The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon

What's Hot…


Screen Shot 2014-04-16 at 9.41.32 PM

By: Pamela Geller

This is the latest bombshell to emerge from the recent cache of documents released to Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act. First, it reveals what liars Obama’s appointees are. Secondly and more importantly, the fascist tactics employed by the Obama administration call for a mass purge of the government.

The idea that the tyrannical Obama government meant to prosecute political speech using the most powerful government agency in the United States is terrifying and treasonous. Treason not by one, but by Obama’s fifth column. And the enemedia’s cover and complicit silence is a declaration of war on the America people.

“These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted”

We are under siege by the Democrat party.

Democrats in Congress were involved. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) appears to have led the anti-constitutional attack on free speech in the House. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) led it from the Senate.

Get to work, volunteers. Support principled candidates — get out the vote.

JW Obtains IRS Documents Showing Lerner in Contact With DOJ about Potential Prosecution of Tax-Exempt Groups

May 9, 2013, email reveals IRS plans to meet with Department of Justice over whether to prosecute groups that “lied” about plans for political activity

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a new batch of internal IRS documents revealing that former IRS official Lois Lerner communicated with the Department of Justice (DOJ) about whether it was possible to criminally prosecute certain tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained as a result of an October 2013 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) after the agency refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May 2013.

The newly released IRS documents contain an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-Chief of Staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller discussing plans to work with the DOJ  to prosecute nonprofit groups that “lied” (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities. The exchange includes the following:

I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs.

I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…

I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?

Lerner then “handed off” scheduling the issue to Senior Technical Adviser, Attorney Nancy Marks, who was then supposed to set up the meeting with the DOJ.  Lerner also decided that it would be DOJ’s decision as to whether representatives from the Federal Election Commission would attend.

Democratic Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had held a hearing on April 9during which, “in questioning the witnesses from DOJ and IRS, Whitehouse asked why they have not prosecuted 501(c)(4) groups that have seemingly made false statements about their political activities.”  Lerner described the impetus for this hearing in a March 27, 2013, email to top IRS staff:

As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are). One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff.

So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity

But in an email sent a few minutes earlier, Lerner acknowledged prosecutions would evidently be at odds with the law:

Whether there was a false statement or fraud regarding an [sic] description of an alleged political expenditure that doesn’t say vote for or vote against is not realistic under current law. Everyone is looking for a magic bullet or scapegoat — there isn’t one. The law in this area is just hard.

The documents also include email exchanges showing that before Lerner’s May 10, 2013, speech to the American Bar Association blaming “low-level” employees in Cincinnati for targeting tax-exempt organizations, the IRS Exempt Organizations division was scrambling to defuse the emerging targeting scandal:

  • May 1, 2013: After receiving an email from an assistant showing that 501(c)(4) applications had increased from 1591 in 2010 to 3398 in 2012 , Lerner wrote back, “Looks to me like 2010-2012 doubled too. Oh well – thanks.”
  • May 2, 2013: Discussing an upcoming conference call with approximately 100 congressional staffers on May 22, Lerner cautions aides, “Need to be careful not to mention sequester/furlough unless asked although can allude to budget and resources restraints.”
  • May 2, 2013: In response to an email reminding her about the upcoming conference call with congressional staffers, Lerner responded, “Arrgh – I just saw it. Sharon [White] could skate, but Cindy [Thomas] is the person who could answer that stuff. We need to give them some type of language in the event that type of question comes up” [apparently in reference to earlier email referencing “sensitive issues”].

The new documents obtained by Judicial Watch also include emails exchanged after Lerner’s May 10 ABA speech:

  • May 10, 2013: In an email to an aide responding to a request for information from a Washington Post reporter, Lerner admits that she “can’t confirm that there was anyone on the other side of the political spectrum” who had been targeted by the IRS. She then adds that “The one with the names used were only know [sic] because they have been very loud in the press.”
  • May 15, 2013: In an email from an aide to Lerner, the aide specifically mentions “Tea Party Organizations, the “Tea Party movement,” and “Tea Party Patriots” as organizations targeted by the IRS.

