November 30, 2015

A Sad Reminder of What Anti-Terror Legislation Really Is For

Prez. Barack Hussein Obama, the aider of ISIS, the protector of Daesh, the water carrier for Islamic Terrorists, is using undemocratic anti-terror legislation to not go after the finances of ISIS barbarians and their state backers but the finances of heroic whistleblowers in his own administration. This is how evil governments can be.

The tyrannical use of anti-terrorism legislation was entirely predictable. We have known all along that anti-terror laws that were introduced in Western countries in the wake of false flag terrorism attacks, specifically 9/11, would be used to target brave dissenters within the government, civil society groups, journalists, and outspoken citizens.

What scares the scumbags of the CIA are the Snowdens of the world, not the Bin Ladens, because they control the latter but not the former. Anti-terror legislation will continue to be used on patriotic government whistleblowers, not CIA-armed Jihadist terrorists.

Again, it is completely absurd that the brave drone operators who came forward and criticized the drone program are being ruthlessly targeted by the Obama administration while ISIS is being left alone to mature into a fully functional state on NATO's watch.

An excerpt from, "Obama’s War on Truth. USAF Drone Operators “Who Blew the Whistle” by Craig Murray, Global Research, November 29, 2015:
The four USAF military drone operators who recently blew the whistle and exposed the callousness and complete lack of concern for civilian casualties of the US drone assassination programme, (and received very little mainstream media exposure), yesterday found their bank accounts and credit cards all blocked by the US government. The effects of that on daily life are devastating. My source is their lawyer, Jesselyn Radack, through the Sam Adams Associates (of which we are both members). 
No criminal charges have been brought against any of the men, despite numerous written threats of prosecution. Their finances appear to have been frozen by executive action under anti-terrorist legislation. This is yet a further glaring example of the use of “anti-terror” powers against people who are not remotely terrorist.