Did Obama's spy chief resign over president's order to assassinate U.S. citizens?

I'm somewhat skeptical of this allegation, made in the story below which was posted to a local Ron Paul Meetup group. But there seems to be enough potentially corroborating evidence to make it worth passing along for consideration. If true, it is obviously extremely troubling. Jerry Kane and his 16-year-old son Joseph were killed May 20, following a traffic stop in which they allegedly shot and killed two police officers who had pulled them over. The Kanes may have been white supremacists; more relevantly, it's clear that Jerry Kane at least held anti-government views, including perhaps some libertarian views about not needing to use a driver's license.

  According to Dennis Blair's Wikipedia page (Dennis C. Blair - Wikipedia), the spy chief's May 20 resignation was tied to his pushing of a treaty with France. But the Wikipedia info seems less than satisfying or conclusive:

On May 22, 2010, two days after the resignation was announced, U.S. officials leaked to the New York Times that the impetus for the firing was Blair's continual pushing of a U.S.–French intelligence-sharing arrangement. Blair and French Intelligence Director Bernard Bajolet had commenced negotiations on the pact between the October and December 2009; the treaty was to have been a legally binding reciprocal no-spying arrangement between France and the United States, whereby each country would take over operations for the other in each's home-territory. Under the proposed treaty, U.S. operations in France would therefore be run by French intelligence. This was to be a signed treaty arrangement, a more formal version than the UK–USA Security Agreement.[40] The month before the treaty failure, President Sarkozy made a number of U.S. visits; the first visit of the French President was on March 31, 2010.[41] During the visit, Sarkozy was the first head of state invited by Obama to dine in the White House's private dining quarters.[42] Press releases from both governments made mention of the close relationship between the two heads of state.[43] Mr. Sarkozy also was present during the 12-14 April 2010 nuclear non-proliferation talks hosted in Washington, immediately prior to President Obama's rejection of the treaty produced by eight months of negotiations by Director Blair.
U.S. officials claimed that the U.S.–France intelligence-sharing treaty had been rejected by President Obama, adding that ODNI Director Blair's "continued pushing" for the pact after presidential rejection were grounds for his dismissal;[44] it was further claimed that President Sarkozy had been upset at the late-stage U.S. drawback in the deal. U.S. sources claimed that the treaty had been signed, despite U.S. claims that the treaty had been rejected by President Obama.
In an unusual response, the Palais de l'Elysee confirmed that such a treaty had been negotiated, adding that "we weren't the askers" in the deal, denying any French disappointment. French officials further specified that part of the U.S. offer to France comprised access to a "secure intelligence data and retrieval exchange system",[45]this being an in-progress U.S. acquisition under ODNI aegis. French officials characterized the treaty as minor, stating "nothing has changed in our relationship" in relation to the treaty failure and Blair's dismissal.[46] Officially, France denies conducting operations on U.S. soil.

  It seems a bit odd that a U.S. president would abruptly fire his top spy chief over the chief's supposed lobbying for an obscure intelligence-sharing treaty with France, especially given the contradictory stories about whether the treaty was actually signed or rejected. Frankly, the whole thing kind of looks like a cover story trotted out to explain the firing after the fact.

  The Wikipedia page for Jerry Kane (Jerry Kane - Wikipedia) confirms the traffic stop and subsequent killings, but says nothing about any federal government involvement. However a May 18 Reuters article linked from the Sorcha Faal piece below reports on the Obama administration's forming "Mobile Interrogation Teams" to question "high value detainees" suspected of terrorism (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64I0BZ20100519).

  Further, a local Arkansas media story (http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_central_cincinnati/ark.-police-shooting:-local-father,-son-may-be-suspects) about the police killings involving the Kanes -- which occurred the same day as Blair's resignation, May 20 -- twice refers to an "I-Team". Fascinatingly, the story fails to specify what or who this "I-Team" is, saying only:

The I-Team has received several tips that Jerry and Joe Kane were the two suspects in the shootings.

Records obtained by the I-Team include a Dayton-area cell phone number for Jerry Kane and previous addresses in Springfield, Ohio and other Southwest Ohio communities.

  The WCPO story also mentions that the FBI is involved in the investigation:

The Cincinnati regional FBI office is investigating local ties, but won't confirm the suspects' names. FBI spokesman Mike Brooks says "We're aware of possible Ohio connections to the shootings.We're working with the FBI in Arkansas to assist."

  Of course even if federal anti-terrorist agents were involved in a matter involving police officers being shot and killed, that doesn't automatically prove that Obama ordered a hit on U.S. citizens, or that this is what caused his spy chief to resign. But in light of the reported Russian intelligence, the timing of the events, and the weak official explanation of the resignation, raises troubling questions.

  This TV news report has more info about the incident, and the background of Jerry Kane -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSFwg9V4RcA&NR=1. The announcer finishes with the words, "It is not known why officers pulled over the van in the first place." It could be my imagination, but it seems to me that his tone is a bit odd -- as if he's trying to sound skeptical about what he's saying without actually saying so in so many words. None of the news reports I've seen mention the roadblock which is mentioned in the story below.

  I'd be curious to hear whether anyone else has any thoughts or leads about any of this.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

(Attachment oob1.jpg is missing)

(Attachment oob2.jpg is missing)

(Attachment oob3.jpg is missing)

With regard to why Sorcha Faal is not necessarily a reliable source, here's a link to another of her articles in which she talks about the supposed coming end days, Nostradamus, ancient Norse mythology and the Bible, etc. -- http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/battlebook.htm.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

And "I-Team" is nothing obscure nor sinister either; it's the station's investigative journalism dept:

http://www.wcpo.com/subindex/news/local_news/investigations

Sorcha Faal appears to be a non-existant person, and a hoax:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread304918/pg1

How can we believe somebody stole an intelligence report "prepared for Prime Minister Putin"
and lets that fact be published?

harland harrison
lpsm

----- Message d'origine ----

Thanks Harlan for dispelling all these misconceptions.

No need to create an issue where there is none

Harland,

  Thanks for clearing this up. It almost had me going. Given the context of the Reuters story on the Obama administration forming special anti-terrorist "interrogation teams" and "Faal's" allegation of these teams being involved with the Kane killings, the possibility that "I-Team" was not a reference to one of these teams, but simply internal newsroom jargon, did not occur to me! Snopes.com appears to have nothing on "Sorcha Faal"; guess I should have looked further on the Internet for that name.

  My one quibble with what you wrote is that I can easily believe an unidentified source could leak an inside government document; leaks happen all the time, sometimes as deliberate government policy. While it does seem somewhat unlikely that an individual who actually stole a secret report would be inclined to refer to the document as "stolen", that doesn't rule out the possibility of the article in which the word appears having been written by someone else. In this case however, your research has convinced me that the report is a hoax, albeit a clever one.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))