Why is the Supreme Court failing to uphold the Constitution?

A QUESTION WORTHY TO BE CONSIDERED AGAIN:

WHY IS THE SUPREME COURT FAILING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION?

Posted on April 5, 2013 by arnierosner

Posted By Sharon Rondeau On Tuesday, April 6, 2010 @ 10:20 AM 

 

A CITIZEN POINTEDLY ASKS THE COURT 

WHY THEY HAVE ABROGATED THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE

 

 

The nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court

Dear Editor:

The following is an open letter to the Supreme Court which has been mailed today:

April 6, 2010

Supreme Court of the United States
US Supreme Court Building
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Honorable Chief Justice Roberts:

Forgive my imposition; I know you have many important issues with which to deal. I respect that the responsibilities of your office are great and your time is limited. And yet, I am hopeful that perhaps you could set aside a few minutes to provide me with some wise counsel, counsel that would appear to be available only at your level of understanding and appreciation of the legal system that is central to the American Republic.

In trying to provide some intelligent answers about our system of government to my grandchildren, I have run into several unresolved issues that defy explanation. I have inquired of attorneys, police officials, city officials, county officials, state officials, and even my representative to Congress, but to no avail. I am amazed that so far, no one to whom I have posed these questions seems to have any appropriate answers.

For at least the last 50 of my 73 years, it was my understanding that the Constitution of the United States was the supreme law of the land, yet fairly recent personal observations would seem to indicate otherwise.

Earlier today, while driving on a freeway, I noticed a sign that indicated a fine of $342 would be imposed for violation of the laws governing the carpool lane. I thought to myself, “How curious; here we have laws that, when violated by a normal citizen, are aggressively enforced.”

Expressing my opinion here, we are made aware that almost on a daily basis, members of government violate much more important laws. However, under an internal review process, the offenders are often afforded a special brand of justice, one apparently reserved for members of government. Regardless of the outcome, the published results appear to be suspiciously skewed, a reminder to we the people that there is a difference between justice administered to a common citizen and a member of government. Forgive me here…I am confused. Isn’t it the 14th amendment which guarantees equal justice under the law?

I find it increasingly difficult to understand how members of government can routinely violate our laws and in some cases completely ignore provisions of the Constitution whenever it seems to be politically expedient. In reviewing this matter in more detail, this questionable behavior did not start with the current administrative body, but I will not dwell on those details here.

Examining the way the 111th Congress has conducted affairs of state reveals that something must be wrong, for what accounts for members of our government routinely ignoring the rule of law and openly violating the Constitution?

Dear Justice Roberts, even though I am not educated in the law, the situation seems to indicate to me that we are suffering from a constitutional conflict of gigantic proportions,  a complete meltdown of the basic principles established by the Founding Fathers.

Let us explore the basis of my conclusion:

Somehow, to me, all of these issues are related to the abuses of the Constitution. Just in case you are still with me on this, please permit me to cite a few additional examples. First, here are a few assumptions:

Every level of government swears an oath upon taking office:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The above constitutional specification seems to be very inclusive. But, what exactly does the phrase, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,” mean? By whom is compliance of this constitutional requirement governed, supervised and enforced?

As a matter of government archives, the following members of the Supreme Court took their respective oath of office as notated (Justices take two different oaths or a combined one. One oath is regarding the Constitution, and the other has to do with the judicial responsibility.  In some cases, only the Constitutional oath was notated. 

However, both oaths had been administered).

•  John G. Roberts, Jr.– Took both oaths on September 29, 2005
• John Paul Stevens – Took both oaths on December 19, 1975
• Antonin Scalia – Took the Constitutional Oath on September 26, 1986
• Anthony M. Kennedy – Took both Oaths on February 18, 1988
• Clarence Thomas – Took the Constitutional Oath on October 18, 1991
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Took the Constitutional Oath on August 10, 1993
• Stephen G. Breyer – Took both oaths on Wednesday, August 3, 1994
• Samuel A. Alito, Jr. – Took both oaths on Tuesday, January 31, 2006
• Sonia Sotomayor – taking both oaths on Saturday, August 8, 2009

 

The Supreme Court did not have a permanent place to convene until 1932, when Charles Evans Hughes was Chief Justice.

Practically speaking, everyone currently serving in government has taken the prescribed oath of office. That being the case, what exactly is meant by the phrase, “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” in simple lay person’s language?

Are these simply words?

Are these simply moral and ethical issues?

Is there no force of law behind executing the responsibilities as enumerated in the Oath?

So who exactly is responsible to We The People to insure the Constitution is followed?

Of the three branches of government, who is looking out for the people?

• Executive branch failed
• Legislative branch failed
• Judicial branch – jury still out – deliberating? Out to lunch?

Will you just stand by and permit the country to implode on your watch?

Some immediate questions come to mind:

1. Precisely how is the Constitution protected, by whom and from what?
2. Those who routinely violate the Constitution are generally members of Congress. By what stretch of ethics do they take the oath of office and then by what authority proceed to deliberately violate that oath and the Constitution?
3. Who then is responsible to insure members of government are in compliance with the Constitution?
4. Exactly what are the consequences that result from violating provisions of the Constitution?