The Judicial Watch FOIA requests came on the heels of an explosive May 14, 2013, Treasury Inspector General report revealing that the IRS had singled out groups with conservative-sounding terms such as “patriot” and “Tea Party” in their titles when applying for tax-exempt status. The IG probe determined that “Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status to (e.g., lists of past and future donors).” According to the report, the illegal IRS reviews continued for more than 18 months and “delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications” preparing for the 2012 presidential election.

Lerner, who headed the IRS division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, refused to testify at a May 2013 hearing before Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) House Oversight Committee, demanding immunity concerning her role in the targeting scandal. Lerner retired from the IRS with full benefits on September 23 after an internal investigation found she was guilty of “neglect of duties” and was going to call for her ouster, according to news reports. On April 9, 2014, the Ways and Means Committee referred Lois Lerner to the DOJ for criminal prosecution. On April 10, 2014, the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress.

“These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal.  No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents.”

Writing at PJ Media, Bryan Preston well summarizes the implications of this horrifying scandal that makes Nixon look like a shoplifter at the Dollar Store. (thanks to Bad Blue)

The implications of today’s email disclosure are stunning and terrifying.

Lois Lerner intended to use her position atop the IRS’ tax exempt approval office to coordinate the prosecution of political speech. The Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder had at least tentatively bought into that. The Federal Elections Commission was being roped in as well. Lerner’s emails prove that beyond doubt.

Democrats in Congress were involved. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) appears to have led the anti-constitutional attack on free speech in the House. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) led it from the Senate.

Two days before Lerner was forced to publicly disclose the scandal, she was moving forward with an insidious plan to stamp out conservatives and Tea Party activists’ ability to organize and raise money, by working with the IRS commissioner’s office and the Department of Justice. At the same time, there was no plan for any government crackdown on groups who agreed with President Obama. The traffic was entirely one-way. It was nakedly political, and everyone involved knew it. They also had reason to believe that they would succeed, or they would not have engaged in it. DOJ would serve two roles: Prosecute conservatives, and protect the bureaucrats who were pushing those prosecutions.

But, “nation of cowards” and “racism”, y’all.

Any conservative who sits on the sidelines in 2014 bemoaning candidates that aren’t to his or her liking is effectively a co-conspirator with the Democrats in the active destruction of this Republic.

We have a President, an Attorney General, a ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, the IRS, the FBI, and heaven knows what other alphabet soup agencies conspiring to jail political opponents. Kind of like Venezuela, but with more debt.

That, my friends, is fascism, straight up.

So when you sit out the next election because you couldn’t find the perfect Republican candidate, don’t act surprised when this corrupt, lawless, totalitarian Democrat Party comes after you and your group.

So you can mobilize to stop this, or you can echo Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his masterful The Gulag Archipelago. It related to the greatest regret of those in the slave labor camps:

What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? –Part I The Prison Industry, Ch. 1 “Arrest” (p13, The Gulag Archipelago, Collins 1974)

The radicals in the Obama administration today attack us confident that the Republican “leadership” will do nothing to stop them. That is why the lesson of Cliven Bundy is so crucial: Democrats must be reminded at each turn that their safety will vanish if they turn to violence.

TLB Highly recommends you visit Pamela Geller for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:


The U.S. Government alone classifies over 500 million pages of documents each year. As far as transparency goes, there is none. How can we know anything about what is happening on our planet if so much information is hidden from the public domain? By now, the classified world has moved far beyond the reach of the public, and far beyond in its power and capabilities with regards to technology, scientific and cosmological knowledge and more.(1).

“According to our best estimates, more than half of all U.S. government records are classified. For an archivist seeking to preserve and understand our history, that means most of our history is kept secret from us, think about that for a moment ” – Richard Dolan

The United States has a history of government agencies existing in secret. The National Security Agency (NSA) was founded in 1952, its existence was hidden until the mid 1960′s. Even more secretive is the National Reconnaissance Office, which was founded in 1960 but remained completely concealed for 30 years.

