I’ve read similar stuff elsewhere.
Interesting, isn’t it, that the Defense Authorization law just allowed detainment for people simply for being “belligerent”. And Obama has claimed the right to approve assassinations of US citizens who are “known terrorists”. Well.... if belligerence is considered legal proof of being a terrorist.... and if Obama is terrified of Breitbart (and needs a big story to overshadow the findings of the Cold Case Posse...) you could almost consider assassination by heart attack LEGAL.
Right?
People need to realize we are dealing with criminals in positions of great power, in charge of technology that was always thought to be good because it would be used for good purposes...
The Obama people must have decided that the anti-2nd-amendment value of an assassination of Judge John Roll was to be preferred over an induced heart attack or cancer...
This is all just speculation, but that’s all these methods allow. I’m sure there was no autopsy done on Andrew Breitbart that would show whether there were any dart entrance marks on his body, or whether a poison had disintegrated in his body to give him a heart attack. By design, these technologies leave a person with nagging doubts because the timing, “coincidental” nature, previous threats, etc are the only clues that the assassination was done.
The information you gave fills in a gap to one of the issues I’ve been investigating as well. Hopefully someday that story can come out too...
Wow, they are playing Andrew talking from yesterday on a local station. He sounded feisty as hell.
He did not sound like a sick man.
This freaks me out.