WADE MICHAEL PAGE CONFIRMED AS SIKH SHOOTER. CONSPIRACIES BEGIN AGAIN AS GOVERNMENT USES IT AS COVER TO ALTER CONSTITUTION

A white supremacist and leader of hate group band End Apathy, entered a Sikh temple and shot six, wounding three critically, including a cop, in Wisconsin yesterday. The shooter was identified as Wade Michael Page, a forty year old neo-Nazi and former Army vet who left under less than honorable circumstances in 1998. I would think his hatred of minorities might have been an issue in his dismissal. Unlike the Colorado shooting, which had zero evidence of a multiple shooters or a cover up, this is one less clear. I will state I do not believe there were other shooters for reasons I will explain, but being a true skeptic, I also have to admit there are some anomalies with this one.

Let's look at the man of Wade Michael Phillips. He is from Colorado originally, but this is more coincidence than smoking gun. However, the fact that he worked in Psy-ops for the Army does raise more red flags, the most obvious being that the Army is training idiots in areas that are coming back to bite us in the ass. He is a skinhead, sings for a band that promotes hate, has a 9/11 tattoo and, like the moron that he is, may have mistaken Sikhs for Muslims. By the way, Sikhs are some of the nicest people on the planet and killing a group of worshippers there is no better than attacking Buddhists or the Amish. The mark of a true coward is one who kills in an area where he knows he will meet no resistance. Look for more about him in my surefire Douchebag of the Week winner column.

Then there are the eyewitnesses, two of whom said on air that four gunmen were responsible. One was heresay from an injured uncle, the other from a man inside the building at the time. As I've said before, eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence on Earth. If a crime gets committed in broad daylight and witnessed by ten people, eight of them will have radically different stories. This is a known fact among law enforcement and scientists so any testimony that is radically different from the others must be taken with a grain of salt.

Alex Jones and others are already hyping this story up, even though the evidence clearly suggests a single gunman. Why? The number of people wounded and killed was very low. If four gunman were there, there would be a lot more dead people. The number killed directly confirms to a person with a single handgun and an agenda. Police were on the scene quickly and three individuals getting away seem far fetched at best. Only two eyewitnesses say anything about multiple gunmen, the rest confirming the single shooter theory. Trust me, it is impossible to get that many people to lie about what they say when their lives were at risk. What would be their motivation? I highly doubt threats would have been used as that could blow up in their faces, so if the majority say one gunman, it is most likely one gunman.

 Could there be more? It is possible because, unlike the "Joker," Page was not a deranged loner but a psychopathic group leader and, if I were the police, I would be questioning his band mates as to their whereabouts the day of the shooting. Again, I highly doubt others were involved, but there is some wiggle room here for the possibility, however unlikely, of other gunman. More as this story evolves.



Other hate groups have come out like the Westboro Baptist Church who tweeted "God sent another shooter," and "Beautiful work of an angry God who told Wisconsin to keep their filthy hands off his people." God needs a new GPS because I'm pretty sure he meant to send the gunman there instead. These fuckwads are dangerous.

Meanwhile, this story has knocked out any mention of this major development from the New American:

By a vote of 261-116, the House of Representatives passed a bill rewriting Article II of the Constitution and removing the Senate of the power to accept or reject the appointment of many presidential nominees. Last year, the Senate passed the measure by a vote of 79-20, so it now goes to the desk of President Obama for his signature who is expected to sign it.

Dozens of key management positions in the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security (including the treasurer of the United States, the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and the assistant administrator of FEMA) will now be filled by presidential edict, without the need of the “advice and consent” of the Senate, a phrase specifically removed from the process in the text of the bill.

The process began last March when Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and 15 cosponsors, including Republicans Lamar Alexander (Tenn.); Scott Brown (Mass.); and Mitch McConnell (Ky.), introduced S. 679, the “Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act.” The measure struck from many current laws the “advice and consent” requirement for many executive branch appointments, giving the president unchecked power to fill key administration positions.

In a memo sent to Capitol Hill in advance of Tuesday’s vote in the House, Thomas McClusky of the Family Research Council reminded lawmakers, “The United States Constitution does not bestow kingly powers on the President to appoint the senior officers of the government with no process.”

Although McClusky’s reading of the Constitution is accurate, as of Tuesday it is no longer the law of the land. According to proponents of the measure, the bill benefitted from such strong bipartisan support (95 Republicans joined 166 Democrats voting in favor of passage) because its sole purpose is to relieve the backlog of unconfirmed appointees by eliminating the confirmation requirement for about 200 offices.

The process by which heads of executive branch departments are appointed and confirmed is set forth by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The “Appointments Clause” provides that the president:

shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

In light of this impending imbalance, it must be inquired as to what could compel Congress to legislate away its own power? Why would so many representatives in the Senate and the House willingly abolish their role as bulwark against executive despotism?
Arguably, the answer is a desire to reduce its workload and improve the efficiency of government.

This is same kind of change made in 1913 when the election of US senators went from appointments by state senates to direct elections by the people. This has led to the mountain of money being poured into elections and the steady decline of the United States. This latest development will be no different.

The reason for this change and the one in 1913 is due to partisan bickering which is keeping any appointments from being made. State senates routinely held up nominees for posturing, leading to many seats remaining vacant. The same is happening with many confirmations today. While Attorney General and Supreme Court appointments will not be affected, any future president could appoint whoever he/she wants for head of DHS, FBI, FEMA and other important organizations that could become security apparatuses for a power mad ruler, thus the constitutional clause. We are giving the president kingly powers such as the ability to wage war, hold anyone indefinitely, spy or kill US citizens and now the ability to appoint cronies to important positions. This is a real conspiracy, unlike the latest shooting, and one that no one knows about. That is the true crime here.