Previous Update: May 7 - 13

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
May 14 - 20, 2013

You Can Run for President but You can't Hide
Obama Enveloped in Scandals; Plays Clean
Now a Faked New-Orleans Shooting, According to Six or Seven Bullets
A Planted Pressure-Cooker Lid can have No Trajectory

There was a shooting in New Orleans with reportedly 19 people injured, 18 of them shot. It looks suspicious. After analyzing, I concluded another fake job. Yes, I know how some readers think I'm silly for thinking that "every" violent incident is an insider job, but that's not at all how I think. It's the facts of this case, and what I learned from Boston, that have convinced me. Later in this update, I'll give some cannonball science to prove that the pressure-cooker lid was planted on a roof by insiders.

Fox reports: "Police say they saw three suspects running from the scene, but no arrests had been made as of early Monday." The police SAW. Did the police chase??? Did the police just stand there and let them get away? Is this story believable? Didn't the police call for police-car and police-helicopter back-up? It reminds me of how the police lost their man inexplicably (i.e. on purpose) in the Boston incident.

Note that no one was killed, or expected to die, making it far easier to pull off a fake job. One of Boston's problems was all the faked blood and injuries. And we don't know what hospital-related problems arose in faking so many injuries.

What are the chances that most people in New Orleans would merely be grazed? From Associated Press, the article from whom many are copying: "At least three of the victims were seriously wounded. Of the rest, many were grazed and authorities said that overall most wounds were not life threatening. No deaths were reported." Chances are high (off the cuff, about 25-1) that any single bullet shot into a crowd will strike a body fully. If 25 bullets were fired at just one person, only one should be expected to graze a body, but after passing that body, the bullet is expected to strike another body without grazing.

You need to get this. Figure out on your own what the chances are for grazing verses full bullet penetration. It's what proves that this was a faked incident, and it begins to make us alert for finding other signs of a fake job. If the public can spread this message, the insiders will not be able to conduct future fake jobs with many grazes. It forces them to fake bullet wounds, making it harder for them to get away with it, and easier for them to be exposed. Otherwise, they need to shoot people for real, which can land them in jail for a lot longer than faking it. The people who are doing this inside the U.S. must have plenty of experience abroad. Yes, some military units should be to blame.

Here's the inescapable problem, because people know how to count to six or seven. The know the difference between six and twenty, or six and forty: "It sounded like there were six or seven shots that rang off, and we ended up hitting the deck. ... and literally people [were] just running over the top of us, just trying to get away." In this picture, six bullets grazed six people, ricocheted and grazed 6 more, then ricocheted and hit six more. Is that basically how it happened? Of course not. The insiders are easily exposed here.

PLUS, a blogger states: "It's in a really bad part of New Orleans, and it said one person got shot 6 times." Impossible. We can't have this man, and 17 other bullet victims, from roughly six shots total.

The one who reported six or seven shots was a reporter. I'm pretty sure she knows how to count properly to six or seven:

Sunday at 2:51 p.m., a story vaguely credited to "" and not a specific writer reported the shooting. The lede was "Several people have been shot in the 1400 block of Frenchmen Street. Times-Picayune is on the scene."...

It's not until the third paragraph that we learned that the "incident" took place at a Mothers Day second line - the sort of information that should have been higher in the story. We learn that five or six shots were fired and that at least three people fell...

My guess is that the story was reported by photographer Lauren McGaughey since three of her photos accompany the text, and someone else wrote the text...

...A|Times-Picayune reporter was participating in the Mother's Day second line in the area when the shooting occurred and heard six to seven shots fired. The reporter saw at least two people shot and at least three additional people fall during the commotion.

There were only 12 people reported shot by police by 4 or 5 pm, which is a "long" time after the shooting (about 1:45), long enough to get the number right. Then, overnight the "wounded" had risen to 19, what we could expect from additional exaggeration. The idea was to make this a big national story, explaining why it was done at a mother's day gathering. But Obama's luck ran out starting the next day so that this story got no traction in the national media.

It's easy to fake a graze, ask the people who faked the Boston marathon, who faked many grazes on one leg alone. One close-up of one shredded-pants man had mainly grazes on his leg, the opposite of what is expected from the odds. The odds are that penetration wounds should far outnumber grazes.

Are journalists stupid? Are they mere robots of the system not asking the obvious questions? Apparently, yes. The same journalist, who starts an article with the claim of 19 people injured, then follows up that six or seven shots were fired. Hello? Is there a brain in there? The shooter had a hand gun, not an anti-tank missile system.

" Two participants of the parade said they heard about six or seven shots...", including the journalist above. On the surface, we could conclude that she was not an insider...unless she deliberately changed the storyline to "six or seven" in an effort to send us a red-flag message. With so few bullets, the insiders were forced to do damage control, stating that most of the injuries were grazes. Who reported the grazes? Not the reporter, so far as I know.

Ten men and seven woman were shot along with a 10-year-old girl and 10-year-old boy. The children were grazed and are in good condition, [New Orleans Police Department spokesman Garry] Flot said in a statement.

"Many of the victims were grazed some by bullets that ricocheted," he said.,0,3110139.story

With so many ricochets, the people must all have been wearing metal armor. I reject Flot's claim. I accuse Flot of being a part of yet another O-sham to rein in guns.

Only one person was reported injured due to non-bullet reasons: "New Orleans police superintendent Ronal Serpas told reporters at least one other person was injured as spectators fled the scene." That means 18 people were shot in the final analysis with about six bullets. Mr. Serpas needs to explain to us how this could possibly take place. The physics is against him. My bet, if this problem gets traction from conspiracy threads, is that the insiders will increase the bullet count. I did not at all find that this inconsistency became a media issue, amazingly enough.

Not only was the Flot surname first found in the same place (Norfolk) as Dunhams, but Obama was the reproductive product, I say, of Anne Dunham with Frank Marshall Davis, and then the Flot Coat is conceivable a version of the Irish Davis Coat. They both use the trefoil as well as chevrons in colors reversed from one another.

The Scottish Flett/Flait Coat (in Fletcher/Flegger colors) clearly uses a version of the Flot Coat, and then Fletts/Flaits were first found in Orkney, where Sinclairs ruled that were from Midlothian, where the trefoil-using Fallis/Falls surname (in Roque/Rock colors) was first found. The Sinclairs of Midlothian were at Roslin, a place I traced to "Rosellon," otherwise known as Roussillon (Languedoc), where Roquefeuil is located, and where the Roques/Rocks derived.

The treFOIL is a RoqueFEUIL > RockeFeller symbol for obvious reason, and then French Flotts are said to be from ROQUEvaire (mouth of the Rhone area). Ann Dunham worked for Rockefellers, and certain Rockefellers are greedy-dirtbag globalists unabashed, the ones who are likely involved in end-time tricks for to destroy Christians.

As for the New-Orleans police chief with Serpas surname, the Serpas/Serpents surname was first found in Milan, home of serpent-using Visconti's. I've never known this Serpas/Serpents surname before (doesn't come up as "Serpent"), but it uses the Massin/Mason lion (lion designs not identical, but both are upright and in the same colors), important for my claim that Massins/Masons trace to "Massino," a location otherwise known as Massino-Visconti, near Milan. I have been claiming that "Freemason" is exactly code for this Massin/Mason/Macon surname as well as code for the Freie/Frey surname using the same lion.

Note how "small" this New-Orleans incident is in comparison to the 150 (approx) reported injured at the marathon. It denotes caution, fear, for had they been confident out of Boston, they might have conducted an event with a greater number of injuries than at Boston. But look, they can't even get this story out without troublesome inconsistencies.

Here is perhaps another inconsistency: "Two participants [one was a female journalist] of the parade said they heard about six or seven shots...A local journalist was reported to be wounded in the shooting, but is in stable condition at the hospital, where she underwent surgery." In the story above where we read of the journalist's article, she claimed she saw some people go down, but we did not read that she was shot. The idea here may be for the police to create a situation in which the police can claim that she only heard six or seven shots because she stopped hearing shots after she was hit. I saw in Boston how the story evolved after the bombing in efforts to cover up inconsistencies.

If you go again to that page above, you see a picture of a muscular man just lying on the ground, apparently shot in the wrist or arm. If that's all that happened to him, he should be on his feet tending to his wound. Look at his face; he looks fine. It's just impossible to be shot in the wrist /arm and to merely lie there on his belly, unless he's acting for a camera. A bullet to the arm is a "major" wound by everyday standards. You don't just lie there. You get up by a natural reaction of the pain and/or adrenalin, and put your other hand, or a piece of clothing, over the bullet wound, seeking the help of others.

Although the crowd was filled with black people, yet there are at least three white people visible surrounding this black man on his belly. Doesn't that suggest that insiders are surrounding him, for to fake a news photo?

There is no blood visible on the man's arm anywhere, yet there is a pool of blood about one foot wide beside his arm. He can be seen in the photo below still on his belly after a grey vehicle arrives to the spot where the shooter was shooting. The people in the photo are pointing to the house where the shooter shot from, but I can spot no surveillance camera on the wall of that house. Big question there. Who really shot the video of the shooter??? In the video, we can see the door and two windows to its left, suggesting that the camera should be at the far end of house. I would therefore suggest that this photo was not that of the insiders, and that this photo can complicate the police effort to convict anyone.

There should be an uprising against the police who claimed that this video was from a surveillance camera. Unless surveillance cameras float around in the air, it should be on that house wall. WHERE IS IT??? The camera view is going out to the street on an ANGLE, not from STRAIGHT down the street somewhere, proving that the camera should be on the house wall. It's also clear that the camera view is higher than a man standing on the ground.

Below is another image of the same house, which appears to reveal that the end of the building has a door, not a third window. If it's a door, someone could have been taking the video while standing on the stairs to the door. In that case, the police lied about it being a surveillance camera. Why did they lie?

