The King David Show

KDNews


Leave a comment

King David Confronts Mexican Military Troops In America


I was out early in the morning just going to the store as I always do. When I came back home, I noticed some strange green uniforms standing in the parking lot. In the beginning there was about 7 of them standing around but, I pulled out my camera and most of them walked away. They left me with one brave soldier who told it all. Notice on his ID it says ‘Foreign Visitor’ and it does not expire until 1/5/2020 I believe. So he has plans to he here for a while.


Leave a comment

What Is The University of Phoenix Teaching Their Students?


I was in my class today and I decided to download all the reading material for my next class. This class is a Science Health class. I happen to open Chapter 15 of the text and this is what I read.


Reading the text in this chapter has made me believe that the University is pushing an Anti-Human agenda. It seems the text is suggesting that people should lower their standards of living.  It also suggests people should have less children and receive tax incentives for having smaller families.


Leave a comment

US Military and Local Police Working Together on American Streets


Susanne Posel
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

The US military is being usedto protect civilian events, like the 2012 Democratic and Republican Party National Conventions in Tampa, Florida and Charlotte, North Carolina.

USNORTHCOM and Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense, has readily admitted that US armed forces will collaborate with local law enforcement “if called upon”.

In fact, more than 20,000 troops were brought home and readied for deployment within the US to assist in “civil unrest and crowd control”.

The US military will prop up the US Secret Service “for operational security reasons we do not discuss the numbers of military personnel and resources that are involved. Additionally, we do not share our operational plans,” said U.S. Navy Lt. Cdr. William G. Lewis.

The extent of use of military forces on civilian matters, as reported by mainstream media (MSM) have included the reallocation of hundreds of military police officers being trained to “assist local authorities” in investigation, crime scene and case building.

An estimate 500 military police and dogs will be used as “law enforcement battalions”. These soldiers, having served on tours in Afghanistan, will now be activated and based out of military bases across America to help local police forces.

National Guard has been witnessed in Virginia conducting “wellness checks” and patrolling residential neighborhoods as well as downtown city areas.

In Southern California, the TSA have been caught patrolling train stations and bus terminals.

The US Congress has given over $25 million in more funding to support unannounced TSA checkpoints.

According to one whistleblower : “We’re doing patrols in the parking lot with dogs, we’re even going as far out to the train station because the train station is connected to the airport here and we have guys walking around the train station, walking around the rental cars, we’re inspecting cars coming into the parking garage, I mean we’ve fully expanded – we’re no longer just at the gate and just at the security checkpoint.”

Military soldiers and TSA checkpoints are not the only tricks up the US government’s sleeve.

Researchers at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, led by Roland Brockers, have developed micro-aerial vehicles (MAVs) that utilize a camera pointed at the ground to navigate, choose landing destinations and identify people and targets.

Operators have only to command the MAVs to a location, beginning with the starting point, and the specialized GPS system will guide the micro-drone through mapped out sites, dimensions and landscapes.

Other military defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and LaserMotive have combined to preform drone testing with the use of wireless energy technology.

While the US government is facilitating the military on American streets and the TSA are beefing up their range with new checkpoints and areas of patrol, the national debate over gun control continues.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) are bringing attention to the anti-gun purveyors like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who are calling for immediate restriction of gun sales to average Americans.

Thomas Menino, Mayor of Boston and member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, commented: “The best way to honor the memory of those who senselessly lost their lives in Aurora is to make it harder for this to ever happen again. Our political leaders need to lead – and we demand they act now.”
NRA members are reporting, according to a new survey, that they are not only purchasing more guns because of recent events like the Batman shooting, but recognize that their purchases may put them on a terrorist watch list.

John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, acknowledges that gun control is a heated topic “in the wake of this horrible shooting” but that “more gun control could actually make situations worse by making it harder for law-abiding folks to own and carry guns, which means for lunatics that there are more unarmed, potential victims.”

Velleco admits that as of now, legislation is lacking in the gun control debate, however he recognizes that these anti-gun advocates are “kind of like vultures to take advantage of a situation to further an agenda that doesn’t get traction and that people don’t support.”

The NRA has political pull in swing states, which is being suggested by the MSM as a deterrent from Obama to support stricter gun laws; however Obama and Clinton have both publicly stated their support of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) being discussed by the UN in conference in New York until July 27th.

Susanne Posel’s post first appeared on her blog, Occupy Corporatism.


Leave a comment

Foreign Lawmakers Slam “Assassin” Obama Over Drone Strikes


President “Violating the principles of the Western world”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

British and Danish politicians have spoken out in disgust at the US policy of drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen, calling it targeted assassination.

“It’s terrible,” said Rasmus Helveg Petersen, the foreign policy spokesperson for Radikale, the Danish Social Liberal Party.

“The United States has no right to carry out these types of executions of suspected political adversaries. It contravenes international law.” Petersen said in an interview with the Politiken newspaper.