Let us move on to more specific items that have caused me to become conflicted:

• The 16th amendment has never been properly ratified, yet it appears to have been illegally enacted into law and is vigorously enforced. It has been reported that people have been denied due process in dealing with this issue. A citizen named Benson, charged with criminal conduct, was placed in jail under dubious conditions surrounding the denial of his right to submit evidence to prove his innocence.
• Congress has delegated the management of the monetary system to a private banking cartel in direct violation of the Constitution.
• The adoption of the Federal Reserve System by our government was not authorized by the Constitution, yet it has been in place since at least 1913.
• The Constitution does not authorize issuing paper money as U.S. Government currency, yet Congress authorizes the Federal Reserve to issue paper currency at what appears to be an unrestricted rate.
• The issue of the natural born Citizen requirement has been ignored as it applies to Mr. Obama’s eligibility.  This is an issue which appears to be critical in that it involves placing our national security and defense in the hands of a subject with unknown credentials, a person with unknown national loyalties. To my way of thinking, the consensus of the people, regardless of how compelling, does not take precedence over Constitutional law.
• The Constitution clearly does not provide authorization for Congress to mandate issues like health care,  yet Congress continues to consume a large portion of the Congressional law-making resources at public expense. In the end, the entire process may prove to be unconstitutional and end up as just another waste of public funds.
• Members of Congress routinely violate other provisions of the Constitution. For example, deliberately misconstruing provisions of the interstate commerce clause has been improperly interpreted and seen by members of Congress to empower them to regulate human behavior. This is clearly a violation of the Constitution.
• Based upon results obtained from public records, the impact of unrestrained financial contributions by lobbying groups appears to be the source of the single largest source of government corruption.
• Even after the purported basis for the Cap and Trade legislation has proven to be fraudulent, members of Congress continue to attempt to force such legislation. This type of taxation is clearly not authorized by the Constitution.
• Mr. Obama fired an inspector general improperly in violation of a law he co-authored. So far, no action has been taken against Mr. Obama. Is he above the law? His own? I asked Mr. Holder about the status of this in a letter sent on August 9, 2009 which was never answered. I also copied my congressman and state senators, all totally ignored.

We the people are frequently told that our representatives in government, indeed all three branches, work for us. This includes the Supreme Court as well. But based on my personal experience I have never seen this attitude displayed at any level within the current government.

In fact, we have publicly witnessed multiple occasions where the various branches of government have totally ignored the outrage of the people. They have repeatedly violated the people’s First Amendment rights. This letter may be better received and responded to differently; hopefully in a constructive manner.

The lack of proper recognition of the average citizen’s grievances causes me to raise questions that have led me to the Declaration of Independence. It states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

At this point, dear Justices, I see nothing in place today within our government which remotely resembles the above passage. In fact, in my opinion, had things been as they should have been, perhaps Mr. Stack would still be with us today.

Faced with an impossible situation where many of us see we are in danger of being deprived of and denied our unalienable rights and can no longer easily secure our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we again turn to the Declaration of Independence, which then states, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

So here we are, dear Justices. I fear many of us loyal citizens are beginning to reach the point described above. We have been patient; we have been persistent.

In return, we have been denied proper access to redress our concerns. We have been denied our First Amendment rights as freedom of the press has been compromised.  Government domination over the television networks has also marginalized our free access to news and information, and we are routinely subjected to propagandized influence biased by both government and foreign interests.

As citizens, we have been subjected to a manner of character assassination, personally delivered by high-ranking members of Congress.  For example, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, presented in the form of public criticism, ridiculing and vilification, right out of the Saul Alinsky book “Rules for Radicals.”

Homeland Security has issued the following: 

WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

I take exception to this condemnation from people who purportedly work for the citizens of this great nation. Is this indeed the proof that the inmates at Homeland Security are running the asylum? Wouldn’t any reasonable person be concerned about the issues raised in this notice? Is this to be taken as a declaration of war upon any citizen who dissents against the current government policies? Is this Constitutional? Oh, excuse me, dear justices…I must have missed something on this, too.

Isn’t this another attack on everyday concerned citizens? Isn’t this simply a continuation of an earlier effort to vilify anyone seeking to restore the Constitution and the rule of law? Is this part of a preconditioning strategy to brainwash citizens to accept an ever-increasing threat of martial law by a government bent on replacing our free society with socialism?

How much are we citizens expected to endure at the hands of this oppressive government? How many of these abuses to our Constitution are considered reasonable?

It does not seem to get better. Our Tea Party citizens have been described as Nazis; our returning veterans have been classed as possible terrorists; those who staunchly support the Second Amendment have also been branded and vilified as right-wing fringe elements. Those demanding the eligibility issue be resolved are ridiculed. There are many more examples of legitimately concerned citizens being denied rightful recognition of their respective grievances.

Concurrently, along with other quietly-executed administrative activities, clandestine executive orders issued in the dead of night dramatically affect the sovereignty and security of this nation. International agencies are provided excessive access to U.S. interests and immunity from U.S. authority. This has produced a dire set of circumstances, presenting the specter of international police elements potentially exercising controlling authority over American citizens.

