Skip to content

The Oklahoma City bombing fraud

April 20, 2010
Brasscheck TV

Yesterday was the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Few people were interested in getting into the details of what really happened and the government’s cover story was sold hook, line and sinker.

This is what actually happened that terrible day (and it’s just the tip of the iceberg.)

4 Comments leave one →
  1. May 14, 2010 4:43 pm


    My name is Brandon, and I own a group of
    home pages. I am wanting to do a weblink 3rd party exchange.

    Could you email me at the address I’ve provided ?


  2. May 13, 2010 5:59 pm

    Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?

  3. May 13, 2010 12:05 pm

    To start earning money with your blog, initially use Google Adsense but gradually as your traffic increases, keep adding more and more money making programs to your site.

  4. Ross Wolf permalink
    April 20, 2010 3:22 pm

    Interestingly, Two of Three major U.S. Domestic Terrorism bills, were introduced within six months of two consecutive major “Domestic” Terrorist Attacks: the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 bombing of the Okalahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Building.

    Approximately Six Months prior to the 1993 bombing of the NY World Trade Center S.8. “The Crime Control Act of 1993” was introduced by Rep. Orrin Hatch. (S.8) Included large appropriations for hiring and paying police and government agencies to pursue, prosecute and preempt domestic terrorist Acts. At the time terrorism was not a problem in the United States. Under S.8, ordinary demonstrators could be charged with acts of terrorism if police alleged they blocked public access, intimidated or coerced a civilian population or tried to influence a government according to 18USC Sec. 2331. Subsequently both the Right and Left protested against S.8, something Rep. Hatch did not expect. Despite the 1993 bombing of the NY Trade Center, S.8 after considerable publicity failed to pass.

    Approximately Six Months before the bombing of the Federal Oklahoma building, the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act” was introduced that included provisions from the failed “Crime Control Act of 1993.” Six weeks after being introduced, the Oklahoma Alfred P. Murrah federal building was bombed; Congress shortly thereafter passed the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act.” The passed bill included provisions from “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” For example: allowing government to use Secret Hearings and Secret Witnesses to prevent defendants from cross-examining hidden witnesses and secret evidence. Other draconian provisions of “The Crime Control Act of 1993” were later included and passed in the 2001 Patriot Act after the second bombing of the NY Trade Center.

    U.S. Police routinely purchase court testimony to convict defendants. Passage of the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act” gave prosecutors the power to use secret witnesses including paid informants, and other hidden evidence to convict U.S. Citizens for terrorist acts. Defense against government terrorist charges including against the death penalty, are now difficult if not possible because government can use secret witnesses and testimony that defendants can’t challenge.

    Horrors of “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” The Act would have “redefined illegal Search and seizure” and “eliminated injured Citizens filing law suits against government officials and agents under United States Code Title VII Section 2337. If innocent Citizens were shot during an illegal search they would have no civil recourse.

    Also incorporated in “The Crime Control Act of 1993.” were provisions taken from proposed S.45 titled the “Terrorism Death Penalty Act of 1991” Both bills contained language that could charge “law abiding citizens” by mere association with being agents of or affording support to terrorist organizations. Similar provisions were included in the 2001 Patriot Act to charge persons donating money or providing anything deemed “material support” including giving to charities that aided terrorists: Any individual or organization in the United States who had or should have had knowledge that an associate might commit a terrorist act—may be imprisoned and or fined, including having their property forfeited by government. Subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court qualified in the 2001 Patriot Act what was “material support” so lawful charities would not lose financial and other support. That Patriot Act did include non-violent acts supporting terrorism e.g., intimidation and coercion to influence a government or civilian population.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 was written like Federal Drug Forfeiture Laws. A citizen who allowed their home or other real property to be used for an assembly would start out guilty having to prove they did not have knowledge of the unlawful methods of the organization or individuals they allowed to use their property. See S.8 Definitions Title VII Section 2332. The 2001 Patriot Act included similar provisions using terms that effectively state, “had reason to know.”

    In 2010 lawful organizations, activists and demonstrators under the Patriot Act, are extremely vulnerable to being charged by government under vague and broadly written terrorist laws with Acts of Terrorism. A common fistfight at a demonstration or picket line could qualify as a terrorist act, or blocking traffic. A physical act need not cause bodily harm, as the Patriot Act mention “involving any violent or bodily act” that may be or support a terrorist act; Note that could include any physical movement.

    S.8 The Crime Control Act of 1993 Asset Forfeiture Provisions appeared aimed at public dissent and were written like RICO laws taking on the prospect of Political Arrests and Property Forfeitures. Broadly written—intent to commit terrorist acts was defined: “appear to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”

    Under S.8 “The Crime Control Act of 1993” any picket line that was alleged to have blocked public access could have qualified as a terrorist Act to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Should violence have resulted for any reason at a public assembly, the Property Forfeiture Provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be triggered causing the forfeiture of attending demonstrators’ homes used for meetings and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event. Demonstrators that left messages on a member or organization computer BBS System could cause the forfeiture of the system and government seizure of its records: and forfeiture of the home where the system was located. Similar forfeiture provisions were included in the passed 2001 Patriot Act under “supporting terrorism and asset forfeiture.”