Recent leaks from Edward Snowden, a former intelligence contractor, have shed light on the black budget world. This is a world full of Special Access Programs (SAP) that garnishes trillions of dollars every year to conduct operations the general public knows nothing about(2). These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as ‘deep black programs.’ A 1997 US Senate report described them as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress (3)(1)”. One aspect of these ‘deep black programs’ is the development of deep underground military bases, and they can go up to several miles underneath the surface.

There are also known underground facilities in existence. Take for example, the Swedish underground military facility at  Musko. It’s a large naval base built underneath a mountain. The hospital alone within this facility holds over 1,000 beds. Musko engineers blasted out 1,500, 000 cubic meters of stone in order to build it (4)(5).

The military utility for underground construction is obvious. I recall years ago studying the matter in the context of American Cold War military strategy. during the 1950′s, motivated by a fear of Soviet missiles striking American installations and cities, military planners recognized the value of secure facilities deep underground (1) – Richard Dolan

In 1987 Deputy Director of Engineering and Construction for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lloyd A. Duscha, gave a speech at an engineering conference entitled “Underground Facilities for Defense – Experience and Lessons.” In the first paragraph of his speech he states the following:

After World War II, political and economic factors changed the underground construction picture and caused a renewed interest to “think underground.” As a result of this interest, the Corps of Engineers became involved in the design and construction of some very complex and interesting military projects. Although the conference program indicates the topic to be “Underground Facilities for Defense – Experience and Lessons,” I must deviate a little because several of the most interesting facilities that have been designed and constructed by the Corps are classified. (4)(6)

He then went into a discussion of the Crops’ involvement in the 1960′s in the construction of the large and elaborate NORAD base buried deep beneath Cheyenne Mountain, in Colorado. This is just a public statement, but you will not find a more significant public admission of secret, underground bases than this one. People speaking is not the only evidence available, there are actual documents obtained by researchers through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that shed more light on the subject, and clearly outline plans for the contraction of underground facilities(4).

There are documents available which expose a deep underground command center that was to be built far below area’s such as Washington, D.C. and China Lake, California during the Cold War. Documents  available show that in 1964 the military was considering building a huge underground cavity 4,000 feet deep beneath China Lake (4). It’s well known that the United States and the Soviet Union created a vast infrastructure to support a complex of offensive and defensive weapons during the Cold War. This infrastructure included sites and facilities for developing, testing, storing and manufacturing weapons. There was also a host of communication and command centers(7).

The worlds most prominent researcher on Underground Military Facilities (in my opinion) Richard Sauder, Ph.D, told of an interesting story in his book Hidden In Plain Site (4) that I’d like to share with you.

“As it happens, after giving a public talk a couple of years ago, I was approached by a man who had been a uniformed member of the United States Navy. We chatted for a while and when he mentioned that he had spent some time at China Lake my ears perked up. I asked him if there was an underground facility at China Lake. He said that indeed there is, and that it is impressively large and deep. I asked him if he had ever been in it, and he said that he had, though not to the deepest levels. I asked him how deep the deepest part extended. He looked at me soberly and said very quietly, “It goes one mile deep.” I then asked him what the underground base contains. He replied, “Weapons.” I responded, “What sort of weaponry?” And he answered without pausing, “Weapons more powerful than nuclear weapons.” (4)

Deep Underground Command Center (DUCC)

The very first TOP SECRET memo on the subject was issued by Robert McNamara, on November 7th 1963 from the office of the Secretary of Defense. This took place right before the Kennedy murder (4).

There is a very grave danger that an announced need for increased secrecy will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit, to the extent that it is in my control. We are opposed around the world by a system which has ocnscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

In this memo McNamara discusses the topic of the National Underground Command Center. The memo was addressed to McGeorge Bundy, Kermit Gordon and Dr. Jerome Wiesner. Bundy was the special assistant for National Security Affairs of President Kennedy. Gordon was the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and Wiesner was Kennedy’s science adviser. McNamara stated that they would meet sometime during the end of November, unfortunately Kennedy was dead by then.

