly in control of the NSA, as this all falls under Janet Napolitano’s arena, but how the cell operates, is Napolitano is often in the dark about operations being run in the high profile, and that includes the murder of Hugo Chavez.

Napolitano knew nothing of this operation run out of Homeland by Holder in this NSA cell.

FBI Director Robert Mueller is aware of this NSA cell, but he is not a part of it.

This NSA group scares the CIA and FBI, as those finding the tracks of their operations, know this is all sanctioned and protected at the highest levels, and those matters are not to be spoken of.

Andrew Breitbart was assassinated by this political assassination committee.

On February 28 1993, at 4:20 AM, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms attempted to execute a search warrant relating to alleged sexual abuse charges and illegal weapons violations.[21][22]

Regarding the Waco incident, Wilcher alleged that:

  • Koresh and six others in his cult were CIA deep-cover operatives who had refused an order to activate against an unknown target.
  • The initial engagement plan was designed to result in the deaths of US officers to justify a large-scale retaliation.
  • Nerve gas, not tear gas, was used in the final assault.
  • A CIA hit squad was dropped onto the roof by helicopter and killed Koresh and dozens of others with pistol shots to the head at close range.
  • The CIA set the fire at the compound using timed white phosphorus incendiaries.

NOW Deadpool list of suspicious events Waco Fertilizer Plant fire explodes. Theory: Object seen on video coming in and ignigting a great explosion- WATCH – Call To Debunkers For Newest Conspiracy Theory: ‘Object’ Slams Into Waco Plant, Causing Explosion . Event occurs shortly after Boston Marathon Massacre; Texas plant explosion a bombing? Officials open up criminal investigation after man found with ‘destructive device’

The April 17 plant explosion began with a fire in the fertilizer and seed building, which then escalated with a massive explosion about 20 minutes after the first report of a fire. The blast registered on seismographs as a magnitude-2.1 earthquake and could be felt 50 miles away.

Primary event and a secondary event during it?

Two events happening on the same day – a West, Texas, man arrested for possession of a “destructive device” (Reed had a Pipebom)and law enforcement officials launching a criminal investigation into the town’s fatal, April 17 fertilizer-plant explosion – have reopened speculation that the deadly blast may have been more than an accident. wnd

Reed was among West’s most visible residents after the blast, which killed 15 people, injured 200 others and damaged hundreds of homes.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports Reed’s LinkedIn profile lists spending time at the U.S. Biological and Chemical Weapon Depot in Ft McClellan, Ala.

Image

Image

Waco Fertilizer Plant fire explodes. Theory: Object seen on video coming in and ignigting a great explosion- WATCH – Call To Debunkers For Newest Conspiracy Theory: ‘Object’ Slams Into Waco Plant, Causing Explosion . Event occurs shortly after Boston Marathon Massacre. ; Texas plant explosion a bombing? Officials open up criminal investigation after man found with ‘destructive device’

I believe overtly faked warrants on me, by William Ruiz and Jim Volcelka, are what Jen Moore was murdered over. These warrants were people speaking lines which would be atributed to me, but were spoken by William or Jim.

hower after not having been able to shower for weeks. It was ME just moving into his condo after camping my way there from Texas.

What did he say under surveillance next, while wearing my stolen motorcycle jacket? And why did Jim Volkelca say to me “I took the asvab but decided to go in to the same line of work privately instead of enlisting” when it was me who took the Military ASVAB in MEPS Oakland CA, ,was offered Crypto Analyst or Fire Control Officer, but I decided not to enlist, and went on to private work, often working with crypto. And at KinkBnB my clothes were stolen and SimplyCat was only shopping for size 13 boots, I wear 13, and she was shopping for guns at the same time. All this fits with fake warrants on the death of Jen Moore as a coverup.

Eric Holder and the 1600 Penn Group http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2013/04/assassination-incorporated-1600-penn.html

This book

Visits: 9

Leave a Reply