The creation of special administrative organizations has provided sweeping new collective authority to the office of the president, a position currently occupied by an individual with unknown credentials and possibly conflicting loyalties. This poses a clear and present danger to the vested interests of this country.

Under the guise of forming protective units against terrorism, Homeland Security has extended its authority to encompass the coordination of local and state police authority. Many see that a danger exists for potentially planned government incursions to violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Add to all of the above, we have so many folks out of work, the economy is rapidly failing, the stability of our currency is under attack and the daily revelation of gross government corruption make for a very unstable view of our prospects.

Under these potentially explosive conditions, it is hard to imagine just how much more tolerant our loyal American citizens will remain.

Meanwhile, dear Justices, I still have no answers for my family, but in researching all of these concerns, it appears that things are far worse than I had ever anticipated:

• In summary, we have three branches of government that all swear oaths to faithfully execute their responsibilities, but don’t.
• We have three branches of government that take an oath and swear to protect the Constitution, but don’t.
• We have a case where we the people are ignored and denied due process by a judicial system that also fails to honor its oath of office and to deliver equal justice under the law.

Excuse me, dear Justices, please tell me…am I out of line?

Granted, I know little about the legal status of the above issues, but even as a simple unsophisticated citizen, I find the very existence of these conflicts to be very disturbing. Tell me, your honors, how do you sleep at night?

To attempt to tie all of this together, it appears to me that collectively, as a group of like-minded citizens, we create a government that follows the tenets of the Constitution and the founding documents. As part of this process, we empower our representatives to provide a system of administration by which to guide our daily lives.

We voluntarily agree to obey the reasonable rules and laws created for us by our servants in the government. However, if those empowered to make the laws and maintain the system of justice do not abide by the very same laws, then by what manner of hypocrisy can those to be governed be expected to continue to agree to obey laws of such a corrupt system? 

What incentive is there to continue to live by laws that pertain only to those who are governed but not to those empowered by the governed?

Given today’s circumstances, it would seem very clear to me that once the question of responsibility to insure compliance to the Constitution was answered, then we could begin ferreting out the violations and the violators and begin to apply the principles of the rule of law.

This would seem to offer a path by which to restore the values and ideas of the original Constitution,  values and concepts that would encourage a stable and vibrant nation with an equally enthusiastic financial and economic outlook, a nation capable of regaining its former glory to again take its rightful position as America, the home of the free, the home of the brave; the leader of the free world.

As I see it, the burden of proof is on Obama to prove his eligibility, not the responsibility of the people to prove he is not eligible. Why have the courts ignored this critical part of the legislative process? This is a matter of law, not politics.

As I see it, the Supreme Court is responsible for resolving this crisis. Every citizen is involved; therefore, the issue of standing has been made.

So, dear Justices, the question begging to be answered is, simply, “When do the members of the Supreme Court do the job for which they are being paid?” If not the Supreme Court, who is in charge of protecting the sanctity of the Constitution?

Sincerely,

Arnie Rosner

Copies to:

John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice

© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

---

Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com
URL to article: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/06/why-is-the-supreme-court-failing-to-uphold-the-constitution/

http://scannedretina.com/2013/04/05/why-is-the-supreme-court-failing-to-uphold-the-constitution/ 

 

HILLARY CLINTON: JUDGE SULLIVAN STRIKES AGAIN! YEAAAAAAAAA!!

JUDGE SULLIVAN STRIKES AGAIN!
 

THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ORDERED TO OBTAIN ANSWERS FROM HILLARY CLINTON, HUMA ABEDIN AND CHERYL MILLS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

   
      Hillary Clinton in June (Photo by Richard Ellis/Getty Images) 


By Sidney Powell | 08/01/15 12:56 am

While Hillary Clinton’s lawyers are stalling Congress and “negotiating” the terms of her testimony before the Benghazi committee—an option not allowed to ordinary Americans like bankers, executives, or accountants, federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has hit “refrigerator rule #6: Enough is enough.” 

Earlier this week, federal Judge Richard Leon lambasted the State Department lawyers for their stonewalling. Now Judge Sullivan has chiseled a line in concrete. He has given the State Department only a week—until August 7—to get some answers from Hillary Clinton, and her top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills—under penalty of perjury. 

Last night on NewsMax TV with Emmy award winning host Ed Berliner, I noted that Judge Sullivan recently reopened the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch to obtain emails from Huma Abedin, the top Clinton aide who is married to infamous and disgraced former Congressman Anthony Wiener. 

Judge Sullivan reopened the case when he learned that Clinton and her staff used personal email accounts to conduct government business. This is a flagrant violation of the Federal Records Act and jeopardizes national security—prompting rapidly escalating concerns of countless ramifications internationally, nationally, and criminally.

Just hours ago, in that very case, Judge Sullivan entered a remarkable order, and he has given the State Department only a week to comply. Now the State Department must produce for the court’s docket its correspondence with and between Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin, and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the government records in their possession; identify what servers, etc. the State Department has; require Ms. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills to state under oath whether they have produced all responsive materials; and, have Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills describe the extent to which they used Ms. Clinton’s server for government business. 

