It has only been a short time since Obama in his demonic defense of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) stated that even though that horrendous piece of legislation authorizes the killing of Americans, or anyone else, without the benefit of charge or trial, that would not be authorized domestically. Obviously, Obama has already authorized the killing of Americans not on U.S. soil when he ordered the murder by drone of Anwar al-Awlaki and his young son.
On March 5th, 2013, the Obama administration said that the president can use lethal force against Americans on U.S. soil.
(CNSNews.com) – A day after Sen. Rand Paul’s 12-hour filibuster, the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney asserted “The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil,” and added, “whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way.”
A few weeks later, after what could have been a false flag event in Boston, lawmakers are changing their position as to whether an American citizen can be targeted for killing by a drone inside the U.S. Even Rand Paul, who just recently filibustered the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan because he thought he would authorize targeting U.S. citizens with drones, has jumped on board. He went so far to say that if someone was walking out of a liquor store with a gun and $50, he should be killed by a drone. He also told Fox Business Network that he would have approved of a drone targeting Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
So who really was the major beneficiary of the Boston bombing? It wasn’t any citizen who today has fewer rights, and could be targeted for extrajudicial murder on the say so of government agents. The only beneficiary is the government itself, because government power has instantly increased dramatically, and the precedent has been established to implement Martial Law in what has become a police state. So is the major beneficiary responsible for the bombing or a cover up of what really happened?
In the meantime, the story of the bombing keeps changing and getting more and more bizarre, all while the government is advancing the idea of killing Americans with drones. So will the collateral damage of these soon to come domestic drone attacks be considered terrorism?
All can have three guesses to this question and the first two don’t count!