New Orleans has traditionally been a Masonic haunt, and Masons typically grab police departments by nature. Door-to-door police searches were conducted immediately, which can explain why no policemen went after the men when they were yet escaping. Boston taught me that the globalists want to practice entering people's homes searching for criminals, to test how people react, to make the nation accept warrant-less searches on-the-spot for future "emergencies."

I'm thinking that this event had been planned for a later time and yet was done earlier to take the heat off of Benghazi. Hopefully, this event will not be Obama's salvation.

If the gun-grabbers want to maximize the effect of one of their fake jobs, they would do it at a Mother's Day event, for it's women who can be made to passionately support gun controls. Don't misunderstand; I believe in gun controls to keep people with recent criminal records or habits from purchasing guns, but in these weeks, we were already half-expecting more shootings as Obama goes about an agenda to rein in guns. The only good news is that such an effort will take a very long time, and so far it's not working at all. Therefore, if they want martial law, it will need to be while the average American is armed. They will need to enter homes at the risk of being shot, and we should even expect that, soon, a police officer or two will be shot by a homeowner in yet another fake job (I hope I'm not giving them any ideas)

Is the following a pre-scripted part of the Orleans inside job:

...Just down the street, two victims collapsed on Bernadette Tyler's porch. One was shot six times.

"I just opened my door today and two guys collapsed right there on my steps and me and my daughter did the best thing we can to revive them and I think we saved another life today," said Tyler [chances are greater that the man shot six times entered her house and hid from view so that no one on the streets could see that he wasn't shot].

Tyler knows first hand what it's like to lose someone to violence. Her son was murdered 15 years ago [an "excellent" but expected part of a pre-script if the purpose is to highlight gun murders]. This Mother's Day, she worked to save someone else's son [yeah, sure].

"They just was saying they was hit and they was hurting, I just kept saying, "We're going to keep you, we're going to revive you from all of this," she said [nothing said about calling an ambulance].

No one was killed, but three victims were in critical condition [other reports said that no one was in danger of dying]. The children involved were recovering from graze wounds [other reports said that most of the wounded were children, all the more "excellent" for the cause].

...The shots rang out even as more than 10 officers were present during the second line. Some of the officers saw three suspects running from the scene. All three are still at large.

MORE THAN 10 OFFICERS??? Why didn't they go after the shooters? Where is any story of the hunt? The shooters just slipped away without a police effort??? You don't expect me to believe that 10 out of 10 policemen in New Orleans are cowards or too fat to run.

"Hey! There they go! Go get 'em!"

"No, you go!"

"No, I've got an appointment, you go."

"Awe, man, they're gone now, we'll never find them."

"Yeah, you're right, it's no use."

"Hey, you got a band-aid, I see a guy here whose got blood on his graze."

"Yeah, I've never seen so many grazes. Everybody's got a graze, man. It's like it's a miracle, saved by grazes."

As a result of New Orleans (yesterday as I write), the Washington Post has already called for gun-control action, but other media may not be so willing to follow along after seeing the light on Obama's true nature. Besides, unless the three suspects are middle class people who use guns to protect from rabid animals or dangerous thieves, the Washington Post is not justified. If the Washington Post really cared, it would repeatedly call on Hollywood to end violent productions aimed at young people. It would repeatedly call on liberals to stop shunning God. It would praise Christian virtues and praise Christian groups, and direct society in the way that Christians have long been preaching, long been warning. Prior to the anti-Christian revolution of the 60s and 70s, there were no mass murders of this casual type.

The high increase in the number of men in the United States who care nothing for the value of human life is largely a product of de-sensitization. We don't need a scientific study to discover that feeding violent images and sinful attitudes to society will make people more prone to using violence. There was a time when shooting up a crowd or a school room would never enter anyone's mind. What happened in the last 40 years?

Just after this shooting made the news, I found a story of three Obama groupies caught in an embarrassing conversation. What excellent timing, thank you so much:

Second Amendment rights advocates are fuming today over words from three Democratic state senators caught on tape after [May 9's] hearing on the upper chamber's gun control package.

The three female senators, who sound from the recording to be Sen. Loretta Weinberg, Sen. Sandy Cunningham and Sen. Linda Greenstein, are heard discussing the just-closed hearing.

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate," said an unknown voice.

...The next voice, which is clearly Weinberg, said, "They [the gun advocates, I gather] want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don't have any regulations to do it."

Next up was Cunningham: "They don't care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them" [little-child / immature portrayal of gun owners].

...Reached Friday, Weinberg took issue with the gun advocates and the release of the hot mic recording.

"The advocates would be much better off not inflaming people," she said. "Nothing in this package of bills 'confiscates' [yet, anyway]..."

Asked who used the words "confiscate" on the recording, Weinberg said she has no idea...

"All I know is it's not my voice and I don't know who said it or in what context" [what other context can there be?]

Calls to Greenstein and Cunningham were not immediately returned.

I'd love to see criminals with guns off the street; so stop making criminals of people, and guns won't be a problem. To reduce crime, teach the nation Sunday School. To reduce crime, glorify Christ. To get God to help take criminals off the street, honor God in all government levels, schools included. Otherwise, tolerate the devil in your streets. It's your choice, America. Christians warned you long ago. Nobody's asking you to believe in fantasies; you know there is a Creator. He may allow all the evil in the world, but it's Babylon that causes it, and America has taken sides with Babylon. So, Liberal, eat your dish when it comes around to you, and don't complain, because you're the cause.

Christians warned that if abortion were legalized, born infants would be killed, and this week has just seen a 1st-degree conviction against one abortion doctor for killing three born children. It is unknown, however, how many he killed, 100, 200, 1,000 born children? Regardless, a child that is not yet out of the womb is still a child; it's still a human in the making. It's not a piece of garbage. The abortionist is guilty of killing human life day after day, and Liberal America has allowed this, demanded it, and protected it. Shame on all slobs, mental degenerates. Bill Clinton himself supported, openly, partial-birth murder. Can you wrap your head around that? A man who thinks it's acceptable to kill a baby half out of the womb, yet liberals look up to him as an intelligent and inspiring man??? Liberals worship the dead, themselves.

I'm sure you've heard about the IRS scandal developing:

Cherish Life Ministries was created to be a non-profit under the IRS 501(c)3 provision so that churches would feel comfortable working together.

Peter Shinn founded the group...

...The mission of the ProlifeUnity group is to "save the unborn and defend the defenseless, no exceptions, no compromise."

...But Shinn said the IRS contacted him regarding his application for nonprofit status, and was told he didn't qualify.

"The representative was telling me I had to provide information on all aspects of abortion, I couldn't just educate the church from the pro-life perspective," he said. "Every time I pressed her on this issue and asked her to clarify her position, she would state that it wasn't what she was saying, and then, she would repeat it almost the same way."

..."I explained to her that the Pro-Life Action League even has pro-life in their title and they certainly don't teach pro-abortion topics and they are still 501(c)(3). I also told her that Planned Parenthood does not teach about pro-life issues yet they are also still a 501(c)(3)."

People who kill the unborn without conscience are not going to be fair players in any regard. Christians have understood for decades that pro-abortion movers are also the liberals who want societal changes in many anti-God ways. You may not know what's been going on unless you're a Christian. The very guts of the Democratic party is this death machine that calls itself "progressive."

To see how unbalanced liberals behave, just listen to the Obama-Carney team. Asked why Obama would say that he will punish the IRS if any wrongdoing is discovered, after the IRS itself admitted to wrongdoing, Carney said:

"...We have not seen the report [feigning ignorance]. We have not independently collected information about what transpired [i.e. we can't punish if we don't know what happened]. We need the independent inspector general's report to be released before we can make judgments. One person's view of what actions were taken or what that individual did is not enough for us to say something concretely happened that was inappropriate," said Carney.

All of Washington but Obama knows what happened, and then Carney has the gall to use "inappropriate" dozens of times. Wearing a black belt with brown shoes in inappropriate; the IRS picking on a political enemy should be jail time, Mr. Carney. He is saying that the president is not going to trust what the IRS people have said about themselves. Clearly, Obama wants to change what happened using words that downplay or even eliminate the wrong-doing.

This came out in the middle of the week:

..."In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent "Ms. Richards" told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board's signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood," the Thomas More Society announced today. "Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved."

Imagine that, the IRS dictating that an anti-abortion group cannot do what is perfectly legal. Only under Obama. Where else did the liberals in the IRS get their dogged courage to do what's been spilling out? Even some liberal groups are speaking out against this IRS scandal, but, frankly, I'm not at all convinced of their sincerity. It's convenient to speak out now to make themselves look ethical, but it's well past the election, and the damage has been done. It won't hurt now to fess up and get past it:

The progressive-leaning investigative journalism group ProPublica says the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that targeted and harassed conservative tax-exempt groups during the 2012 election cycle gave the progressive group nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was pending.

The commendable admission lends further evidence to the lengths the IRS went during an election cycle to silence tea party and limited government voices.

ProPublica says the documents the IRS gave them were "not supposed to be made public"...The group says that "no unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica."

ProPublica started to see the IRS scandal from before the election, apparently, and so why didn't it pass the info to other media to make light of it before the election??? We know the answer. Propublica could have contacted the Tea Party with what it knew. But apparently, it didn't like the Tea Party. In a ProPublica article out this week: "Before the 2012 election, ProPublica devoted months to showing how dozens of social-welfare nonprofits [must have included Tea Party groups] had misled the IRS about their political activity on their applications and tax returns. Social-welfare nonprofits are allowed to spend money to influence elections, as long as their primary purpose is improving social welfare. Unlike super PACs and regular political action committees, they do not have to identify their donors."

A new election is in order (but fat chance). Perhaps an impeachment. Cheating on the election is something dictators do, like Assad, or Qaddafi. If there was cheating here, there must have been cheating elsewhere.

Here we see the passion of American tax-payers betrayed by the IRS:

And it seems absurd to suggest that nobody in the Obama administration knew about any of this. We now know that the head of the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups knew that patriots and Tea Party groups were being specifically targeted. We also know that the IRS lied to Congress five times when they were specifically asked about this harassment. Without a doubt, members of the Obama administration and key players in the Obama campaign were aware of what Congress was asking the IRS. Did any of them ever look into these allegations to see if they were true? Once they looked into these things, did they report back to Obama? [Yes, of course.]