The order reads: As agreed by the parties at the July 31, 2015 status hearing, the Government shall produce a copy of the letters sent by the State Department to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the collection of government records in their possession. These communications shall be posted on the docket forthwith. The Government has also agreed to share with Plaintiff’s counsel the responses sent by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. These communications shall also be posted on the docket forthwith. 

In addition, as related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: 

(1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information; 

(2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and 

(3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business. 

The Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 7, 2015, including any response received from Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills.  


Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Wikipedia). 

We know from the way Judge Sullivan has chipped away at the IRS and it’s lies and obstruction, this is just the start. A hero for his dismissal of the indictment against Senator Ted Stevens and his appointment of a special prosecutor, Judge Sullivan is proving to be more and more like Judge John Sirica who kept asking questions until the Watergate scandal was fully exposed. 

Judge Sullivan also has the Freedom of Information Act suit by Judicial Watch against the IRS, about which we have often written. It’s because of Judge Sullivan that more and more emails have come to light—along with exposing the lies of Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Koskinen and assorted acts of destruction of evidence. 

Only Wednesday of this week, Judge Sullivan dismantled counsel for the Department of Justice and the IRS for their “absurd and ridiculous” stalling tactics in revealing the emails evidencing the Lois Lerner scandal and raised the specter of holding Commissioner Koskinen in contempt. 

Thanks to Judge Sullivan, Judge Leon, and other Article III judges like them, the country has a chance of learning the truth. This story will only get more interesting as the fearless Emmet G. Sullivan digs deeper. Mrs. Clinton herself should be hearing that whistle blowin’ now. 

Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years and was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.

Read more at http://observer.com/2015/08/judge-sullivan-strikes-again/#ixzz3havjidlW 
Follow us: @observer on Twitter | Observer on Facebook Read more at: http://tr.im/Sm32k

http://observer.com/2015/08/judge-sullivan-strikes-again/ 
 

The day Hiroshima was obliterated 70 years ago, through the eyes of the bomber crew

'My God, how many did we just kill?' The day Hiroshima was obliterated 70 years ago, through the eyes of the bomber crew - and the few who survived 

•  Extraordinary book provides dramatic reconstruction as events unfolded
•  Aeroplane used in bomb attack named after one of the crew's mother
•  One survivor recalls the city as like being in 'the depths of hell'

The atomic bomb that destroyed the city of Hiroshima in an instant was dropped 70 years ago this week. Here, in a specially commissioned piece from Jonathan Mayo and Emma Craigie, the writers of the acclaimed D-Day: Minute By Minute, is a dramatic reconstruction of the countdown to the Armageddon, as seen through the eyes of those who lived through it.

August 6, 1945

1.30 am Hiroshima time

At her home in Miami, 57-year-old Enola Gay Tibbets is enjoying a quiet Sunday afternoon.

On the Pacific island of Tinian, 8,000 miles away, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress bearing her name is preparing for take-off. At the controls is her son, 29-year-old Lieutenant Colonel Paul Tibbets.

For the past few months, the plane has been known simply as ‘No. 82’, but last night Tibbets wrote his mother’s name on a piece of paper and gave it to the Tinian airbase signwriter.

His crew were dismayed when they saw ‘Enola Gay’ on the fuselage, as they’d hoped for something racier, like other B-29s, which had names like Slick Dick or Leading Lady.

Tibbets named it after his mother as tribute to her support for his decision to join the Army Air Corps back in 1937. His father had only said: ‘If you want to go kill yourself, go ahead. I don’t give a damn.’

1.40 am

The Enola Gay is illuminated by floodlights so the take-off can be filmed for posterity. Tibbets leans out of the cockpit and gives a wave to the cameras.

Scroll down for video 

+6

Sickening: Almost all of the 8,000 children who were clearing fire breaks in the centre of Hiroshima were vaporised in the blast

1.45 am

Enola Gay takes off into the night. It is a six-hour flight to Japan. At Hiroshima Communications Hospital, Dr Michihiko Hachiya is scanning the sky. Tonight, he is working as an air-raid warden.

1.55 am

Tibbets crawls through the plane to speak to his ten-man crew at the rear.

‘You know what we’re doing today?’ he asks. ‘We’re going on a bombing mission, but it’s a bit special.’

‘Colonel, we wouldn’t be playing with atoms today, would we?’ asks tail gunner Bob Caron.

‘You’ve got it just exactly right.’

In the gloom of the cockpit, 27-year-old co-pilot Captain Robert A. Lewis is scribbling a makeshift log on the back of some War Department forms. He’s been asked to write an account of the raid by New York Times journalist William Laurence, who has not been allowed on the flight.

Lewis is writing the log as if it is a letter to his parents: ‘Dear Mom and Dad. Everything went well on take-off, nothing unusual was encountered...’

2.20 am

Lewis stops writing and begins the 11-part process of priming the bomb they call Little Boy. The bomb is 10 ft long and 30 in across. It weighs 5 tons and has the explosive force of 20,000 tons of TNT.