Peterson added that Obama was mirroring terrorist activity by adhering to the policy. ”It is tantamount to terrorism where you also kill people for political motives in someone else’s territory.” Peterson said.

Another Danish lawmaker, Soren Pind, of the Venstre party, Denmark’s opposition party, also blasted Obama. In an interview with Ræson magazine, Pind said “I criticised George Bush for combining the presidency with something we could view as torture. But what Obama is doing is combining the presidency with assassination. In reality it is much worse. Obama is completely ignoring the western world’s principles, and in the long run it will be detrimental,”

Officials from another far left party in Denmark, Enhedslisten, also weighed in, saying they would push the issue in the Danish parliament’s foreign policy committee.

  • A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Denmark’s foreign minister, Villy Sovndal was less critical but still intimated that the government was displeased with the US policy of drone strikes.“I am not prepared to comment further than saying that we do not use drones ourselves and that international rules must be adhered to,” said Sovndal.

Denmark has traditionally been a strong ally to the US. However, Ole Wæver, political scientist at the University of Copenhagen notes “Obama has used up his goodwill account…There has been until now broad political agreement that we stood shoulder to shoulder with the US, but people are slowly realising that the world order is changing.”

Neither the US government, nor the US Embassy in Denmark has responded to the criticism.

Meanwhile, in Britain, a group of twelve parliamentarians are reported to have penned a letter to Obama demanding that drone strikes in Pakistan are halted.

The International Herald Tribune reports that the officials contend that the strikes are only serving to fuel hatred of the US and provide justification for future terrorist activities and that too many innocent people are being killed as a result of the attacks. The letter also notes that the strikes are a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Earlier this week, it was reported that the incoming head of Pakistan’s intelligence network plans to demand that the US halt the drone strikes and let Pakistan deal with weeding out militants.

In related developments, a UN report released this week states that US drone aircraft over Somalia pose a significant danger to air traffic and may also violate an arms embargo against the country.

As we reported Monday, there is a huge growing movement in Pakistan speaking out against US aggression in the country.

One prominent voice is that of Imran Khan, the leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI) who recently slammed the US policy of targeting militants in Pakistan and elsewhere with unmanned drone strikes, calling the practice “immoral and insane”.

The Obama administration has been heavily criticized for moving to block the release of information relating to its overseas drone assassination programme, and will not even acknowledge that it exists, despite countless public references to the programme and the proven existence of an official “kill list”.

It is common knowledge that the Obama administration has exponentially increased the use of drone missile attacks in countries such as Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

The president has referred to the programme several times in public, as have officials such as counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan.

Earlier this year, the New York Times ran a major piece on the programme, revealing that the White House has asserted the right to carry out state-sponsored assassination anywhere in the world without having to provide any evidence or go through any legal process.

Furthermore, the Times revealed that Obama adopted a policy that “in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.”

The administration merely has to state that the target is a terrorist and it doesn’t matter whether they are an American citizen or not, as we saw in the case of American-born Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, who were both killed last year.

In December of last year, Obama administration lawyers reaffirmed their backingfor state sponsored assassination, claiming that “U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets” and do not have the right to any legal protection against being marked for summary execution.

During a CBS 60 Minutes interview in January, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta revealed that Obama himself personally approves the policy to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism without trial on a case by case basis.

Perhaps the real reason that the administration wants the details of the programme kept under wraps is that, as reported by Propublica recently, the programme is potentially much bigger in scope than anyone had previously thought.

The administration’s figures do not add up, they are chock full of contradictions and discrepancies, and there can be little doubt that there have been many many more civilian deaths as a result of drone attacks than have been publicly acknowledged.

Experts, including UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Christof Heyns, as well as Pakistan’s UN ambassador in Geneva, Zamir Akram, have described the drone assassination programme as a violation of the international legal system, saying that some attacks may constitute war crimes.

Akram, who noted that US drone strikes had killed more than 1,000 civilians in Pakistan, also said “We find the use of drones to be totally counterproductive in terms of succeeding in the ‘war against terror’. It leads to greater levels of terror rather than reducing them.

Many also contend that the attacks infringe the national sovereignty of Pakistan and constitute an act of war.

In 2010, a report by Washington think tank The New America Foundation found that 32% of the more than 1,200 people killed since 2004 in Pakistan, or around 1 in 3, were innocent bystanders rather than dangerous terrorists.

While the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has stated that the Pakistani government is actively facilitating the attacks by providing bases from which to launch the drones, Pakistani authorities have consistently voiced opposition to cross border missile strikes, which have been ongoing for years, but have accelerated since day one of Obama’s presidency. During Obama’s first year in office, there were 53 reported drone missile attacks; more than were carried out during the entirety of George W. Bush’s two four year terms in office.

Reports from 2009, drawn up by Pakistani authorities, indicated that close to 700 civilians had already perished, with just 14 wanted Al Qaeda leaders killed in the attacks.

The ACLU estimates that US drone strikes have killed as many as 4,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia since 2002. Of those, a significant proportion were civilians.