The inner circles of political campaigns tend to be obsessed with any potential threats that could derail their candidates. It is crazy to think that those close to Obama never talked about any of this or looked into it to see if it might be a significant problem for the campaign.

Excellent point. The IRS was investigated before the 2012 election, and the people in charge of Obama's election strategies would have been closely following the story, checking for potential cracks that might burst. Obama would have asked his most-trusted advisors about it. If Obama was aware of what the IRS was doing to thwart Romney's campaign, it could be deemed an unfair election.

Eric Holder Accuses Himself

The Associated Press, and therefore other media, now have reason to lambaste Obama's dictatorial tactics:

[Eric Holders's] Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

...In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012....more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

This is a great turn of events: Obama stabbing the media in the back after the media licked his feet day and night, refusing to expose Obama's underhanded tactics. I'm so happy to hear this. It's going to be the way of the future because dragons have no respect for dragons. There is no such thing as a friend in the Liberal World. They all use one another, which is as close to forming friendships as they come.

Associated Press, as you deserve. You let Obama get away with it while doing it to everyone else. Now that it touches you, suddenly you're squealing like a pig. Didn't you find it atrocious that his people were spying on emails daily, keeping records on people, making political plots against people? Why didn't you squeal about that?

Could you imagine how bad his spy machine would be if Obama didn't spoil his first term by losing the House to Republicans? There would be no one powerful at this time to expose his sins. It would have been a true dictatorship. As it turned out, Obama needed to act like a dictator in disguise (DID), using his presidential powers to weaken any opposition without getting caught by the House. "Yes we DID."

The article goes on:

Officials [of Obama] have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington [Ronald Machen] is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied...

You can see some sparks above between the CIA and the FBI, the FBI siding with al-Obama. We should appreciate the CIA going against the FBI because it creates the potential for the FBI to be exposed in how it operates.

The al-Obama people don't want the media to get out the "wrong" news in such "terror" acts. The president has some Yemeni business that he's been concerned with ever since the Underwear Bomber, which in my opinion was a faked airliner-bomb attempt inside the U.S. The president pointed the finger to Yemen's al-Qaeda. Perhaps Obama wanted to try it again last May, but at the last moment, the CIA -- maybe Petraeus himself -- foiled the attempt. Remember, it was the FBI that "caught" the private emails of Petraeus which revealed his affair with Broadwell.

There is simply no better turn of events in the media world than for AP to be a bitter odds with Obama's people. If exposure is the name of this war, Obama has picked on the right people. I have yet to read the AP defense, what AP did or said wrong / illegally in reporting on the bomb plot, but one thing has been made certain: Holder's office did not tackle the problem by first appealing to AP itself. This is being deemed the Holder problem at its heart. How JUST is this JUSTICE-department action? It can be gleaned that Holder's office wanted the company information as a weapon for use at any time, especially in the up-coming court case between Machen and AP. Isn't there a name for that? Abuse of power. But Holder is guilty even of covering this up.

Eric Holder is taking the heat on this, and not coming clean yet again: "In the letter notifying the AP, which was received Friday, the Justice Department offered NO EXPLANATION for the seizure [of AP data], according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP." It can be deemed that, if Holder's people had a good explanation, they would give it, if only because of public expectation. Soon after, they gave the reason as seeking the leaker, but this is not acceptable.

Look at this hypocrisy: "News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might 'pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.'" Translation: the Eric Holder cartel didn't want to notify AP that it was being spied on in case AP shredded some documents or in other ways tried to cover any guilt. Who else have we heard doing such fast and furious things?

Under pressure to divulge some information (we're hoping it starts a trend), Holder has admitted that his deputy was in charge of the AP spying program, but it's not an admission so much as it's a cover-up. Holder assured that he was not officially doing the investigation, wherefore he can claim to know nothing about it. But as it was his own deputy who conducted it, it means that Holder was kept up to snuff regularly, and would have learned immediately of anything "important."

Attorney General Eric Holder said [May 14] that his deputy "ultimately authorized the subpoena" to secretly obtain phone records from The Associated Press, and said he had recused himself early on in the related investigation into leaks of sensitive information that "put the American people at risk."

Word that Deputy Attorney General James Cole is directing the FBI probe came as the White House expressed confidence in Holder...

To justify his office's snooping, Holder is saying that the AP leak was "very very serious...It put the American people at risk." He's kidding, right? No, he's serious without a blink, making the best of being caught snooping. What choice does he have but to exaggerate? And this admission from his own lips is a welcome mistake because the legal action against AP has to do exactly with this charge, wherefore the issue is now in the public court of opinion. AP can play with this ball starting now. AP's supporters can defend itself against this charge, and, hopefully, Americans will hear what it is exactly that is so VERY VERY serious or dangerous about exposing some details on a foiled bomb plot.

It's not yet known whether Holder recused himself; he hasn't shown evidence yet that he did so. Wouldn't it be wonderful if it turned out that there is no paper proving it? It would make Holder look like he's lying even about that? The article then goes on the expose yet another lie from Obama: "The White House said [May 14] that it had no knowledge of the investigation and referred all inquiries to the Justice Department." Imagine that. Holder says it was "very very serious" and yet he didn't tell Obama. Holder's done this before; he and Obama have played this game before.

Although it's true, on the one hand, that Obama would like the nation to believe that terrorism has been defeated, or that it no longer poses a risk to America (it never did, anyway), yet I can see Obama allowing / creating terror acts inside the country for the purpose of justifying and advancing his spy machine. Obama was just about to proudly announce the foiled bomb plot when AP beat him to it. Therefore, whatever AP was guilty of, ditto for Obama.

What was such a big deal about AP reporting on the foiled bomb plot? The government asked AP not to report on it, but AP reported on it anyway, not divulging any CIA names so far as I've read. Shouldn't the people, Americans or otherwise, be made to know that their lives could be in danger from flying out of Yemen? But Obama has no conscience; the only thing of importance was that he tells the news first. And we already know that Obama script writers make flowery pictures of Obama's nothingness, and then change the scripts of others when he's not looking flowery within them. Here is the guilt of AP according to an Obama-lover organization:

AP learned of the plot a week before publishing, but "agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately" due to national security concerns. But, by reporting the CIA's involvement in foiling the plot, they put [al-Qaeda] on notice that the CIA had a window into their activities.

That is a very poor charge because al-Qaeda would have been on notice before the article came out. Al-Qaeda would have been already on notice as soon as the bomb was seized. There is more guilt in the Think Progress organization than there is at AP. Here's from that Think Progress article where it shares what AP published:

The FBI is examining the latest bomb [meaning they had already taken it away from the al-Qaeda bomber, if ever there was such a bomber] to see whether it could have passed through airport security...[drama]

The would-be suicide bomber, based in Yemen, had not yet picked a target or bought a plane ticket when the CIA stepped in and seized the bomb, officials said. It's not immediately clear what happened to the alleged bomber [there may not have been one].

So, there you have it, it wasn't AP that put al-Qaeda on notice, but the CIA itself for allegedly capturing the bomb.

BEHOLD. The article adds: "The plan, according to the AP's March 2012 story, involved an upgrade of the "underwear bomb" used in the failed Christmas Day 2009 bomb plot that was meant to take down a passenger airplane in Detroit, MI." Was this the true sin of AP, to link this foiled plot to the foiled underwear-bomber plot? Did AP know more about the link than the O-circle of people wanted AP to know?

I kid you not, that I mentioning the underwear bomber here and earlier this morning as I write on May 14, between 4 - 4:30 am. Then, at 5:15 am, I found this May-14 article:

Federal agents [FBI presumed] have arrested a Saudi Arabian traveler who arrived at Detroit Metropolitan Airport with a pressure cooker [this has got to be a hoax], a key component used in the Boston Marathon bombings last month.

...It was unclear Monday [May 13] whether his arrest is terrorism related or a misunderstanding. But the prosecutor handling the case is Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Tukel, who prosecuted the terror case against underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

It just so happens that the underwear bomber's plane landed in Detroit! This is a sick joke, truly. This is part of a program to fool the American people, using the media to do it. It's time the media fought back.

If the underwear bomber was paid (with money going to his family) by American insiders to conduct a suicide bombing, then one could surmise that the lawyer appointed to prosecute his case was an insider...meaning that an insider lawyer has just been appointed to handle the case of this pressure-cooker Arabian. This latest Detroit story may not get much traction suddenly because Obama is up to his eye brows in controversy, but clearly, this was an FBI-concocted story, the goal being to reinforce the idea that America is under attack by al-Qaeda. Remember, plan A at Boston was to charge an Arab until Obama, under pressure from Saudi Arabia, decided not to. From this information, we might gather that the marathon sham ultimately had al-Qaeda in Yemen in its sights.

Leaks occur regularly through legion of different issues. Let's assume that Holder has not been conducting major snoop jobs on all media who report from leaked information. Let's ask why it was so important to snoop on AP, realizing that the reason given by Holder is a fabrication. Perhaps the O-circle conducting the May-2012 bomb hoax was concerned when AP compared the plot to the underwear-bomber plot. The O-people would have been in dire concern as to whether AP discovered "too much" concerning the bomb plot. What if AP discovered the fake-ness of the plot? Yikes. That would explain the vastness by which Holder's deputy pilfered AP records. We still don't know whether they tapped their phones / gathered their emails, but I'd guess yes. Here's an admission:

In a move familiar to reporters covering covert operations, the CIA had asked the AP to hold off on the May 2012 scoop about a foiled effort by Islamist militants in Yemen to try another underwear bomb, like the one a militant botched in 2009.

...The strong inference from the AP is that it was not national security [i.e. as Holder claimed] but election-year public relations that led to the fight with the White House and that the secret, unprecedented (we think) raid on Associated Press records was something of a reprisal for not playing ball on the timing of the announcement.