3.20 am

Tibbets has a nap while Lewis monitors ‘George’, the autopilot. He writes: ‘The old bull [Tibbets] shows signs of a tough day. With all he had to do to help get this mission off, he deserves a few winks.

‘I think everyone will be relieved when we have left our bomb with the Japs and get half way home. Or better still, all the way home.’

4.15 am

After passing through half an hour of cloud, the Enola Gay emerges into the dawn light. At the height they need to drop the bomb from, they will need clear skies if the mission is to be successful.

6.30 am

Lewis writes in his log: ‘It’s a funny feeling knowing this thing is right in the back of you. Touch wood.’

Ten minutes later, Enola Gay starts her final climb to 31,000 ft.

In Hiroshima, the sun is rising. It’s Monday and it looks like it will be a typical August day: hot and humid.

August 1945: US drops atomic bombs on Japan forcing surrender

+6

The plane was named by Col. Paul W Tibbets, (center), in honour of his 57-year-old mother

7.09 am

The U.S. weather reconnaissance bomber, Straight Flush, is spotted over Hiroshima and an air-raid alarm sounds across the city.

Since June, the B-29 crews have flown over Hiroshima on test runs, dropping what are nicknamed ‘pumpkins’ — harmless orange bombs the exact shape of an atom bomb.

The city’s people have become used to seeing bombers in the sky and so no longer bother to head to air raid shelters. Unknown to them, their city has been chosen as a target because it has remained largely untouched by bombing raids, so the atomic bomb’s effects can be clearly measured.

7.30 am

Over the intercom, Tibbets tells the crew their target is Hiroshima.

As they approach the Japanese coast, Lewis writes: ‘We are 25 miles from the Empire and everyone has a big hopeful look on his face. There’ll be a short intermission while we bomb our target...’

7.31 am

The all-clear sounds across the city. Dr Hachiya has finished his night shift and sets off for home.

Thousands of children aged 12 and 13 are making their way to the city centre. They are to spend the day helping to create firebreaks to limit damage from potential air raids.

+6

Tibbets met President Truman at the White House. Truman told him: ‘I’m the guy who sent you. If anybody gives you a hard time about it, refer them to me'

7.50 am

The Enola Gay’s crew put on their flak jackets. They can now see the city of Hiroshima in the distance.

‘We’re about to start the bomb run,’ Tibbets says. ‘Put on your goggles and place them on your forehead. When you hear the signal, pull them down over your eyes and leave them there until the flash is over.’

8.10 am

Enola Gay has reached 31,000 ft.

In Hiroshima, 21-year-old Eiko Taoka is on a tram with her one-year-old son lying in her arms. An exhausted Dr Hachiya has reached home and is sprawled face-down on the living-room floor, wearing only his underwear.

8.12 am

Bombardier Major Thomas Ferebee, veteran of more than 60 missions over Germany, looks into his bombsight. His target is the Aioi Bridge in the city centre. The Enola Gay is flying at 285 miles per hour.

8.14 am

‘One minute out,’ Paul Tibbets counts down to the crew.

Akihiro Takahashi, 14, is in a group of 60 schoolboys in the playground of the junior high school, waiting for the daily call to line up. Someone notices a bomber in the sky.

8.15 and 15 seconds

‘One second,’ Tibbets calls. Enola Gay’s bomb doors open and the plane lurches upward as Little Boy falls. The crew start counting the 43 seconds to detonation, some using watches, others saying ‘One- thousand one . . . one-thousand two…’

Little Boy’s tailfins send it into a nosedive.

Some 31,000 ft below, on the school playground, Akihiro turns his eyes from the bomber as their instructor shouts at them to ‘fall in’.

In the tram, a woman seeing Eiko Taoka with her son in her arms, says helpfully: ‘I’ll be getting off here, please have my seat.’

8.16 and 2 seconds

Little Boy explodes at 1,890 ft above the ground, directly over Shima Surgical Hospital.

About 100,000 people in Hiroshima are killed instantly.

In the rear of the Enola Gay, Bob Caron shouts ‘Here it comes!’ just before the shockwave hits the plane.

There was no mushroom cloud, but what they call ‘a stringer’ — a cloud that comes up vertically. In Tibbet’s words: ‘It was black as hell, and it had light and colours and white in it, and grey, and the top was like a folded-up Christmas tree.’

‘My God, look at that son of a bitch go!’ Lewis shouts.

On the tram, Eiko Taoka sees the world turn dark and hears a strange noise. She looks down at her son. He has fragments of glass in his head. He looks up at his mother and smiles. His smile will haunt Eiko for the rest of her life. He will survive for three weeks.

Akihiro Takahashi is blown across the playground.

Through his window, Dr Hachiya is bemused to see his garden lit by a strange light. Then there’s a startling flash, darkness and thick swirling dust.

The timbers that keep up the roof of his house are collapsing. He yells for his wife.

Tail gunner Bob Caron takes pictures of the burning ground below. ‘It looked like lava,’ he said later.