    Under provisions of S.8 “The Crime Control Act of 1993”, Property Forfeiture, Arrest, Huge Fines, and Prison Sentences could result from “activities that appear to support Terrorism or are “intended toward violence.” For instance distributing political action flyers something Constitutionally protected. Similar Provisions the Excepted the U.S. Constitution were included in passed 2008 FISA Amendments. FISA states that Constitutional protected activities by itself cannot be the sole basis for search and seizure.

    “The Crime Control Act of 1993” Terrorist Provisions when first examined were misleading for they gave the reader the impression the government was after agents of a foreign power wishing to do Americans harm. That was a “Trojan Horse. The Crime Control Act of 1993 could be used against most anyone in the United States committing an undefined bodily act or attending an assembly: subsequently nearly identical Terrorism and Forfeiture provisions were included in the 2001 Patriot Act. Except the Patriot Act additionally extended the federal statute of limitations for prosecution of several crimes, so government could retroactively go back years to arrest U.S. Citizens and or seize their property based on the low standard of civil evidence “a preponderance of evidence.”

    The Crime Control Act of 1993: would have blocked discovery of Government Witnesses and Evidence being used against a defendant under Section 2333 of Title VII. Government would have been allowed to object to a defendant’s discovery, on grounds that compliance with discovery would interfere with a criminal investigation or prosecution of the incident, or national security operation related to the incident, which is the subject of Civil Litigation. Example: Defending against any Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Defense against Government civil asset forfeiture would have been near impossible if citizens were denied access to learning secret evidence being used against them or their assets to forfeit their property. Citizens’ would have been denied the right to cross-examine government secret witnesses in asset forfeiture proceedings. Those provisions were later passed in the 2001 Patriot Act allowing government to use secret witness testimony to seize and forfeit property. Secret witnesses under the Patriot Act can be paid money by government, including part of the property their testimony causes to be forfeited.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions:
    Secret Witnesses – Secret Trials: Protection of jurors and witnesses
    in Capital Cases:
    Chapter 113B Section 138 stated that the list of jurors and witnesses (need not) be furnished to Capital Offense Defendants should the court find by a “preponderance of the evidence” that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any person. Note: Only a preponderance of civil evidence…subsequently included in the 2001 Patriot Act.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993: Title VII Section 2337: The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have eliminated civil law suits against U.S. and Foreign Governments by innocent persons injured by Governments while pursuing a terrorist investigation. So if agents shot innocent persons pursuing a terrorist investigation, injured parties would have no civil redress. Note: Have not determined if that was included in passed 2001 Patriot Act.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993: Title VII Section 711: Sentencing Guidelines Increased for Terrorist Crimes: The United States Sentencing Commission would have had the power to increase the” base offense level” for Any felony committed in the United States that involved or was intended to promote international terrorism. Participation by political activists in Lawful Speeches, Writings and Public Assemblies could be used as evidence by Government to show that a political participant was aware of the unlawful methods of the individual or organization that they were alleged to have afforded support. Similar provisions were included in the “1996 Anti-Terrorist and Death Penalty Act” following the bombing of the Federal Oklahoma building.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993: Note: One person’s violent unlawful act at an assembly could be enough for the Government to allege an entire assembly “Appeared To Be Intended Toward Violence or Activities that Could Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian Population.” The 2001 Patriot Act has language that would appear to get to the same place.

    Under current drug forfeiture laws, informants have testified to anything to mitigate their own arrest and or receive money from police/government to implicate innocent Americans. Police/government corruption can result in innocent citizens being arrested and killed by drug agents, forfeiture of their property, and financial ruination. Under the proposed provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 special breaks would have been given to informants, even against the death penalty. Obviously Government would have had no difficulty creating informants to cause the arrest and incarceration of any U.S. Citizen believed by government to be a political threat. Similar provisions were included in the 2001 Patriot Act.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have approved “illegal searches.” Searches, wiretaps and seizures” that would result in obtaining evidence from an “invalid warrant” issued by a detached and neutral magistrate and found to be invalid based on misleading information or reckless disregard of the truth could “override Constitutional 4th Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.” The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have allowed government to use against its citizens illegally seized evidence.” Bush II included that provision in the first draft of the 2001 Patriot Act. It was not included in the final draft.

    The Crime Control Act of 1993 would have amended the “Exclusionary Rule” to add Section 3509 Admissibility of Evidence Obtained By Search or Seizure (a) Evidence Obtained By Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure (b) Evidence Not Excludable By Statute or Rule. II included this provision in the first draft of the 2001 Patriot Act: it was not included in the final draft. Section 3509 would have set the groundwork for Government Forfeiture Squads to randomly invade innocent owners’ homes and businesses with a minimum of probable cause. Government would only have to {assert) “a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment.”

    Currently: March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” possibly the most anti-Free Speech Bill in Modern U.S. History. McCain’s S.3081 if passed, would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations; Government can charge that attending demonstrations “materially supported hostilities.”

    Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government will have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners; or U.S. civilians. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

    At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.

    See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: