Infowars – by Steve WatsonThe NSA head General Keith Alexander faced a hostile crowd Wednesday while attempting to defend mass surveillance programs at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas.
Around 30 minutes into his speech, Alexander claimed that the NSA had “stopped thirteen terrorist related activities in the United States,” flashing up a slide that stated the NSA had prevented fifty-four worldwide terrorist events. “Our nation takes stopping terrorism as one of the most important things.” Alexander stated, prompting a man in the crowd to shout “Freedom!”
“Exactly,” Alexander replied. “We stand for freedom.”
Forbes reports that the security consultant, later identified as 30-year-old Jon McCoy, then fired back “Bullshit!” to smatterings of applause from some of the crowd.
“Not bad,” Alexander responded, adding “But I think what you’re saying is that in these cases, what’s the distinction, where’s the discussion and what tools do we have to stop this.”
“No, I’m saying I don’t trust you!” McCoy shouted back.
Another person in the crowd then joined in, stating “You lied to Congress. Why would people believe you’re not lying to us right now?”
Looking stern and visibly annoyed, Alexander responded “I haven’t lied to Congress.”
“I do think it’s important for us to have this discussion.” he added, “Because in my opinion, what you believe is what’s written in the press without looking at the facts. This is the greatest technical center of gravity in the world. I ask that you all look at those facts.”
Alexander continued the speech, stating “We get all these allegations of what [NSA staff] could be doing. But when people check what the NSA is doing, they’ve found zero times that’s happened,” he said referring to any illegal use of spying powers.
“And that’s no bullshit. Those are the facts.” Alexander stated, asking for the curse word to be stricken from the record.
“Read the Constitution” McCoy fired back in one last heckle.
“I have, so should you.” Alexander responded to loud applause from a crowd that was clearly siding with the NSA head.
According to Forbes reporter Andy Greenberg, McCoy told him afterwards that he felt Alexander’s speech was “pretty canned.” “It’s anything you can see on Fox News any day. We’re in danger, we have to get rid of your freedom to keep you safe.” the security consultant added.
“Everyone’s thinking this, but no one’s saying it public, so everyone thinks they’re alone,” he said. “Ninety-eight percent of society has issues with this…But no one speaks up.”
Throughout the speech Alexander repeatedly suggested that revealing further details of NSA’s operations would “jeopardize the future of our defense.”
The NSA head also claimed several times that the spy agency is not collecting information on everyone’s internet activities, despite a report Wednesday in the Guardian, via Ed Snowden’s leaks, revealing another previously unknown mass surveillance program.
Documents published by the newspaper detail the NSA program, known as XKeyScore, revealing it to be another tool that allows the broad search of millions of individuals’ emails and browsing history. An NSA slide from the documents, showing the logos of Facebook, Google, Twitter and Yahoo, suggests that the agency is “interested in HTTP… because nearly everything a typical user does on the internet uses HTTP.”
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
http://www.infowars.com/security-consultant-heckles-nsa-head-shouts-freedom-read-the-constitution/
The hunt for Al-CIA-da terrorist communications should be looked for in the databases of the CIA, not the phone records or internet activities of the American people.
. . .
Alexander no longer meets the qualifications to keep the title, position that he is currently occupying; military / fed gov. He needs to be arrested and prosecuted for his crimes against America, the US Constitution, and the American people.
Some of his crimes:
28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.
(The Oath to the US Constitution is first and primary for the US military to defend America and our freedoms. By definition, America’s freedoms are guaranteed to be defended in our Constitution. The respect Americans and the world have for US military is in directly in proportion to upholding the freedoms in the US Constitution.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 makes US military duty clear to obey lawful orders. The primary source for lawful orders is the US Constitution. A nation’s constitution is its central and defining laws.
”Any order that interferes with constitutional law is by definition an unlawful order that must be refused. Using the US military to seize Americans is such an obvious breach of the US Constitution that it evokes the legal term, ab initio: void and without legal effect from the beginning.”)
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented…
42 USC § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights…
Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government. In PURSUANCE thereof, not in VIOLATION thereof.
The first LAW statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.
The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. (This is the contract he broke and can be immediately removed and prosecuted, “binding” means that he is bound to keep it.)
5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take before assuming office.
(5 U.S.C. 3331: “An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”)
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law.
(5 U.S.C. 3333: “…an individual who accepts office or employment in the Government of the United states…shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title.”)
18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
(5 U.S.C. 7311 (1): “An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States of the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government…” )
(18 U.S.C. 1918: “Whoever violates the provisions of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government [and] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both.” )
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The Preamble shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, which were adopted, placed additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.
Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . ..
And more, lots more…
Some Court cases that apply:
U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211: “Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”
Rost v. Municipal Court of Southern Judicial District of San Mateo (1960): “The Legislature, either by amending or otherwise, may NOT nullify a constitutional provision.”
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 1920: Congress … cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
(Remember that ONLY the congress can lawfully create legislation, it is one of the duties assigned to that branch.)
Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987 it says “Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another’s ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct.”
Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.”
It is well established law that Fraud vitiates (makes void) any contract that arises from it.
Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”
U.S. Supreme Court, NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425, 118 U.S. 425
NORTON v. SHELBY CO., STATE OF TENNESSEE: “…An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Please sir don’t insult our intelligence. Your intrusiveness has nothing to do with terrorism or crime. It has to do with stealing inside information which money can be made from, blackmailing congress, judges and alike, watching us for they don’t trust us and believe we are out to get them (LMAO on that one) and the sad thing is I can prove it. The so called terrorism (oops I mean false flags are ignored) crimes are ignored, gangs are ignored, drugs move as planned etc. Can you imagine what this could do if the intentions were right why there would be no mafia, crime, wars etc. Everything would be out in the open including the dirty deals behind closed doors in the government.