Paul Tibbets is concentrating on making sure they avoid the blast. Robert Oppenheimer, Little Boy’s designer, had prepared him for this moment: ‘Turn 159 degrees as fast as you can and you’ll be able to put yourself the greatest distance from where the bomb exploded.’

That is exactly what Enola Gay is doing.

8.17am

The Enola Gay levels off. ‘Fellows, you have just dropped the first atomic bomb in history,’ Tibbets says on the intercom. He believes he can almost taste the explosion.

Having been thrown across the playground, Akihiro comes to and realises that his clothes and his skin are peeling off him. There is an intense heat. Through the dust it seems that the whole city has disappeared. There are no buildings.

Sitting in Enola Gay, Lewis writes in his log: ‘Just how many did we kill? My God, what have we done?’

+6

Destruction: The steel wreckage of a Japanese building structure lies in ruin after the devastating attack

About 8.20am

Akihiro Takahashi sets off from the school in the direction of home. He remembers his training and heads for the Ota River to cool his burns. Just as he reaches it, a huge wall of flame rears up as a fireball engulfs the city.

He leaps into the river and feels the relief of the cold water.

Dr Hachiya manages to make his way out to the garden. He is badly wounded on his face, neck and thigh. His wife emerges from the house, also injured. With buildings collapsing around them, they set off for the hospital where he works.

He is naked and can’t understand how he has lost his underwear.

About 8.30am

Dr Hachiya collapses on the side of the road. The hospital is only a few hundred yards from their home but he is unable to stagger that far.

His wife carries on to find someone to help him. He watches her disappear into the gloom of the dust cloud and is overwhelmed by a dreadful feeling of loneliness.

10 am

Robert Lewis reckons there’s a good chance that the Japanese will have surrendered by the time they land back at Tinian. He writes a final entry to his log: ‘Everyone got a few catnaps. Love to all, Bud.’

Akihiro has climbed out of the Ota River twice, only to jump straight back in to relieve the pain of his burns. He has come across another school friend, Tokujiro Hatta, who has burnt the soles of his feet.

Akihiro can see the muscles exposed beneath their peeled skin. The two of them decide to make their way home. They make very slow progress as Tokujiro alternates between crawling on his knees and elbows and leaning on Akihiro as he walks on his heels.

Streams of people are shuffling out of the city, heading for the hills.

A 13-year-old schoolgirl, Satsuko, recorded: ‘They were naked or tattered, burned, blackened and swollen. Eyes were swollen shut and some had eyeballs hanging out of their sockets. Strips of flesh hung like ribbons from their bones.

‘Often these ghostly figures would collapse in heaps, never to rise again. With a few surviving classmates I joined the procession, carefully stepping over the dead and dying.’

Dr Hachiya comes to. He struggles to his feet and continues walking slowly towards the hospital.

He averts his eyes at the sight of a naked woman carrying a baby, and for a moment imagines that they must have been in the bath when the bomb exploded.

He sees a naked man and starts to understand that something strange has happened to their clothes.

+6

Sitting in Enola Gay, Robert Lewis writes in his log: ‘Just how many did we kill? My God, what have we done?’

Legacy: The pain and destruction caused by the bomb blast inflicted an unimaginable level of suffering

Aftermath of atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima (related)

1pm

News of the bombing has reached the base and the celebrations begin. Free beer is served to the men waiting for the bomber to return. On the roadside, Akihiro and Tokujiro have collapsed with exhaustion.

Suddenly, Akihiro sees his great-aunt and uncle walking towards them. It was, he later said, like seeing the Buddha in the depths of hell.

1.58 pm

THE Enola Gay is taxiing to a halt, 12 hours and 13 minutes after take-off, her silver hull flashing in the sun.

3.05 pm

Tibbets is the first out of the Enola Gay. Waiting for him is a crowd of 100 men, and in front of them is General Carl Spaatz, commander of U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific. Photographers take pictures as Spaatz pins the Distinguished Service Cross on Tibbets’ chest.

4.20pm

The Enola Gay’s crew are being taken to the airbase’s hospital for radiation tests and to see if their eyes have been damaged by the atomic blast. All pass the medical.

Thirteen-year-old Satsuko has reached an army training ground in the foothills on the edge of the city, full of people who are injured and dying. Many are begging for water.

There is a nearby stream but no containers for carrying water, so Satsuko and her surviving school friends tear strips from their own clothes, soak them in the water and rush back and forth giving the rags to the dying for them to suck on.

About 9pm

Satsuko is sitting on the hillside with her friends. It is dark but the burning city glimmers below them. They can hear the ‘low whispers’ of the injured, still begging for water.

About 10 pm

The party on Tinian is continuing, with jitterbug contests, softball games, a special showing of the movie It’s A Pleasure and plenty of pies and hotdogs.

William S. Parsons, the Enola Gay’s weaponeer, is signing the official documents to confirm Little Boy has been deployed.

‘I certify that the above material was expended [sic] to the city of Hiroshima, Japan, at 9.15 [local time], 6 August. Signed WS Parsons.’

11.55 am Eastern War time

President Truman is heading home on board the USS Augusta, after attending the Potsdam Conference with Churchill and Stalin.