A Second memo was issued on the same day concerning a proposed Deep Underground National Command Center that would be approximately 3,500 feet underground Washington. (4) The memo also mentioned elevator shafts below the State Department and White House that would descend to 3,500 feet with high speed, horizontal tunnel transport to the main facility. Remember we are talking about the 1960′s, what type of technology would be available for them to complete a project like this?

The reality of Deep Underground Military Bases is extremely fascinating. There is an enormous amount of evidence that proves their existence. Secret military bases used to be labelled in the conspiracy theory category. Not long ago, the Department of Defense officially declassified the existence of Area 51. (7)

There are hundreds of military bases, and underground military bases spread all over the world. Dr Richard Sauder documents this phenomenon well in Hidden In Plain Sight, among his other works. What I’ve provided above is not even the tip of the ice berg. In his book he goes on to illustrate the technology behind such developments, under ocean bases, and more. This is a fascinating topic to explore, and the next question to ask is what goes on in underground military facilities?



Photo of United States Air Force tunnel boring machine at Little Skull Mountain, Nevada, USA, December 1982. There are many rumors of secret military tunnels in the United States. If the rumors are true, machines such as the one shown here are used to make the tunnels. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy.)





(4) Sauder, Richard. Hidden In Plain Sight, Beyong the X-Files. Keyhole Publishing Company. March 2010 (This was my primary source for the article. Most of the information within the article comes from this book. Please check out Richard Sauder if you want to know more about this topic)

(5)Salo, Ilkka; Svenson, Ola (September 2003), Safety Management: A Frame of Reference for Studies of Nuclear Power Safety Management and Case Studies from Non-Nuclear Contexts (PDF), Nordic nuclear safety research (NKS), NKS-88, Roskilde, Denmark: NKS Secretariat, pp. 9–13, ISBN 87-7893-146-0, retrieved 2010-11-27

(6) Lloyd A. Duscha, “Underground Facilities for Defense – Experience and Lessons,” in Tunneling and Underground Transport: Future Developments in Technology. Economics and Policy, ed. F.P. Davidson (New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc., 1987), pp. 109-113.



Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:



Tuesday, April 15, 2014 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of (See all articles…) Tags: federal agents, rules of engagement, new media

Learn more:

(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of round one of the Bundy Ranch armed siege by the U.S. government, I have decided to offer the federal government an intelligent analysis of the new rules of engagement. People like Daniel P. Love, Special Agent in Charge of BLM Region 3, desperately need to review and learn these rules. Other federal agents also need to understand the tectonic shift of power that has just taken place and how it will impact their operations from here forward.

Why am I doing this? Because the BLM, through its astounding incompetence and arrogance, very nearly initiated a massacre at Bundy Ranch which would have been disastrous for the BLM agents actively engaged there. The incident very nearly came to a shooting war, and it is the outdated, ill-informed government playbook that inflamed the situation and brought it to a flashpoint of violence. At every step, BLM escalated the situation beyond reason: who brings snipers to a tortoise dispute? Who unleashes attack dogs on unarmed pregnant women and cancer survivors? The BLM, that’s who!

I know there remain many good agents in many different departments of the federal government. But there are also many incompetent agents who are still living in the 1990′s and think they can run an armed ranch siege in 2014 the same way the ATF ran the Waco, Texas siege in 1993. But the rules have changed. As proof of that, consider the now-historical fact that BLM agents publicly surrendered and retreated from hundreds of armed citizens near Bunkerville, Nevada. How did this happen, exactly? To understand that, you must understand the new rules of engagement between the feds, the media and the citizens.

So if you have any friends who are feds in any department — BLM, ATF, DEA, FBI, etc. — make sure they get a copy of this article… and we all might spare ourselves some bloodshed in the near future.

Personal context: As far as my own background, I am a long-time supporter of local law enforcement, a fan of certain individuals within the FBI who are still part of “the good guys” pulling for America, and an outspoken critic of overzealous abuse of power in any agency, including the ATF, DEA and of course the BLM. My personal beliefs on current events can best be summarized by the words of Judge Andrew Napolitano in this video interview.