I can't agree with this theory from Fox, that Holder's office snooped on AP as a move of vengeance or pay-back. There had to be more to it than that. Unfortunately, the article says: "The Associated Press is suggesting that the reason the agency's reporters and lawyers were the targets of a sweeping records seizure by the Department of Justice is not that national security was at risk, but rather the publicity the administration was seeking." It's AP's idea that Holder was playing payback or power-trip games. It's a cheap shot. Perhaps AP doesn't realize that it was treading on something VERY VERY explosive. Perhaps Obama knew who the leaker was, who knew too much, and was worried that AP would learn too much.

Bottom line: wouldn't it be great if AP would come out now to expose the faked plots, get the FBI and Obama landed in prison? Make no mistake about it, people in major media know that Boston was faked. They just haven't had the courage or the opening to admit it publicly. But if Obama is finally exposed for the fake that he is, these people might just come out of the closet.

The Cowards of New Orleans

It's only Tuesday, and the New Orleans police already have a suspect:

Police late Monday identified a 19-year-old man as a suspect...

Superintendent Ronal Serpas said officers were looking for Akein Scott of New Orleans. He said it was too early to say whether he was the only shooter.

"We would like to remind the community and Akein Scott that the time has come for him to turn himself in...We know more about you than you think we know," he said.

...The superintendent said SWAT team members and U.S. marshals served a searched warrant at one location looking for Scott, but didn't locate him.

Question: is this man being framed? Every insider plot needs a person, innocent of that particular crime, for framing. The trick in this case is to make Scott appear to be on the run. It makes him look guilty. That's how police in Boston made the Chechen brothers look guilty. New Orleans was unable to catch Scott at the Mother's Day event, because he wasn't there, and so here they are making up stories as to how the hunt for him is developing. Scott is apparently a criminal type who may be wanted for others things, thus assuring that he won't turn himself in.

The article goes on to mention the obvious police problem but does not elaborate: "Whoever was responsible escaped despite the presence of officers who were interspersed through the crowd as part of routine precautions for such an event." The article is by AP. Why didn't AP elaborate? Doesn't AP see a problem? Didn't AP ask the police why they didn't chase after the men/men who fired on the crowd??? Hello? Was AP afraid to question the gods? Is this the impression that the media are going to deliver us, that the police are gods, to be trusted in everything?

Look at this strange and suspicious statement: "'People today chose to be on the side of young, innocent children who were shot, and not on the side of a coward who shot into a crowd,' Serpas said." Is the superintendent of police a complete moron? Why would he even think that there are significant people who would side with the shooter? What planet does he live on? How did the us-versus-them idea even enter his head? It sounds like he's taking the opportunity presented by the shooting to justify a crusade against supporters of gangs. Have I got that right? He was speaking from a script, wasn't he? Fortunately, nobody was listening.

There is also the question on the fat chances that the shooter should be found on a surveillance camera (looks to be on the side of a house). Wouldn't a local gang member know what a camera looked like? I kid you not, this camera on the side of a house right above his right shoulder? What are the chances that his crime would be caught on camera with him in the middle of camera view? It's a movie production, right? Besides, he looks too thin to be Aiken Scott to me. Here's the video; tell me if you see one policeman in the act of bravery:

When I see the police on that same video camera chasing the young man, then I might believe that this event was real.

One cop at the scene to another: "Hey Fats, quick, cover me!"

"Aw, man, I can't. I forgot my gun at the donut shop."

"I mean jump on me, make sure I don't get shot."

I mean, that's why we don't see policemen in the video; they were all hiding in fear. Not a one chased this young punk that we see on the video. I say this punk was paid off to do the "movie." He might not even speak English, might not even be American, and he may be dead now, killed by the people who promised him money. The insiders left their options open by saying that the man on the video MIGHT be one of the shooters. In this way, if the program got screwed up, they could deny that it was him. The idea was to use an actor on the video, and meanwhile arrest and frame a common criminal of about the same age and appearance.

The article calls it a "grainy surveillance video," and yet, just as with the Boston marathon, the police released it in a series of still pictures. This is really weird. What's the problem? What reason could there possibly be to release it in this form? Are we being made accustomed to receiving video in this form for future faked operations?

With a video released in this way, it would be harder to catch bad acting performances, or important acting events, by fake injury victims. I realize that there is simply no way that any faked event like this can be conducted unless a certain hospital is part of it and willing to fabricate information, but rather than shaking me from my position, it actually underscores how powerful the people are who create the events. In this case, it was said that 11 injury victims went to the same hospital, but if you go to inquire as to whether that's true, the hospital is not going to let out that information. It must be possible to deceive staff at that hospital. I don't know how they do it, but it would be interesting to find out. Some whistle-blower nurses would be very welcome.

As you can see, the man wields nothing more than a handgun, six bullets at most I'm assuming. We have got to assume that the six bullets could not shoot 18 people, and expect the police to argue that there were other shooters. If the police do not make that argument, something would be seriously wrong with the injury count. If the police do make that claim, they will be contradicted by the two witnesses who said they heard about six shots. If other witnesses come out to claim that they heard more like 12 shots, they can be deemed false witnesses, and therefore insiders. The police would be in a huge pickle here if the public would only apply pressure in this regard.

It's apparent that at the :59 second point, the man has shot off his gun, or has just about done so. A few seconds alter at the 1:00 point (he's standing in the center of the camera view), there is another image with people running away, most of them at least 10 feet from him, and yet there is no one on the ground whom he shot, or no one limping away, or no one slower than the others due to being shot. There is no evidence that he shot anyone with at least his first bullet. The incomplete form of the video assures that we can not see where he initially shot his gun when the crowd was a couple of feet from him. The reason seems easy to explain: because no one fell down where he initially shot.

But he was an excellent shooter, anyway, able to graze three people through the crowds with one bullet, and he repeated the same feat five more times with the remaining bullets. Eighteen hits with six bullets.

Where the images are released separately, they are stamped, "Copyright New Orleans Police Department."

At 1:04, the next image appears, showing the people about 20 feet away, and two people on the ground, but they both get up in the next image so that we can't be sure whether they tripped or were shot. The railing at the stairs is messy and betrays a doctored image. What appears to be a very little child pasted in, very obviously not to scale, is showing on the opposite side of the railing, and the railing itself is not true. At the right side of the railing one can see that the uprights do not sink into the concrete steps, but are welded to a bottom cross piece a few inches above the steps (this is the normal way to make a steel railing). The problem is, when following that cross piece toward the left, it goes right into a part of the concrete step, and, besides, that cross piece isn't showing in an area of smudges, suggesting that someone re-drew the railing in wrong when pasting in the little child.

In the video's other images, the railing is crisp and fully visible.

Still at the 1:04 point, look to the shooter's right to a man who, in the next image. will go down to his belly. That's the one mentioned earlier, the one supposedly shot in the arm / wrist. Note that at 1:04 he is actually further away than in the next image at 1:08. Why would he have drawn closer to the shooter by some five to ten feet? Did he drop something? Did he drop his fake-blood capsule? Did it roll away from him? In the photo below, the man is lying down further up the street than the door where the shooter has been, but in the 1:04 image, the man is not as far up the street as the door.

At the end of the video, I can see the facial lines and thin neck of the shooter, but he does NOT have the rolly face of Aiken Scott. Plus, Scott's neck is stocky, not thin. (His name appears as "Akein" later in the week.)

On Wednesday, May 15, Scott was suddenly found and arrested, but police offered few details. If he's being framed, the people of New Orleans need to speak up. It is a hideous thing to be charged for a crime you did not commit.

No sooner did I finish the story above that this was found:

Iran has given the go-ahead [according to who?] to operatives of three terrorist groups that have infiltrated the United States to carry out missions, including what is expected to be a Mumbai-style attack on a hotel where innocent bystanders would be killed, WND has learned.

A full report with many details of the missions has been passed [by who?] on to U.S. officials.

Three targets have been chosen within America for imminent attack, and the terror teams have now cut communications with the operational center in Iran, a sign that they are moving ahead with the attacks, according to a high-level intelligence officer [ah, some no-name Iranian that we cannot prove the existence of] within the Islamic regime.

If only one of the attacks occurs, the regime will consider the operation a success, the source said. Tehran believes, he said, an attack would not be traced back to Iran due to the nationalities of the operators.

The Iranian situation as it now stands: Iran must be on its best behavior in order to keep the Americans from helping Israel with their military threat. This would be such a bad time for Iran to do something so useless as to shoot hotel guests inside the U.S. It would bring no profit to Iran whatsoever, and would point all American guns on Iran. What this report heralds is exactly the sort of thing that could have been expected to fake a national emergency. The article continues:

More than 2,600 targets, including public places, government buildings and military installations, have been chosen for attack, and reconnaissance has been done. Information about some of the targets, based on direct knowledge of the source, has been given to U.S. officials to neutralize the threat and confront the terrorists. They include specific government buildings, news networks, malls and sports events [this reads like fiction, not reality].

This new coalition has also prepared [the informant seems to know almost the entire deal] for a major attack to avenge al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden's killing to satisfy Seif Adel, the operational head of al-Qaida, for his collaboration with the Iranian regime.

The radical regime ruling Iran has set up several channels for financial support of the new coalition...[blah blah blah

The publication of a limited version of the full report is an intention to put the Islamic regime on notice that should it go ahead with its planned attacks in the U.S. homeland, it will be held responsible, the source said.

Therefore, any faked terrorist acts in the near future can now be blamed on this phantom organization that the FBI is sure to give flesh to. I've not found this story anywhere but at WND. Hold your breath. Will Obama's apparent ruin at this time cause him to use the nuclear option? Here's from Infowars:

Complaining about a lack of community spirit in Washington DC, the president said [May 12] that he wishes to see institutionalized the kind of atmosphere that emerged in Boston following the recent terrorist bombings, so his administration can get things done.

