Notice also the Masonic letter X on the far corner on the door by the American Flag...Now that is Foretelling..
Notice the Secret Service Agent talking in his 'Dick Tracy' watch.
Actually, since the head of the person tilting near the table is actually covering the bottom part of this "X", to the camera it actually looks like another "Y", thus reemphasizing the "Y". So the message is clear w/ the duplicity.
Another thing, he was supposedly in the classroom before this picture was taken. So this picture had to have been taken after the 2nd tower was hit. It has been established that he was aware the 1st tower had been hit before going onto the school. Nothing was done to protect the skies after the 1st plane hit
. Nothing was done to prevent the 2nd plane from hitting its target
. Nothing was done to prevent the plane everyone knew was headed for the pentagon
. And then they take this picture to show that he doing something after the fact. After both TWC towers had been allowed to have been hit
. What the hell is he doing?
He was certainly not commanding the protection of our skies
. The whole thing was allowed to happen as if in a Godfather movie. And that is not my perception. Those are the facts. They did absolutely nothing to prevent 3 planes from hitting their targets when they had both trajectory knowledge & plenty of time to have fighter jets intercept the highjacked planes. But we all know about the stand-down orders. We all know that they had going somewhere between 12 & even 25 terror drills going on that same morning covering the exact same scenarios. FEMA was there the night before, ready to go. September 11 was certainly w/o doubt the "New Pearl Harbor" they needed. Without it the Bush administration would have had nothing to do. The only thing they have been doing since then is massively activating the War machine. Transferring billions of "fiat currency" dollars from the Federal Reserve's printing press (out of thin air) & hand it right into the hands of the military industrial complex, their corporations, & their friends. Removed all checks & balances from overseeing the President & the Executive Branch of government. Give the president dictatorial powers. Remove Posse Comitatus, & Habeas Corpus, along w/ the evisceration of the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. And to top it all off, they have established what they call the "Unitary Executive" Doctrine. “Unitary Executive is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority.”
The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State?
When President Bush signed the new law, sponsored by Senator McCain, restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a Presidential signing statement. That statement asserted that his power as Commander-in-Chief gives him the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed.
This news came fast on the heels of Bush's shocking admission that, since 2002, he has repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant, in flagrant violation of applicable federal law.
And before that, Bush declared he had the unilateral authority to ignore the Geneva Conventions and to indefinitely detain without due process both immigrants and citizens as enemy combatants.
All these declarations echo the refrain Bush has been asserting from the outset of his presidency. That refrain is simple: Presidential power must be unilateral, and unchecked.
But the most recent and blatant presidential intrusions on the law and Constitution supply the verse to that refrain. They not only claim unilateral executive power, but also supply the train of the President's thinking, the texture of his motivations, and the root of his intentions.
They make clear, for instance, that the phrase "unitary executive" is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority.
In this column, I will consider the meaning of the unitary executive doctrine within a democratic government that respects the separation of powers. I will ask: Can our government remain true to its nature, yet also embrace this doctrine?
I will also consider what the President and his legal advisers mean by applying the unitary executive doctrine. And I will argue that the doctrine violates basic tenets of our system of checks and balances, quietly crossing longstanding legal and moral boundaries that are essential to a democratic society.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html (Complete Article)