Old rules of engagement? Coercion, intimidation and overwhelming show of force

The reason BLM just got hoodwinked at Bundy Ranch was because they were playing by the old rules of engagement which are based on “might makes right.” BLM foolishly thought that if they closed down the air space, threatened citizens with arrest, brought snipers to the scene and ordered the mainstream media to run a total blackout on the story, they would control the situation and easily be able to assert their will (which was to seize control of the land).

They were wrong. As we all now know, BLM Special Agent Daniel P. Love vastly over-estimated the strength of his position and wildly under-estimated the strength of his opposition. How did he make that mistake? He thought this was a war of kinetic action, but it was actually a war of information flow (more discussion below).

Federal agents are intentionally misinformed during their training

Much like Dan Love, most federal agents are still running on playbooks which are wildly outdated. Change is always slow to make its way into government training manuals, operational tactics and rules of engagement. Citizens, patriots and indy media journalists, on the other hand, are incredibly adaptable, technologically savvy and enjoy an ever-growing base of support which has only expanded due to the extreme abuses of liberty and freedom that have taken place under the Obama administration. The harder the feds push, the more they grow the popular resistance to coercion. Thus, the very application of the old rules of engagement automatically leads the feds to inevitable defeat in situations where federal rules conflict with core American values.

Feds are also wildly misinformed by their superiors about the truth of their opposition, and so they are handicapped from the start with disinfo that impedes their operational efficiency. Case in point: if you’re a federal agent, nearly all the people who are described to you as “anti-government” are actually pro-Constitutional government people. They are not anarchists, and they are not irrational. They are opponents of criminal corruption and die-hard advocates of honest, limited government.

Most of what you are being told about these people is propaganda, not factual truth. As a result, when you think you are about to go toe-to-toe with what you’ve been taught are “low IQ, inbred anti-government extremists,” the truth is that many of these people are actually far more cognitively accomplished than your own agents. For example, members of the Bundy family possess well-developed philosophical ideas about liberty, personal perseverance and spiritual courage. At the same time, most lower-tier federal agents have never spent any real time pondering ethics, values, courage or philosophy at all. Most federal agents, factually stated, are ignorant of the Bill of Rights and have almost no knowledge of the limitations of federal power. They are not taught, after all, to limit their reach but instead to find ways to work around such limitations and assert their power in any way possible. Such is the nature of every government agency and department. Most young men working as front-line agents in these departments have almost no knowledge of what they are truly facing.

Furthermore, federal agents are almost never instructed that their adversaries might be thoughtful, courageous, honorable people who primarily just want to be left alone. These people are also highly disciplined and principled. As the Bundy Ranch scenario clearly demonstrated, so-called “extremists” are willing and able to hold their fire and act with extraordinary self-discipline, even in the face of extreme escalations of violence perpetrated by government agents. Obviously, then, they are not extremists at all. What’s extreme is the BLM’s decision to bring snipers and government helicopters to a dispute they claim was about a desert tortoise.

Federal agents are almost never taught these truths about the everyday citizens they are facing in these scenarios. Instead, federal training programs go out of their way to vilify and smear rural white people as, for example, “low-IQ extremists” rather than the thoughtful, principled Americans they truly are. Just because somebody works on a ranch does not make them stupid. I own multiple John Deere tractors and raise chickens, yet my own cognitive function ranks in the top one-tenth of one percent of all Americans. Do not make the mistake of equating rural living with stupidity, and do not think that people only live on farms because they have no other choice. Many of us have gone to great lengths to deliberately pursue rural lifestyles because rural living is more in tune with our well-developed philosophies of happiness and purpose.

Background: The balance of power; weapons, information and decentralization

To understand the new rules of engagement, you need to understand how the American Revolution was won. And to understand that, you need to understand how the invention of interchangeable parts in firearms manufacturing allowed everyday men to attain fairly accurate rifles which could counter rifles held by centralized government personnel (in ANY government, not just the British government).