"More than anything, what I will be striving for over the next three and a half years is to see if that spirit we saw in Boston and West Texas [as per the explosion there], to see if we can institutionalize that [and] if we can create a framework where everybody's working together and moving this country forward,' Obama is quoted as saying in a press pool report highlighted by The Daily Caller.

The comments are reminiscent of those by Obama's former Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel, who notoriously stated "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also infamously said, "never waste a good crisis" [it's like they all heard this line at a Bilderberg meeting or something].

While I view Boston as a hideous political maneuver, Obama's circle wants to glorify it and make it the wave of the future. He's dreaming if he thinks he can do Boston over and over again without getting caught. And maybe he wants to get caught so that he can jump to doing the big bang...that allows him by dictatorial powers to sweep up his political enemies. But if he doesn't have the media on his side, I don't think he can get away with it.

Infowars believes that al-Qaeda is wholly a product of Americans / globalists. I want you to know that I don't make my opinions based on Infowars, but suddenly, my position on this particular matter, over the past few years, has started to look like that of Infowars. I don't like to jump too fast. Infowars is certain that martial law is coming as an enterprise of the strongest globalists with all their trappings. However, globalists are far outnumbered by common people, and the latter include some powerful ones too. While I'm not going to deny outright that an attempt at martial law could be in progress, it's also possible that globalism will ultimately forego the use of martial law. It would be very risky because it could destroy globalism outright forever, globalists could be killed, and their financial empires torn down.

Mid-Week Madness

Isn't it amazing how Obama is never to blame for anything, according to Obama. Where Carney claims that Obama knew nothing of the AP scandal or the IRS scandal until they hit the news days ago, it makes him appear as though everything under his nose happens without his mind knowing about it. Fox: "Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney's acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports." Yikes. Feigning innocence only makes Obama look incompetent. I like it put this way: "He responded as though he were just some bloke on a bar stool, getting his information from the evening news."

This is the bloke having legions of people commissioned to report to him on every important matter concerning the state of the nation, and of course on the state of his personal popularity. Some are beginning to ask why he doesn't know what's going on. Is he aloof from his responsibility? Isn't he doing his job? How far is the distance between himself and his various government functions? Is he an island?

The press is furious. After nursing at his toes, Obama kicked the media in the teeth, and now the media is biting down hard on his big toe. For the first time, the media is realizing that he stinks. "NPR's Ari Shapiro asked Carney to square Obama's belief in an unfettered press with the fact that he has prosecuted twice as many leakers as all previous administrations combined." Ouch, the world wasn't supposed to know that. It makes Obama look like a control freak. Obama can't get away from this. He's got to make a bargain in order to get his toe released from insufferable pain.

I mean, even the leading Democrats are being forced to condemn the IRS and AP scandals, and then Obama has apparently disappeared, letting Carney take all the heat, while he has been instructed by Obama to point fingers elsewhere and to admit no blame whatsoever on the part of the White House. "At the start of Tuesday's briefing, the AP's Jim Kuhnhenn pointed out that in all the controversies of the moment...[Carney has] placed the burden of responsibility someplace else....But it is the president's administration."

Don't think for one minute that leading Democrats who are now condemning Obama are actually renouncing their zeal for him. They are merely acting out of political need at this time; they don't want to fall with Obama. But as soon as some relief arrives, as his spin doctors figure a way to deflect the heat, the same Democrats now denouncing him will be seen cheering him on again.

Holder said that he recused himself so as not to appear in a conflict-of-interest situation? I don't get it. How would it be a conflict of interest to investigate an illegality? Where's the conflict? Or, how is it no longer a conflict of interest if Holder gets his deputy to do the snooping? By Wednesday, at a hearing, Holder gave this reason to Jim Sensenbrenner: "I was interviewed as one of the people who had access to the info," Holder replied -- in other words, he was a potential suspect in the leak. That is the most ridiculous thing. How on earth would Holder become a suspect in the leak???

If a CIA operative leaked something to the press, it is illegal, is it not? Yes, but then this happens regularly now from many high-level organizations, and it's become an acceptable means of making news. You can't have it both ways, allowing controlled leaks in your favor and then prosecuting leaks you don't like. Either stick the plug in and leave it there, or remove the plug altogether.

In another story of the hearing where Holder behaved with defiance, here are two questions not answered well enough by him:

Didn't the deputy attorney general who approved the subpoenas have the same potential conflict of interest that Holder claimed?

"I don't know" [then you shouldn't be the attorney general].

When did Holder recuse himself?

"I'm not sure."

Vagueness throughout his answers, a copping-out lest he incriminate himself.

It's only Wednesday, and the number of known groups targeted by the IRS has grown to 500. And it's become obvious that liberal groups were given an easy pass. Read the following and ask whether there should be a new election:

In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

Some applications were held up over three years. Add 27 months, or more than three years, from February of 2010, and it's election season 2012, or beyond it. By the time the organizations geared up, election season was passed. We get it. "Before the IRS started separating out Tea Party applications, getting tax-exempt status was routine -- even for conservative groups. The Champaign Tea Party's treasurer, Karen Olsen, said the process was smooth, with no follow-up questions from the IRS." Then, the IRS started questioning what the beliefs and thoughts of the Conservative applicants were. It's not good enough under these circumstances to impeach Obama and then have Joe Biden take over. The Republicans were cheated out of an election by a dishonest government organization that expects the country to be honest with it.

By Wednesday, Obama, who was unwilling to condemn the IRS scandal the day before, and who insisted on an official investigation to be done before passing blame, suddenly flip-flopped against the IRS, coming out with "intolerable" and "inexcusable." What a difference a single day for someone who's a piece of cardboard. He then came out to say that people at the IRS head should lose a job, and the media still in support of him said that he was angry (baloney). Fox put it much better when stating: "In Wake of Scandal, Obama Fires IRS Boss -- Who Was Already Resigning"

Clearly, the current president is a shape-shifter, a fake, a lunatic, and a criminal. Only a sociopath can live with himself when conducting himself with such lack of morality.

In addition, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller resigned his position...

"Secretary Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation...

FOX19 has exclusively learned from two separate sources that there could be at least four Cincinnati employees involved...

...One of FOX19's two sources went on say that these four IRS workers claim "they simply did what their bosses ordered."

There was bound to be some reciprocal action: the ones whom the higher-ups pointed the fingers to are now pointing the fingers back up. And that's the way the official hearing promise to be. The exposure is getting so burning hot that even Chris Matthews has to shut-up for a change. "On Tuesday's program, Matthews similarly called Obama "a ship with the engine off."" Chris is being too kind. Obama is more like a shipwreck. The media is learning that one way to get back lost readership is to expose Obama. The whole world is suddenly tuning in! Shout and sing, all ye merrily.

The Democrat machine is spouting back, portraying the Republicans as hypocrites because, in the past, they've opposed leaks to the press. However, the Republican fire at Holder's feet has not to do with leaks, but on Holder's abuse of snooping tools. Perjury before an official hearing is serious. Holder won't be left off the hook if a whistle-blower comes along to condemn his lies. "Under questioning from Rep. Tom Marino, Eric Holder just admitted that, even though he'd allegedly recused himself, there was no paper trail he could provide as evidence." Apparently, his deputy is willing thus far to tow the Holder line with Holder saying something like, "don't worry about it, I'll look after you."

The New York Times came out with a story that Verizon handed the Obama government cell-phone records of a couple of reporters "with no questions asked." These reporters were of the ones investigated by Holder's office in the AP scandal. Other cell-phone companies, unlike Verizon in this case, notify their customers if they are going to comply with such government demands. The fact that Verizon did NOT notify the reporters explains why the government used Verizon, for had it used the other cell phone companies, some of the AP scandal would have become known at that time. Yes, they wanted to snoop secretly without anyone knowing about it. That's the wickedness in all this that even Democrats find repulsive.

Imagine in old days before electricity. There is a snoop at every house paid for by the king. The snoop is inside a secret box in the house listening to everything said. The household does not know what's in the box. Would the world have tolerated such a thing from the king? Yet today's generation is being conditioned to accept a similar situation. Shame on the Obama parasites for creating it after condemning Bush for starting it.

What happens when Conservatives are targeted for criminal prosecution under Eric Holder? What happens when Conservatives are framed and thrown in jail because Holder and Obama are political lunatics? Snooping on the general populace can be used to frame people. That's why a dictator would want to snoop on the people, to stamp out political enemies. Today it may even be possible to create an entire set of faked emails in someone's name. In court, it would be the word of the accused verses the word of the police as to whether that person said what the police claims he said. Imagine that. Imagine such a weapon in the hands of the O-Lunatics. This is where this was all going, and it may yet go there if the Democrats forgive the imposter president and apply faith in him yet again. So long as he has a loyal base, he doesn't care whether all Republicans oppose him.

Obama must be very happy that Holder is taking some heat off of Benghazi, for the latter has become a fearful thing to Obama. Holder is fully aware that Obama could ask him to step down for the party, and so he's on his best behavior for Obama:

Breitbart News has obtained an exclusive video of Attorney General Eric Holder flatly rejecting the idea of appointing a special counsel to investigate Benghazi.

Filmed on May 15 and provided to Breitbart News by Special Operations Speaks, the video shows Holder emerge from his car and walk towards the Rayburn House Office Building for hearings on the IRS scandal. Holder is clearly asked, "Mr. Holder, will you appoint a Special Counsel to investigate Benghazi?"

In equally clear tones, Holder answers, "No," and disappears into the building.

The pressure is on Obama to show complete transparency now. On Wednesday, Congress read some of Obama's Benghazi-related emails in order to make them public. Actually, Boehner was sending Obama a message that the emails provided only to the House, but not to the public, should also be made known to the public. After reading some of them, the White House finally "consented" (some media actually portrayed him as kind) to give up to the public about 100 of the 25,000 available emails (not enough, of course). Expectedly,

The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September.

...the first released email was sent 67 hours after the attack began...

Is that not a "joke"? What other emails were excluded? Put it this way, that because the White House released emails condemning Hillary and the White House together as liars, just how badly problematic are the emails not yet released??? This is why there needs to be a Committee formed to force the documents out.