He is having lunch with the crew when one of the Augusta’s officers hands him an urgent message from the War Department: ‘Hiroshima was bombed at 7.15 pm Washington time August five … results clear cut successful in all respects.’

Truman shouts: ‘This is the greatest thing in history!’ The crew respond by clapping, cheering and banging the tables.

‘Mr President, I guess that means I’ll get home sooner now!’ one sailor says hopefully.

Less than one month later, on September 2, General Douglas MacArthur will accept the Japanese surrender on the USS Missouri, which is moored in Tokyo Harbour so the Japanese people could witness it.

At the moment of surrender, President Truman addressed the American people from the White House: ‘This is a victory of more than arms alone. This is a victory of liberty over tyranny. We shall not forget Pearl Harbour, and the Japanese militarists will not forget the USS Missouri.’ 

+6

Stigma: So little was known about radiation sickness that it was thought to be contagious

 

Epilogue

Almost all of the 8,000 children who were clearing fire breaks in the centre of Hiroshima were vaporised without a trace. Satsuko Nakamuro and the few girls with whom she escaped to the hills were almost the only children their age from Hiroshima to survive.

Satsuko’s sister had been crossing the Ota River with her four-year-old son Eiji when the bomb hit the city. They were so badly burnt that Satsuko could only recognise her sister from her voice and her hair clip. With hospitals flattened and so many medical staff among the dead, she and her child had no medical care during the few days they survived.

Satsuko has spent her life campaigning against nuclear weapons. ‘The image of my little nephew, Eiji, representing the innocent children of the world, compels me to continue to speak of Hiroshima, no matter how painful it may be.’

Akihiro Takahashi needed 18 months of hospital treatment for his burns and lived to the age of 80. His friend Tokujiro died of radiation sickness, as did all but ten of the 60 boys in the playground of the High School.

Akihiro suffered permanent disabilities as a result of his burns and struggled to find work in post-war Japan. The survivors of Hiroshima were considered untouchable. So little was known about radiation sickness that it was thought to be contagious.

As a powerful speaker, he became a prominent anti-nuclear campaigner. In 1980, he visited Washington and met Paul Tibbets. The two men sat on a park bench holding hands.

They recalled their meeting differently. Akihiro later said that a tear rolled down Paul Tibbets’ cheek, but the American denied it. ‘Believe me, there was no tear in my eye. I feel sorry that they burned up down there, but it had to be done.’

As soon as the news of the bombing of Hiroshima was announced, the whole project was widely criticised for the massive loss of life. It is estimated that 135,000 people died as a direct result of the bomb.

Inevitably some of the criticism was directed at the crew of the Enola Gay. In 1948, Tibbets met President Truman at the White House. Truman told him: ‘I’m the guy who sent you. If anybody gives you a hard time about it, refer them to me.’

For the rest of their lives, the crew of Enola Gay remained convinced that their mission had been justified. Robert Lewis said in later life: ‘It was just a job of work. I helped make the world a safer place. Nobody has dared launch an atomic bomb since then. That is how I want to be remembered. The man who helped to do that.’

Speaking in 2002, five years before his death, Paul Tibbets said: ‘Second thoughts? No . . . I knew we did the right thing because when I knew we’d be doing that I thought, yes, we’re going to kill a lot of people, but by God we’re going to save a lot of lives.’

Before his death, Tibbets requested that he be cremated, so that his grave couldn’t become a target for anti-nuclear protesters.

One World Trust!

One World Trust!

Find out the details of how the One World Trust came about and how Saint Germain was involved, but for the more recent activities of our present USA history start at Part 1, at 35 minutes.
This is what V.K.Durham has been bringing out, and it could come about once the Gold Backed US Currency is set!

Change is on the Horizon Part 3 of 3 The Farmer Claims Program

Posted on November 30, 2014 by Freewill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gOPIgNB-hGY

Uploaded on Jun 15, 2011

Change is on the Horizon is the epic story of how the world lost its soul and how it will gain it back. Directed and narrated by James Rink.

Part 1 Dawn of the Golden Age – Discuses how Saint Germain helped bring about the beginnings of a enlightened era which soon fell into darkness under the helms of the Illuminati and a corrupted masonic order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlNMFUrgjyM
Part 2 – The American Federal Empire. America was always meant to be always a shinning beacon of freedom and prosperity to the world. But the machinations of British bankers and the Rothschild’s soon destroyed all that was once good in this great land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImefSYpySwA
Part 3 – The Farmer Claim Program – Discuses how a class action lawsuit brought about in the early 1990’s lead to the creation of NESARA, the National Economic Security and Reformation Act which will ultimately tear apart the New World Order and bankers plans right out from under their feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOPIgNB-hGY

The Iran Nuke Documents Obama Doesn’t Want You to See

Seventeen unclassified Iran deal items have been locked in ultra-secure facilities ordinarily used for top secret info. Why is the Obama administration trying to bury this material?

Scattered around the U.S. Capitol complex are a series of Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facilities, or SCIFs, which are typically used to hold Top Secret information.

But today in these deeply secure settings are a series of unclassified documents—items dealing with the Iran nuclear deal that are not secret, but that the Obama administration is nevertheless blocking the public from reading.

The Obama administration delivered 18 documents to Congress on July 19, in accordance with legislation requiring a congressional review of the nuclear deal. Only one of these documents is classified, while the remaining 17 are unclassified.

Yet many of these unclassified documents cannot be shared with the public or discussed openly with the press. The protocol for handling these documents, set by the State Department and carried out by Congress, is that these unreleased documents can only be reviewed ‘in camera’—a Latin term that means only those with special clearance can read them—and must be held in various congressional SCIFs.

Most staffers were hesitant to discuss—let alone share—a number of these documents, even though they’re not classified, because they require security clearances to view. By mixing a classified document with unclassified documents, critics of this arrangement contend, important facts are being kept from the public just as Congress is deciding whether to support or oppose the Iran deal.

“The unclassified items… should be public. This is going to be the most important foreign policy decision that this Congress will make,” a Republican Senate aide told The Daily Beast. “This is the administration that once said it would be the most transparent administration in history. They’re not acting like it.”

“Many in Congress view the administration’s tactic of co-mingling unclassified documents with classified documents and requiring congressional staffers to have secret clearances just to view certain unclassified documents as an attempt by the administration to limit open debate,” a second senior Republican congressional staffer said.

Among the 17 unclassified documents are important texts related to the Iran nuclear deal: One document, titled “Elements of Iran’s R&D Plan,” is based on the “safeguards confidential plan [between] Iran and the IAEA,” or International Atomic Energy Agency, a State Department official said, and so it can’t be released publicly. The document describes how Iran’s research and development on its nuclear program, including on its centrifuges, could progress over time.

Other unclassified documents may be diplomatically sensitive: One is a letter from the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the U.K. to Secretary of State John Kerry; another is a letter from Kerry to the three foreign ministers and his Chinese counterpart as well.

The set includes a discussion paper written before the final agreement, on how sanctions would be dealt with in the interim. Yet another is a draft statement by the U.S. government, to be issued on a future Iran deal implementation day.

Bloomberg View’s Eli Lake and Josh Rogin previously reported the existence of the 18 documents submitted by the Obama administration to Congress, as well as some descriptions of what the set contained.

The Iran nuclear deal is unlike other arms control agreements “because it’s so complex and has so many moving parts,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “It goes into jaw-dropping detail.” So it’s not a complete surprise that there might be some sensitive ancillary documents to go along with the arrangement. Iran might not want the particulars of its nuclear research program in full public view, for instance.

The unreleased, unclassified documents are informative for Congress but not for public consumption, the State Department contends.

“Some of the documents are the types of documents which, like State Department cables and other internal USG documents, we would not post publicly but would share with Congress in appropriate circumstances. Others are documents that, while not part of the [Iran nuclear agreement] itself, pertain to it and we were clear with the other P5+1 members and Iran that we would be sharing those documents with Congress, and we have,” a State Department official said.

Added the official, “Congress has every document that we have, and every Member of Congress and every staff [member] with the necessary security clearance can review all of the documents.”

Some Democrats were supportive of the administration’s hush-hush approach. The documents are part of a sensitive diplomatic process involving Iran’s nuclear program, they argue, so it’s not surprising that there are some restrictions to the level of transparency the government will allow.

“The essential elements to make the decision on the deal are out there,” a senior Democratic aide said. “I don’t think there’s a lack of transparency or discussion on [the Iran deal], because you’ve had very detailed briefings and every member of Congress has been able to view these documents… The way they are stored is consistent and not unreasonable, and I don’t think there’s anything nefarious.”

“This is the administration that once said it would be the most transparent administration in history. They’re not acting like it.”

Open-government advocates, on the other hand, were appalled that unclassified documents this important were being kept both from public view—and, in a real way, from serious congressional scrutiny.

“Keeping unclassified documents in a SCIF is overkill, even if the documents are sensitive or confidential. They simply don’t need the kind of sophisticated protection against clandestine surveillance that SCIFs are intended to provide,” said Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, working to reduce government secrecy.

“The primary obstacle to congressional review that is created by this arrangement is the requirement to physically be present in the SCIF. Members of Congress cannot review the material in their offices, or share it with trusted colleagues or with subject matter experts. It is a significant hindrance to review,” he added.

Congress passed a law called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, also known as Corker-Cardin, requiring the administration to formally submit the Iran nuclear deal, an unclassified verification assessment with any secret annexes, and other relevant materials to Congress.

The intention of that provision was for unclassified materials to be freely available so that an open debate on the public interest could occur. Members of Congress are pointing out that this is not what is happening—and are urging the Obama administration to allow their release.

“A lot of both documents and discussion that have been held in a classified setting doesn’t have classified characteristics to it… to the extent that many [documents aren’t classified,] they should be made totally public, as far as I’m concerned, so that the public can evaluate for themselves,” Democratic Senator Bob Menendez told The Daily Beast.

Republican Senator Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agrees. His spokesperson told The Daily Beast that Corker “believes that the administration should make these unclassified documents available to the public so the American people can see the details of the Iran nuclear deal.”