It was the proliferation of easy-to-make, easy-to-repair rifles — along with barrel rifling advancements — that allowed everyday people to rise up against government oppression and tyranny. This is how the United States of America came to be born, of course — by taking a stand against the tyranny of the King of England. That’s also why standing firm against tyranny is something that can never be taken out of the American spirit because it runs in our blood.

The ease of manufacturing and maintaining rifles shifted the balance of power from the hands of the few (government) to the hands of the many (Democracy). This is why the invention of the rifle unleashed a global wave of revolutions and revolt against centralized authority. Grassroots rifle manufacturing was, in fact, the first peer-to-peer offensive weapons manufacturing network of the modern world. If you don’t understand this trend in history, you will never understand what’s happening in America today.

Today, of course, government has far more advanced weapons than the common man. Government commands Hellfire missiles, Apache attack helicopters and even nuclear weapons. No common citizen’s group possesses such weapons, and because of this, government believes it now controls the balance of power. But that’s playing the old game from the 1700′s. Today, what matters is not so much who has the better weapons, but who has the better ability to share information. Information warfare is the paradigm of 2014 and beyond, not kinetic warfare.

The Pentagon already understands this, of course, which is why journalists are strictly controlled (“embedded”) when covering wars in the Middle East. The information war is far more important to shape and control than the kinetic war. Because it doesn’t really matter where the bombs land as long as you control which VIDEOS of the bombs get broadcast. Guiding the news coverage is far more important than guiding the ordinance, in other words. (Oops! Did ya just blow up a civilian hospital? Don’t worry, CNN will agree not to show it, aren’t they awesome?)

Government can no longer control the narrative

Centralized government can no longer control the news narrative for events taking place on U.S. soil. What’s happening today in information sharing now mirrors what took place over 200 years ago with rifle manufacturing sharing. When information can be passed from person to person, in a decentralized, peer-to-peer network with no central authority and no central point of control, facts, photos and videos easily bypass the usual firewalls government places upon mainstream media outlets. While it is exceedingly easy to control videos and photos in a foreign country, it is all but impossible to control such information when events are unfolding on U.S. soil (as they did near Bunkerville, Nevada).

The widespread ownership of video recording devices in 2014 mirrors the widespread ownership of rifles in 1775. Nearly every citizen today has a mobile phone recording device, and nearly everyone has an ability to post videos, photos, audio and tweets to the internet in near-real time. This is tactically equivalent to the ability of any citizen in 1775 to own and operate rifles capable of going head-to-head with the rifles carried by British soldiers who occupied the colonies of the Americas.
If you understand this concept of decentralized, readily-available technologies that shape the big trends of history, the you are ready to grasp the following NEW rules of engagement.

Rule #1) You no longer control the narrative

At Waco, Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge and 9/11, the U.S. government wholly controlled the narrative. The centralized media institutions in place at the time exhibited total control over all media broadcasts in the nation. There was no social media. There was no Twitter. There was no Facebook. There were no blogs. Mainstream media’s control over information was absolute, and therefore so was White House control over the mainstream media.

Today, the mass decentralization of news media is nearly complete. While centralized news sources may agree to be obedient and complicit in broadcasting propaganda (or running a media blackout on a particular story), citizens now have ready access to multiple vectors through which information can be accumulated or shared. As I have said here on Natural News, social media allows us to share the news faster than the government can cover it up.

Almost by definition, no centralized authority can exercise timely and effective control over organic, decentralized news sharing fueled by extreme curiosity, interest and sometimes outrage by the public. The very things that make Facebook addictive to many people — the “wow” factor when learning new facts — also make people want to share those facts with others. The structure of social media is viral by its very nature. This structure is the antithesis of centralized government control over narratives of unfolding news events.

Freedom of information, in other words, constantly counteracts the inherent desire of tyrants to oppress and control information. The very existence of electronic, decentralized media is anti-tyrannical by its very nature. The democratization of information automatically leads to the democratization of power, which is the exact opposite of what the U.S. government really wants. Remember: the U.S. government strongly supports freedom fighters in Kiev, but is terrified of freedom fighters in America. Ever wonder why?

