Thanks for posting this. Who knew it went back so far.

What I find so weird is how the modus operandi (mode of operation) has so little variation. Set up a patsy assassin who gets killed while in some form of police custody or detention (a burning barn is a form of detention if you're in it). Call the patsy a "lone gunman." And so on.

Who knew it went back so far.

It goes back much farther than that.

"I know in expressing with this frankness my ultimate opinion of the Jews, I expose myself to enormous danger. Many people share it, but very few dare to express it publicly, for the Jewish sect...constitutes today a veritable power in Europe. It reigns despotically in commerce, in the banks, and it has invaded three-quarters of German journalism, and a very considerable portion of the journalism of other countries. Woe, then, to him who has the clumsiness to displease it!" ~ Mikhail Bakunin, 1814-1876, Russian revolutionary. (Study of the German Jews, 1869)

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte, 1769-1821, Referring to the Rothschilds' financing both sides of the England-France war.

“Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written permission. I know of no other troublesome pest within the state than this race, which impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money-lending and commit all deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be removed and excluded from here as much as possible.” ~ Maria Theresa, 1717-1780, Queen of Hungary, Croatia & Bohemia; Archduchess of Austria. (1744)

“All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor.” ~ Pope Clement VIII, 1536-1605

“Jewish usurers bleed the poor to death and grow fat on their substance, and I who live on alms, who feed on the bread of the poor, shall I then be mute before outraged charity? Dogs bark to protect those who feed them, and I, who am fed by the poor, shall I see them robbed of what belongs to them and keep silent?” ~ Bernidino of Feltro, fl. 15th century, Italian priest. (E. Flornoy, Le Bienbeureux Bernardin the Feltre)

“The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to work so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious.” ~ Thomas Aquinas, c.1225-1274, Italian priest.

"Usury is the practice of lending money at excessive interest rates. This has for centuries caused great misery and poverty for Gentiles. It has brought strong condemnation of the Jews!" ~ Diodorus Siculus, fl. 1st century BCE, Greek historian.

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are to possess and cast out the many peoples living there, you shall then slaughter them all and utterly destroy them…You shall make no agreements with them nor show them any mercy…You shall destroy their altars, break down their images, cut down their groves and burn their graven images with fire. For you are a holy people unto the Lord thy God and He has chosen you to be a special people above all others upon the face of the earth…” ~ Deuteronomy, 7:1-8

Usury is the least of all reasons to despise Zionists. Very telling quotes. Same shit, different century. They will ultimately get what they have brought on themselves.

Does this apply to Christopher Dorner?

I dunno, do you think so? My gut-check says no, but why do you ask? I realize he has similar circumstances, minus the bankers. The banker connection seems pretty important to me.

I would say a modus operandi, by its definition, applies to one group that plans together or one person. If two people who didn't communicate share an m.o. that does not have the same import as the same group repeatedly employing that m.o.

Dorner is the only person to kill someone in Irvine, CA (my hometown) in over 3 years. He killed an innocent couple that didn't deserve to die. I don't think he was a patsy, just a murderer

Just consider how you know that fact. Christopher Dorner was never tried, never had a body of evidence produced, and had his own testimony cut lamentably short by both the multiple differing copies of his "manifesto" (a clear watchword by the way, only nuts release manifestos, ergo, Dorner was a nut) and being burned to death by the police. You can maintain your opinion, but at least consider the source before condemning the man as a murderer.

That's true, innocent until proven guilty, and he never was 'proven' guilty, but the government only kills when they feel it will benefit them in some sort of way. It doesn't make sense that the government would kill a man and his wife (who were people of political unimportance as far as I know).

It's plausible that the government killed these people in an attempt to deface Dorner, but why choose Irvine? It's one of the safest places in America and killing someone there would provide a good anti-government message by showing that the police can't even protect those in the safest place. I'm not going to say Dorner is evil, but it doesn't make sense (to me) that the government would kill someone in such a police infested suburb, since it shows that the police are less powerful than previously thought, which is what I assume Dorner was trying to show.

If you think you can give me a reason that those people weren't killed by Dorner, I'm all ears, it just seems strange that the government would kill a couple, especially in a high risk place like Irvine (rarely do people ever get away with murder, or even robbery here).

Facts can be altered, but logic prevails over all. If Dorner didn't kill that couple, then why would the government do it? Considering that the attack occurred in the early evening.

That is not how a criminal conviction works. There are any number of other explanations beyond "the government killed that couple to pin it on Dorner." And truth is, you or I don't need to come up with the explanation. Convicting someone of a crime requires evidence and a trial. There is neither in this case. You can say you suspect Dorner killed that couple, but the only reason you suspect such is because you were told to suspect Dorner. If you had never heard that Dorner committed the murder from the same authorities who burned him alive, what line of reasoning would you use to link him to the crime? The type of thinking you are engaged in is dangerous and subverts the very notions of justice upon which our judicial system is based.

Burden of proof, we both have no association to the person, and both lack the resources to find the truth. My basis is on who the main suspect was, while yours is on no basis at all.

I am not asking for proof, but I would like to know who else has a vendetta against this couple or would have motivation to kill them. Dorner had a clear association with them, which is why he was known as the number one suspect.

That is not proof. Proof is physical evidence, eyewitness testimonies, video evidence, etc. The prosecution's duty is to overcome the burden of proof. It is not about what information we both have, it is about the simple fact that there was no trial. There are no witnesses who have been examined. There is no evidence that has been examined. There is only the say-so of the very same people that prevented gathering any sort of evidence, or even a suspect, by burning the man alive. You are calling a man a murderer based only on hearsay and yet you still try to justify it as some sort reasoned position. It is not. God forbid you should ever be selected for jury duty.

Set up a patsy assassin who gets killed while in some form of police custody or detention (a burning barn is a form of detention if you're in it). Call the patsy a "lone gunman." And so on.

What are you talking about? There were hundreds of witnesses to Booth shooting Lincoln and it was known from the first day that there was a conspiracy. Several conspirators were convicted and hanged.

You think the word "patsy" means a person who did not do the crime. That is not correct.

The patsy is the person on whom a conspiracy blames the whole thing. Even though Booth fired the shot, he is considered a "lone nut gunman" because (apparently) he was the "fall guy", or patsy, for that conspiracy.

Patsy is a mafia word and it's not the same as the victim of a frame-up.

Abraham Lincoln worked valiantly to prevent the Rothschild's attempts to involve themselves in financing the Civil War.

No, Lincoln and his Treasury Secretary, Salmon Chase, asked August Belmont, the banker and an agent of the Rothschilds, to seek funding in Europe for the war effort.

Interestingly, it was the Czar of Russia who provided the needed assistance against the British and French, who were among the driving forces behind the secession of the South and her subsequent financing. Russia intervened by providing naval forces for the Union blockade of the South in European waters, and by letting both countries know that if they attempted to join the Confederacy with military forces, they would also have to go to war with Russia.

This is not accurate. Russia did support the United States rhetorically and declined to join France and Britain in breaking the blockade, but it didn't send forces to help the blockade nor did it, as far as I am aware, threaten France and Britain with war if they assisted the Confederacy. See "The Russian Fleet and the Civil War", F. A. Golder, The American Historical Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Jul., 1915), pp. 801-812, and "The Russian Fleet Myth Re-Examined", Thomas A. Bailey, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Jun., 1951), pp. 81-90.

The Rothschild interests did succeed, through their agent Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, to force a bill (the National Banking Act) through Congress creating a federally chartered central bank that had the power to issue U.S. Bank Notes.

All wrong. Chase was not an agent of the Rothschilds, the National Banking act did not establish a central bank, and the Rothschilds had nothing to do with its passage.

Afterward, Lincoln warned the American people: "The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.

That's actually a quote from William Jennings Bryant from many decades later.

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed."

This is a hoax from the 1880s.

[...]

When Booth's diary was recovered by Stanton's troops, it was delivered to Stanton. When it was later produced during the investigation, eighteen pages had been ripped out. These pages, containing the aforementioned names,were later found in the attic of one of Stanton's descendants.

I had never heard of this. It turns out to be a hoax from the 1970s.

From Booth's trunk, a coded message was found that linked him directly to Judah P. Benjamin, the Civil War campaign manager in the South for the House of Rothschild.

Judah P. Benjamin didn't have anything to do with the Rothschilds and the Rothschilds opposed the Confederacy. They forbade the trading of Confederate bonds in their exchange in Frankfurt.

The assassin, portrayed as a crazed lone gunman with a few radical friends, escaped by way of the only bridge in Washington not guarded by Stanton's troops.

The assassin was portrayed as a fanatic and part of conspiracy that included coordinated attacks on other members of Lincoln's administration. There was a trial of the conspirators that lasted months, ending in convictions and hangings.

[...]

Mary Todd Lincoln, upon hearing of her husband's death, began screaming, "Oh, that dreadful house!" Earlier historians felt that this spontaneous utterance referred to the White House. Some now believe it may have been directed to Thomas W. House, a gun runner, financier, and agent of the Rothschild's during the Civil War, who was linked to the anti-Lincoln, pro-banker interests.

Holy cow, what a chain of speculation! Why would Mrs. Lincoln have even heard of Thomas House, the Mayor of Houston and a Confederate gun-runner? Why would she call out his name? Where does he get the idea that House was an agent of the Rothschilds? "Some now believe"? Who?

In 1835, President Andrew Jackson declared his disdain for the international bankers: "You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out.

This quote is valid, but it isn't against the "international bankers", but against the Bank of the United States. Also, it's from February, 1834, not 1835.

If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."

This is a quote from the 20th century.

There followed an (unsuccessful) assassination attempt on President Jackson's life. Jackson had told his vice president, Martin Van Buren, "The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me...."

The quote "The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me...." is from 1832. Jackson is referring to the attempt to defeat him in the election.

The attempted assassin, Richard Lawrence was caught and tried. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. There was a Congressional investigation to determine whether anyone else put Lawrence up to it or was in any way involved. Jackon suspected Senator Poindexter, not the Bank, but the investigation found no evidence of any conspiracy.

[...]

President Garfield openly declared that whoever controls the supply of currency would control the business and activities of all the people. After only four months in office, President Garfield was shot at a railroad station on July 2, 1881. Another coincidence.

I'm not sure what the coincidence is supposed to be. Garfield made the declaration about the control of money in 1880, when he was in the House of Representatives. He was arguing against the government printing paper money. Garfield was well known as a hard-money Republican and a friend of the bankers.

President John F. Kennedy planned to exterminate the Federal Reserve System. In 1963 he signed Executive Orders EO-11 and EO-110, returning to the government the responsibility to print money, taking that privilege away from the Federal Reserve System.

First of all, it is Executive Order 11110, not Executive Orders 11 and 110. Second, it did nothing to exterminate the Federal Reserve. The order was part of Kennedy's plan to eliminate silver certificates and replace them with Federal Reserve notes.

You provide only 2 sources to a topic widely known to be controversial and 0 sources for the rest of your lambasting.

So what you're saying is, the Jews killed Lincoln.

Lee Harvey Oswald