Nor do the emails provide a record of the secure video teleconference from September 15 in which the final decisions were ultimately made on what the final version of the talking points would look like. Senior government officials such as the State Department's director for policy planning, Jake Sullivan, participated in the teleconference.

In Hillary's hearing back in January, she was adamant that the CIA was to blame for the talking-point changes, and yet the emails just released point out that Petraeus didn't want to use the talking points as finalized by both the state department and Ben Rhodes of Obama. Therefore, Hillary, like her husband before her, was outright lying to the people, and blaming others to protect her own negligence or criminal wrongdoing. The liberal media is now well aware of this and has no defence for Hillary. And "'The White House's explanation [regarding the video, street demonstration] appears NOWHERE in the actual documents. Nowhere. Not even a hint of it,' Buck added."

Is it not a violation of the people's trust for Hillary to blame the CIA when in very undeniable fact it was her department that forced the changes? And it was she that needed the changes to protect her image. Shifting the blame is no small matter. It's unworthy of a president, yet liberals would still vote for her in 2016 because liberals are incapable of reasoning properly. I'm not exaggerating; Hell has a special place for liberals because they don't think right, don't live right. Some Democrats claim to date that there is no proof of Hillary's wrongdoing, and yet the emails released by the White House black-out certain names in the emails. Who do we think had the names blacked-out? And why?

To no credit for Petraeus, he allowed the edited version to become publicized, and supported it even while unhappy with it. See the story at

Now that the White House emails have exposed beyond a doubt that there was no truth to the video-and-demonstration, the issue is turning to why Hillary did not supply the Libyan ambassador the protection he needed and begged for. And Obama is bringing more abuse upon himself by blaming a lack of money from the Republicans.

At the same time, the president is condescending on the press by supporting Holder over AP:

President Barack Obama dodged questions Thursday about the IRS's targeting of conservative groups, shifted responsibility for the Benghazi attack to Congress, and said 'I offer no apologies' for the Department of Justice's secret seizure of reporter's phone records in search of a classified intelligence leak.

In a rain-soaked Rose Garden press conference originally intended to be a victory lap for the United States' relationship with Turkey, Obama stood alongside Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan...

What's interesting here is that Stevens died on the same night in which he spoke with a Turkish diplomat. Erdogan probably knows more of what happened in Benghazi than Congress does. I don't know whether Erdogan was scheduled to meet the president from prior to the latest Benghazi scandal, or whether he's visiting Obama suddenly to catch up on anything he needs to know, such as how to cover things up at his end on weapons from Benghazi. Remember the ship with missiles was docked in Turkey when the Benghazi attack took place, and Turkey favored the idea of transferring weapons to the Muslim extremists rather than to the Free Syria Army.

On Thursday, the following story came out that could have everything to do with Holder making it deliberately conducive for terrorists to launch airplane attacks:

The U.S. Marshals Service had been "unable to locate" two former participants in the federal Witness Security Program who have been identified as known or suspected terrorists according to the Justice Department's inspector general.

...After its audit, the IG's [Inspector General] office reported "[Holder's] Department did not definitively know how many known or suspected terrorists were admitted into the WITSEC program," among other "significant issues concerning national security" [it sounds like sloppiness / incompetence but could be far worse under the circumstances].

... the Justice Department "was not authorizing the disclosure to the Terrorist Screening Center,"; which operates the terrorist watch list that helps provide information to the Transportation Security Administration's No-Fly and Selectee lists. "Therefore it was possible for known or suspected terrorists to fly on commercial airplanes in or over the United States and evade one of the government's primary means of identifying and tracking terrorists" movements and actions."

Is this deliberate manipulation of the records on Holder's part in order to have an excuse (later, after a bombing) for why a bomber(s) was not on a no-fly list? The situation is perfect for the continued terrorist bomb plots I expected since the faked marathon bombings. Again, the AP scandal that Holder is now involved in has to do with an airline bomber from Yemen. Could the events of this week be God-driven to stop these bomb plots? The article continues: "The IG's office notified the Justice Department of these problems and in the middle of remedying them, marshals discovered they could not account for the two missing [potential terrorists]."

Fox reports the same story, but shows how Republicans are interpreting it merely as sloppiness:

The Justice Department temporarily lost track of two known or suspected terrorists who were in the witness protection program -- and allowed others on the no-fly list to board commercial flights -- according to a watchdog report which fueled criticism of the administration.

"This is gross mismanagement -- pure and simple," Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.

It was reported mid-week that the younger Chechen brother wrote a note inside the boat saying that an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all Muslims. Do you believe he wrote that? First of all, he knew that no Muslims would be coming by the boat to pick up his message, and secondly, if he did write it, he'd be hoping that the U.S. authorities would publicize it for him. Did they publicize it? Yes. Isn't it wrong for them to publicize it? Yes. Therefore, in my opinion, the U.S. authorities wrote the note, and then let it out as if it was written by the "terrorist," because this note will explain future terror acts that the O-people have planned to conduct. The note was released mid-week amongst all his troubles, as though Obama is thinking to conduct yet another faked attack to take the news off of him. The New-Orleans fake job, fortunately, didn't take the media off of these other more-explosive stories.

Still on Thursday, word yet of another scandal: medical records stolen by the revenue service. What kind of monster is that?

The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.

According to a report by, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.

Well California, you voted for Obama, now eat your just deserts and don't complain. What does tax oversight have to do with medical records? Why would the IRS want medical records? It wouldn't. It's Obama who wants it, right? He has some secret program going for listing and storing medical info as per his health-care programs, right? And somehow the IRS had access to medical records. Isn't that alarming? What else is the IRS doing for Obama? Since when did the IRS turn into a Democrat machine? It's as though the Democrats are suffering severe, neurotic irony in their quest to dictate over the nation, and therefore grasping at illegal methods for winning back the House.

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, the headline: "IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office":

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now [as a reward for the corruption?] the director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

...Sen. John Cornyn even introduced a bill, the "Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013," which would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate, including the IRS, from enforcing the Affordable Care Act.

Obama should go commit suicide.

Did the Pressure-Cooker Lid Fly?

There were so many things wrong with the Boston marathon storyline that the FBI condemned itself. The problem is, no one's prosecuting the FBI. If you give the FBI your trust, you will never see the realities. The reality was shown in the photo's of the backpacks on the shoulders of the brothers; the backpacks did not have sufficient weight to hold the bombs that caused the reported damage.

Another thing. The pressure-cooker lid. Ask: what is problematic in a picture where the pot lid falls down to the street? Easy answer: if the pot lid fell to the street, it proves that it went essentially straight up, which could then NOT knock the lower legs off of Jeff Bauman. The biggest problem was that no pressure-cooker bomb was used, which alone explains why there could not have been a lid falling to the street. I suppose that planting the lid on a roof was safer than planting it on the street.

For argument's sake, lets imagine a pressure-cooker bomb, and let's look at the trajectory of the lid, asking whether the path could have knocked off Jeff's lower legs while doing no other harm to any other part of Jeff's body. You understand that the path of the lid had to be on the low side in order to do no harm to Jeff's upper legs, and yet the lid ended up on a roof. Is that a contradiction worth investigating? Yes.

It'll be shown later that the interior products of the pot were not the things that did damage to his legs, i.e. it must have been the lid that hit him.

It was reported that the lid ended up on the roof of a six-story building (roughly 65 feet high) about 105 feet from the bomb, and on the same side of the street as the bomb. Lets try to figure out the angle of the lid's trajectory. Or, let's first resolve that the only way for this roof-destined lid to hit below his knees is for Jeff's foot to be right beside the bag, practically standing on the bag. Try to imagine it, and don't be afraid because this event did not take place.

If the bag was even a foot from Jeff's feet, a lid on the roof would be impossible...because the further away the bag (on the ground) from Jeff's feet, the lower the angle of lid trajectory needed to hit only his legs below the knees. If the bag was in contact with Jeff's feet, the lid could fly at a maximum of about a 45-degree angle. Any more of an angle would affect his upper legs.

Lets now calculate the possible trajectory angles of the flying lid. You can formulate a good sense of the angle at the photo in the following webpage:

There you can see the roof of the six-story hotel to which the lid supposedly flew. On both sides of the hotel, the buildings are lower, meaning that the lid would have landed on the roof without first striking a wall. We expect the lid to go up, then start a downward curve, and finally bounce onto the roof. Without knowing the greatest height of the curve, a physicist we wouldn't be able to know the initial angle of the lid trajectory, and yet Jeff's legs confirm that the angle could not have been much more than 45 degrees.

Let's assume the "best" situation for argument's sake, that Jeff's foot was touching the pot. Let's say that the pot lid was 10 inches high, which is about half way up to knee level. Go ahead, draw it on a piece of paper. Draw a square indicating the pot with lid 10 inches high, and then draw to scale a leg that comes down immediately beside the pot. Then draw a line from the center of the pot lid through the knees to see that it's roughly at a 45 degree angle. If a lid flying at that angle could land on a roof 100 feet away, I would be willing to give some credit for the reported story.

If the pot went out at a 60-degree angle, it would be predicted to hit Jeff in the upper leg and even into one hip (where Jeff's foot was touching the bag). Therefore, you can see that the angle of the flying lid is very important for figuring whether the insiders got their scenario right. See the shapes of cannonball curves made from 45-degree and 60-degree launches:

Bottom line: we can eliminate a 45-degree trajectory because the lid velocity would be too slow. Below are the numbers.

At the webpage below, there is a trajectory calculator. It tells that an object launched at 56 mph at an angle of 45 degrees will travel a total distance (= range) of 210 feet while reaching a maximum height of 92 feet midway through it's flight. As the hotel is 105 feet from the bomb site, this situation has a curve (i.e. maximum height) 92 feet high directly over the hotel, and would therefore over-shoot the hotel roof easily. We've got to slow the lid down, or else lower the angle.