Last week it was revealed that the families of three US citizens killed in drone strikes in Yemen last year – including al-Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaqi – have filed a civil lawsuit against top US officials.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.


Leave a comment

Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, It’s About Tyranny


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

Now that Obama has tested the water on government gun control with a speech delivered before the National Urban League, we can expect the divisive issue to play a role in his re-election campaign.

Obama and his globalist handlers – who ultimately want every gun confiscated – understand that the American people by and large support the Second Amendment. This is why the president patronized hunters and shooters with an oily sleight of hand.

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

In fact, according to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be.

AK47s and other “assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government.

Obama supporters and other lovers of the state recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. This concept is antithetical to the modern liberal who believes government to be a force of good.

“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”

If Obama supporters, Democrats, “progressives” and others demanding the government take our firearms in a misplaced effort to stop maniacs from killing people were honest, they would work to repeal the Second Amendment instead of chipping away at it piecemeal. “If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue,” writes Schrade.

Such a debate is only possible today because formerly free men no longer have a grasp of history and have been brainwashed by decades of government mandated public education and propaganda. Early on in America, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists agreed that arms and liberty are inextricably linked. George Mason and others knew reflexively that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason, in particular, argued that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense – including the right to defend against a tyrannical government. Today, we have forgotten all of this.

Obama can easily get away with making an outrageous speech about hunting and target shooting and almost completely ignore criticism and not be called to task. We are told that he is a constitutional scholar. How could a constitutional scholar be completely ignorant of the Second Amendment’s true purpose and the admonitions of the founders? What constitutional scholar would be ignorant of Jefferson’s famous assertion, made in a letter to William Smith in 1787, that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”?

Obama is not a constitutional scholar. It is a phony title like just about everything else about the man. He is a teleprompter reader for a shadow global elite determined to debar access to weapons and take away those already in our possession. Not because of maniacs in theaters or classrooms, but in order to render us helpless against the violence of the state.


Leave a comment

Killer Drones Coming to A Sky Near You: Rosalind Peterson Reports


Infowars.com
June 15, 2012

Darrin McBreen talks to Rosalind Peterson of California Sky Watch about the deadly consequences of the government using military unmanned drones here in America.


Leave a comment

Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 15, 2012

Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axerlrod, announced earlier this week that the administration will push for a constitutional amendment to rollback free speech if his boss is re-elected in November.

“When we win, we will use whatever tools out there, including a constitutional amendment, to turn this back,” Axlerod said on Wednesday. “I understand the free speech argument, but when the Koch brothers can spend $400 million, more than the McCain campaign and the Republican Party spent last time, that’s very concerning.”

http://r.unicornmedia.com/content.aspx?uid=AC26FE85-334B-4A21-B72C-154F743F5739&at=7b3c6199-eae4-4027-bdcf-136a2c01c5c6

“This has never been done before — in 235 years — to make it possible for the government to control political speech in this country — a truly radical, astonishing thing to say out loud even if you believed it,” remarked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.

“America was built on free speech — the most important part of the Bill of Rights — and so we need to defend speech we don’t like. And we certainly want to fight against those who are trying to shut us up,” he said.

McConnell accused the Obama administration of using the the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to muzzle its critics. He added that the tactic is reminiscent of Nixon’s enemies list in the 1970s. White House Counsel John Dean said Nixon wanted to “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”

In April, Rory Cooper wrote about Obama’s “Truth Team“ campaign website. He noted “subtle differences between Obama’s and Nixon’s enemy lists. President Nixon kept his secret, and allegedly used the force of the government to punish adversaries. President Obama’s list is open and designed to elicit public scorn, shame and rebuke. There is no current evidence the President has manipulated the federal machinery punitively. But the message remains clear, if you support a philosophical adversary, you will face some retribution.”

Cooper penned his commentary following remarks made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and House Democrats have proposed a three tiered plan to ram through Congress what is known as the DISCLOSE Act. It would restrict the political speech of “covered organizations,” including most television and radio networks, newspapers, publishing houses, and think tanks.

Axlerod’s remarks about the First Amendment reveal that the so-called Team Obama approach to silencing the political opposition is not particularly effective. It also reveals a brazen contempt for the Bill of Rights.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the court said the First Amendment applies to all entities, including corporations:

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. … This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. … Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”

Obama and Axlerod may disagree with the concept of “corporate personhood” (except, of course, when it comes to the banks and corporations that support Obama), but the issue has far larger implications than simply preventing the dreaded Koch brothers from spending a small portion of their billions for the purpose of political speech.

If Obama manages to amend the Constitution – a remote possibility at best (but then considering the way the Supreme Court is currently construed, maybe not) – restrictions on free speech will undoubtedly be used against opponents outside the political establishment.

Axlerod’s comments underscore a deep-seated hostility toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as McConnell noted (not that Republicans are exactly champions of liberty).

Obama and the Democrats apparently hate that the First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as inherent in our humanity. Axlerod’s comments reveal Obama – who we are told is a constitutional scholar – does not agree.