An object launched at 56 mph at an angle of 40 degrees (= very round curve with little bounce on the roof) will travel a total distance of 206 feet and reach a height of 72 feet midway through it's flight. This situation would just skim over the hotel roof (assuming 65 feet high) with a lid passing horizontally over it. What's needed is a maximum height reached significantly before the hotel so that the lid drops to the roof on the downward curve. The maximum height could start about 70 feet from the explosion (with 35 feet of downward curve), meaning that we need numbers entered (in the trajectory calculator) that provide about 140 feet of total range. In order to derive this scenario, the lid velocity needs to be slowed significantly from 56 mph.

For example, an object launched at 46 mph at an angle of 45 degrees (= very round curve) will travel a total distance of 141 feet but achieve a height of only 62 feet when in mid-flight (70 feet along). By the time it reaches the hotel 35 feet later, it will be significantly less than 62 feet high. A better scenario would be 46 mph at 50 degrees for a total range of 139 feet and 76 feet in maximum height. The lid could then be coming down on the hotel roof.

But even then, and assuming that 50 degrees would not touch above Jeff's knees, the launch velocity of 46 mph doesn't seem sufficient to blow a man's lower legs off. It would knock him off his feet and do much damage, but I don't think it would do what we saw on Jeff's faked legs. A lawyer could really use this method of attack against the fakers.

I don't think we can go much higher than a 50-degree angle due to the upper-leg problem, and we can't go much lower than 45 degrees with a hotel just 105 feet away. If we keep the angle at 50 and increase the launch velocity to 50 mph, the lid might not overshoot the hotel. Therefore, 45-50 degrees and 45-50 mph is about the best that can be offered by the insiders. These numbers need to be adjusted for air friction, meaning that the launch velocity can be increased somewhat.

The insiders might argue that it was not the lid that hit Jeff, but rather a mass of metal fragments (ball bearings, etc.) from within the pot. Would the metal bits travel faster than the lid? It depends on how they escape the pot, whether suddenly by the entire lid popping off all at once, or gradually while the lid is ripped off gradually from one end? It the entire lid is blown off all at once, I don't see that the interior material should travel any faster than the lid. What would a ball bearing do to the skin at 50-60 mph? A BB pellet for a low-velocity gun comes out the barrel much faster than 100 mph.

Wikipedia: "A pellet with a velocity of 150 ft/s [about 100 mph] has skin piercing capability [i.e. doesn't always], and a velocity reaching 200 ft/s (61 m/s) can fracture bone [if it ever gets to the bone]." Therefore, ball bearings moving at 50-60 mph probably would not break the skin of the legs let alone blow bones right off...wherefore there was not a pressure-cooker bomb at the marathon. You can either listen to these facts, or to the FBI.

Had it not been for Jeff Bauman being made a part of the picture, the velocity of the lid might have been as high as 150 mph. For example, a lid launched at that velocity and rising at an angle of 88 degrees (virtually straight up) would have a range of 105 feet. However, the maximum height would then be 1502 feet so that the lid would come crashing down hard on the hotel roof and likely bounce off. But the bomb could not take Jeff's legs off with a lid taking an 88-degree angle. The insiders blew it, didn't they?

Ask: why would the pot lid fly at a 45-degree angle rather than straight up? Is it at all to be expected in the first place for the lid to go off at a 45-degree angle? The pot has a flat bottom, and it's supposedly filled with metal, wherefore the pot is unlikely to be positioned on a 45-degree angle within the bag.

Let's look at the fraction of a second in which the development of the explosion takes pace, and let's predict how the explosion may have taken place. I can claim with confidence that the lid would not have been blown off the pot if the pot was compromised initially at any point besides the lid. If, for example, while under the pressure of the explosive gas, a crack or breach developed on the side / bottom of the pot before the lid was blown off, the crack would have relieved pressure on the lid. The next expected event would be the widening of the crack...which would have relieved the lid all the more.

Therefore, where we are to believe that the lid landed on a roof, the lid must have been the first part of the pot to be compromised...meaning that all other parts of the pot would have been spared any cracks. We can't have ball bearings going out the pot anywhere but out the lid area. And, by the way, where is the lower portion of the pot? What happened to it, according to the FBI?

As soon as any part of the lid was compromised, we might imagine an initial opening developing along a part (i.e. not all) of the rim. That is, the circumference of the rim might have had a weakest point where the initial opening would develop. In this scenario, the hot gas would have rushed out the initial opening, "blowing" metal pieces at great speed in that direction too. The next event would be the continuation of the ripping off of the lid around the rim, but there is a question as to whether the entire lid would blow off because the internal pressure may have been relieved before the entire lid was ripped off.

However, as the lid was supposedly on a roof, we have no choice but to view the lid popping off with roughly equal force all around the circumference of the rim. The entire lid popped off all at once. It's not unreasonable. Yes, for if the lid ripped off gradually, it would not have gone very far because the pressures from within the pot at the end of the rip would have been mainly escaped in the opposite direction. The OPPOSITE direction.

Let's say that rim developed an initial opening on the east side. In this case, the lid would be peeled back toward the west as the violent gas and metal bits streamed east out the opening. Therefore, we wouldn't have the metal fragments and the lid going in the same direction, but rather in opposite directions. It means that, in this scenario, Jeff's legs could not have been blown off by both the lid and the metal fragments. So which one of the two was it?

The insiders don't give us a choice, for they committed to a lid eastward to the hotel roof. It's known that Jeff (or whoever he was) was standing on the east side of the explosion location. Therefore, it seems unavoidable to conclude, regardless of which scenario we use, that the lid is what blew Jeff's legs off. Not really, because it didn't happen, but, the point is, there is no way to avoid a lid crossing paths with Jeff's legs under the "facts" given us by the FBI and others. It appears that the insiders arranged Jeff and other "facts" in such a way as to have the lid going directly through his lower legs.

The question is: if the lid was popped off with roughly equal force around its circumference, which way would the metal fragments go? I don't think I'd be wrong to claim that the entire explosion would follow the path of the lid. The pot, cylindrical in shape, could be viewed as a short cannon barrel.

Scandal Developments Late in the Week

When the Barack H. Obama Foundation sought tax-exempt status to raise money for good works in Kenya, the Internal Revenue Service provided quick help.

The [Cincinnati office] IRS approved charitable status for the foundation, which was run by President Obama's brother and named after his father, in about a month's time. The IRS also agreed to give the group this important financial status retroactively, back to 2009, when it had begun its fundraising.

...IRS and White House officials did not return calls and e-mails.

...Ken Boehm, executive director of the National Legal and Policy Center, said he found it "highly suspicious" -- given that the average application took five to six months to approve [others say 8-10 months] -- that the foundation received a speedy nod and retroactive cover.

Also, the following from a Friday hearing makes it plain that a cover-up in the IRS is taking place:

Acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller said indicated he did not know who was responsible for the targeting of conservative groups by IRS agents. "I don't have that name, sir," he told GOP congressman Dave Reichert in today's House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the scandal, which came to light last Friday.

Reichert persisted, "Did you ask anybody?"

"Yes," Miller responded -- he asked the senior technical adviser, Nancy Marks.

"And what did Nancy tell you, who's responsible?" Reichert asked.

"That I don't remember, to be honest with you," Miller said.

If you are a post-tribber, put a piece of tape over your webcamera because someone can take a picture of you even if you think your camera is shut off. Remove your photos from online.

"One of the participants, before doing the experiment, told us, 'You're not going to find me because I'm very careful about my photos online.' And we found him," says Acquisti, "Because someone else had uploaded a photo of him."

The government, because it has a photo of you, can find your photo online, and if the government can do it, so can globalists, satanists, and similar bad guys who can do you wrong. The article says that the technology is here for someone to acquire your personal info just by having your photo. That's why Facebook is such an excellent spy tool for the bad guys. The world has been suckered into unveiling it's private things to be forever on record in someone's files.

Now that one abortionist has gotten a jail sentence, people are going to leak the names of similar killers. Already, on Friday, the following came out. If you can't take the hideous, don't read the article. In fact, I won't give you the link to the article. You can look it up yourself if you must know the details:

Houston doctor Douglas Karpen is accused by four former employees of delivering live babies during third-trimester abortions and killing them.

...A late-term procedure cost between $4,000 and $5,000 at the clinic...

...'We used to look at each other and sometimes our tears would come out with the other assistants,' Edge said. 'We would always think "he's so greedy."'

What a fine way to make a living. "Greedy" doesn't begin to do justice.

Finally, at the end of the week, someone did a story on whether Holder was exaggerating when he claimed that AP did something "very very serious" to jeopardize the public:

...But the AP has strongly refuted from the start claims that it put the country in danger...

"We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed," AP President Gary Pruitt said in a written response to the Justice Department's claims.

...the CIA officials who first cited the security concerns said they no longer had the same worries. Rather, the Obama administration was planning to announce the success of the counterterrorism project the following day...

After a series of negotiations, the AP ultimately decided to publish. Months later, the Obama administration seized the phone records -- home, work and cell -- of 20 AP reporters and editors.

The government says it was trying to hunt down the AP government source who leaked information about a top secret U.S. operation to thwart an Al Qaeda plan to blow up an airliner.

...One White House official told the Post that the reason the administration was planning to go public with the operation was because they knew the AP was planning a story [i.e. Obama wanted to bask in the glory of another success story].

But the argument doesn't hold up, some say, because the day after it was released, the White House's top counterterrorism adviser went on "Good Morning America" and talked about how successful the operation had been. John Brennan, now CIA director, praised the work of U.S. intelligence officials and said that the Al Qaeda plot was NEVER AN ACTIVE THREAT to the American public.

Brennan's comments seem to challenge the reason the government pressed the news organization to hold the story as well as Holder's claims that the leak and published report endangered Americans.

It's such a laughable thing for grown men to get caught doing something like this, but to play like children when giving stretchy excuses for their actions. What's not laughable is the overall agenda that Obama and Holder together have for their snooping binges. Snooping is what one needs when illegal and other unethical activity has been planned. Even CNN's Piers Morgan is admitting that the Obama government is wallowing in tyranny:

"I've had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, 'Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,' and I've always laughed at them," Morgan said...

"But, actually, this [week's scandals] is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government."

He continued, "I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior. I think what the Department of Justice has done to the AP is bordering on tyrannical behavior."

Jillette agreed with Morgan, stating, "There's no doubt about that. Once you use the word 'bordering,' that's true..."

When it gets this bad for Obama, he's dead. For the time being, anyway. The door is wide open for Republicans to deeply dig into government records, and this will no doubt keep Obama dead for quite some time. And the best thing: his liberal quacks won't be spouting off as much with a weekly threat of more embarrassing finds concerning the ObamaNation. If they brag today, tomorrow will find them embarrassed. Thus, Obama has betrayed even his own voters, pulling them into the same chasm of disgrace. It's good that they get practice in a chasm of disgrace, for Hell is just one of those things.

However, you can guess right that there is going to be a backlash against Christian groups as they celebrate this great sting over the wicked ones.

There are those who think that they can whitewash Obama at this point, but that's being hasty because not all the dirt has yet come out. Some articles are spreading the idea that the worst of this week's scandals is the IRS one. Poppycock. Benghazi saw people murdered. At first, the people had reason to give Obama a benefit of the doubt, but this past week has not hijacked the Benghazi topic at all; it has rather reinforced the suspicions that some had. "...the [old] unadulterated adulation of Barack Obama is a sour feeling of disillusion, as a new poll reveals half of Americans wants him impeached, including a stunning one in four Democrats." The article tells that about 25 percent of Democrats (and only 35-40 percent of Republicans) want Obama impeached on either one of the three scandals.

That's a big deal because some Democrats took Obama to be an honest man against all the criticisms, and here they find that the criticisms were true after all. Had all this week's information been out before the election, Romney would have won by a landslide, and in fact the Republicans wouldn't have needed to go with a Mormon fat-cat...who amounts to a damaging Christian mutation. It's probably better to have a lame-duck Obama than an empowered Mormon capitalist who wants to invigorate globe-trodding.

The article adds: "While 49 percent said the Benghazi murders of U.S. diplomatic personnel is the most serious issue, 26 percent said IRS harassment was most serious, and 25 percent said the seizure of AP phone records was most serious." Therefore, where do the media people get their idea that the IRS story is the most important?

It's not time for impeachment because there is yet much dirt to gather up first. Patience. It's pitiful, yes, but also fun to watch Obama squirm with lie after lie. As for the Republicans, they keep saying "intimidation" from Obama's various agencies when they should be saying "cheated" the election and then got arrogant about winning while cheating. The good news, the mid-term election season is just a year off.

The Fly Sign

All winter long, I had house flies in my unfinished house. They were probably getting in from the attic through a few remaining cracks. All my life, I can't recall hearing a house fly flying in the dark. As soon as lights are turned out, house flies stop flying around the lights. But this past winter, a house fly was hovering over my bed in the dark. House flies don't hover, do they? I got up, turned on the light, and there on the wall, a house fly. Why was it hovering? I know the difference between the sound of a fly passing by and a fly buzzing at the same basic location.

When I awoke, there was a house fly on the forehead of Obama in a news article concerning the many house flies that take to Obama during his public appearances at a podium (see my report in the 4th update of last January). I therefore took the hovering house fly as a Sign that Obama was about to conduct a black-helicopter program i.e. faked events that lead to a martial-law-like situation. I had never before given much emphasis or even credibility to martial-law reports from Infowars and others. But this Sign convinced me that something was up. And suddenly, I found myself writing, in the past month, on faked mass-murder / mass-shooting events.

Then, last night as I write, I heard another house fly while in bed. I sat up, tuned my ear, and sure enough, it was a fly in the next room. But it then immediately flew into the room where my bed was at. I know a house fly when I hear it; no other fly sounds the same. Besides, there were three of them at the light just before turning the light off. I knew right away that I had to tell you this. It happened Sunday night, the night before this update was due. Perfect. The Lord wants you to know that Obama is engaged in black-helicopter shenanigans.

Another Arrest in New Orleans

On Thursday, the brother of Akein Scott in New Orleans was arrested for the Mother's Day shooting. "The two suspects are believed to be involved in gangs, police said. No further details were immediately available, authorities said." BELIEVED to be involved in GANGS. Oh, well, that clinches their guilt at the parade. It's amazing how quickly these boys have been found guilty without question.

In another article from CBS, not forgetting that "CBS News President David Rhodes is the brother of [Obama's] Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes":

Shawn Scott, 24, was arrested Thursday, police Chief Ronal Serpas said. He is the brother of 19-year-old Akein Scott...

At a news conference at the shooting site near the French Quarter, Mayor Mitch Landrieu accused the suspects of "callously shooting into crowds of hundreds of citizens."

It sounds like the Mayor thinks that the older brother was likewise at the shooting. It sounds like the mayor thinks the older brother also shot bullets. They're expected, therefore, to figure a way to raise the bullet count, bus as yet there has been no word on this issue.

The CBS article continues with additional information intended to make the public believe that the brothers were attempting to escape: "In addition to the Scotts, Serpas said police arrested four people who are accused of helping Akein Scott elude capture. Serpas said their charges are being accessories after the fact to attempted second-degree murder and obstruction of justice." The entire "gang" of friends could be involved in a frame sting, an illegality.

It continues: "Prosecutors said a witness picked out a photo of Akein Scott, 19, from a lineup. An arrest affidavit said the unidentified witness told investigators that Akein Scott was the person seen in a surveillance video that police released to the public as they searched for him for three days. The witness also said Akein Scott was carrying a silver and black semi-automatic handgun at the shooting scene, according to the affidavit." That's a very easy thing to do, provide an "unidentified witness" insider to vouch that the frame victim is the one at the crime scene, and to make it carry more weight, the witness even saw the two colors of the gun i.e. he was supposedly right-up close. The older brother, whose photo is in the article, has a stout neck too (i.e. like his brother) and is definitely not the thin-necked one in the video.

I know how it is, that when you read an article where the police say such-and-such against a person, you automatically trust them, that they are telling the truth. Or, if the FBI makes a statement against another FBI agent that they wish to tarnish, you automatically believe the accusation and therefore view the other agent as the bad guy. Why is this? Why does the media condition us in this way? Because, the media do not tend to appear opposed to the police lest it complicates the acquisition of police information for future stories. Bottom line: media prefers to keep a good reputation with police departments.

Other articles tried to portray the young brother as a gun-toting individual, yet National Public Radio did not mention any of the reported gun charges. Instead: "Both Akein and Shawn Scott have been arrested multiple times, for charges ranging from drug possession to resisting an officer." I was arrested on drug possession charges, but I never carried a gun. Resisting an officer??? Fully expected when the police are harassing you or otherwise being brutish. We've seen the police on video acting that way, where an ill-treated man is expected to resist. Police like to have "fun" when they get to arrest the "bad guy," bend his arm back hard and almost break it if possible, create pain and suffering in the individual. We've seen it, it's not a theory. Reality is not at all like the good-cop shows that we're fed these days.

The article continues: "While media and official reports have consistently put the number of people wounded in Sunday's attack at 19 victims, the arrest warrant charges each Scott brother with 20 counts of attempted second-degree murder." That clinches it: the older brother is being framed for being at the scene too. Should there not be more than one witness if this is true? Where were, and who are, the witnesses who saw the older brother in the act of shooting?

The younger brother has been jailed indefinitely pending $10 million of bail, and all we are hearing to this point is that he was arrested on account of one affidavit of an unidentified witness. Does that seem right to you? Show us this witness in the video, and let us see how close he was to the shooter. How tall or short was this witness? Could he see over the heads in the crowd? Did he wear glasses / contacts? If indeed he saw the gun in the shooter's hand, there must not have been any people in the way of his vision. He should be in the video, therefore.

I am probably correct in the following explanation as to why the brothers were charged so soon: they were not on the run, and slept the nights from Sunday onward where they normally did. If this normal situation lasted for too long, it would not be possible for police to feign their being on the run. Besides, we are being told that they were not on the run so much as being hidden by friends. Can we have the details on that hiding out? Did they like spend a whole day at a friend's house?

"Monique Pepe was charged with being an accessory after the fact to attempted second-degree murder over accusations she harbored Shawn Scott, 24, police said. She also faces drug charges." Nothing else is said. Another article: "Police say Pepe allowed 24-year-old Shawn Scott to hide at her residence." Nothing else is said. We are not told where Scott lived at the time, whether at her place or not. We are not told the relationship between he and she. For all we know, this was Scott's girlfriend, and he was merely staying with her as a routine, i.e. not at all trying to hide out...because he knew nothing about the police being after him.

Suddenly, in the attempt to frame the brothers, we have others being framed. We are also reading: "Pepe was also booked on charges of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of heroin and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine." What a lucky strike (sarcasm) that Pepe should have heroin and large amounts of cocaine at her place on the day the police came to get Scott there. You understand that, if the police demonize these people, no one will feel compelled to fight for their rights. We now await word from the defense attorneys; we should not be surprised to hear the word, "frame" or "set-up." The Nola article gives the names of the other four arrested.

Never mind the good images that you're treated with from good-cop shows; here is the real world:

A former "top cop," who had the honor of sitting next to first lady Michelle Obama during a televised presidential speech four years ago, is facing rape allegations.

Richard DeCoatsworth left a party with two women on Thursday, according to authorities.

The women called authorities and said once they arrived at a second, undisclosed location, the retired officer pulled a gun on them, the Philadelphia Police Department said in a statement.

He allegedly forced them "to engage in the use of narcotics and to engage in sexual acts," the statement said. He was charged with rape on Saturday.

I plan on reporting concerning the escalation of things on the Syria / Iraq front in the next update.


Especially for new or confused readers
shows where I'm coming from.

For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline Topics

Here's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew Rose

On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence -- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find -- that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents

web site analytic