 Rule #2) Your mainstream media blackouts will backfire and make alternative media more popular than ever

During the Bundy Ranch affair, mainstream media was ordered by the White House to completely refrain from covering the story. This, again, is a laughable mistake from an old-school playbook.

While the White House thought that erecting a blackout across the mainstream media would cause the story to vanish from national consciousness, what actually took place was precisely the opposite: the story took off like wildfire across the ‘net. But instead of Pulizer-prize-winning mainstream journalists going on scene and reporting live from Nevada, all the journalism glory went to citizen journalists like Pete Santilli and David Knight, both working for independent online media groups that can never be controlled by government authority.
At Bundy Ranch, the mainstream media blackout backfired, causing enormous rises in popularity for indy media and alternative media. I happen to know firsthand, for example, that one of my own stories on Bundy Ranch was read by over 3 million people. And that’s small compared to a story by Kit Daniels of Infowars which went so viral that it became the single most-shared story of the year, across ALL media.

I also happen to know that indy video networks like Next News Network attracted hundreds of thousands of new subscribers. The mainstream media blackout, it turns out, was an incredible gift to alternative media which enjoyed unprecedented viewership, ad revenues, new subscribers and new fans. The mainstream media blackout was the best news of the year across alt. media. The White House, in other words, just added huge viewership numbers to the very same independent media groups it is constantly trying to discredit.

Rule #3) You can’t stop the alternative media by stopping its leaders

The alternative media is a phenomenon of spontaneous, decentralized, peer-to-peer journalism. It’s not based on specific individuals, because there is always upward pressure from others to take the place of any individuals are might be intimidated into silence. Even if top voices of alternative media were to die or disappear, they would be immediately replaced by others who are ready to assume their roles.

Online audiences easily transfer from one alternative media outlet to another. A single super-viral story, for example, can gain an alternative media person over half a million new followers. This is partly why attempts to suppress alternative media via individual character assassination are all but useless. Alternative media followers already know everything printed in the mainstream media is pure propaganda, so running a hit piece on an alt. media personality in the mainstream media accomplishes nothing.

Furthermore, there is no central authority over alternative media. Thus, there is no single point of control or influence over the network of peer-to-peer alt. media publishers and broadcasters. While the mainstream media can simply be ordered into total silence by the White House — and this is exactly what happened with the Bundy Ranch story — alt. media by definition adhere to no such obedience or demands.

Notice, too, that in this case of the Bundy Ranch, one of the top alt. media personalities, Alex Jones, was not even at the forefront of the effort: it was his reporters — David Knight and Kit Daniels — who broke the biggest stories. This is by design. Alex has always sought to encourage his reporters to rise up and cover the really big stories while establishing their own independent credibility as investigative journalists. Do not misinterpret this as a mistake; it is AJ’s intention that his reporters pursue such paths. AJ has always had the intention that Infowars would continue on even if he were killed.

 Rule #4) Escalations of coercion only encourage greater resistance

The single most important factor leading to the rise of the armed citizen’s revolt at the Bundy Ranch was the Youtube video showing attack dogs unleashed by BLM agents against unarmed citizens. This video has now become legendary, having been viewed many millions of times in all its renditions and copies.

This video clearly and unambiguously shows a BLM agent giving multiple verbal and body language commands to an attack dog, directed against unarmed civilians. It was the widespread sharing of this video that led to the uprising which ultimately led to BLM surrendering to American patriots.

In realizing this, the natural tendency of government tyrants and oppressors is to say, “We’ll just ban mobile devices or confiscate them all at gunpoint!” This is the same sort of abysmal thinking that led the BLM to somehow think erecting a “First Amendment Zone” would be acceptable to Americans. Apparently, the BLM believes the American people are so incredibly stupid that won’t remember the First Amendment applied everywhere in America, not just some temporary zones defined by a delusional gang of armed tyrants. The very idea that BLM would even attempt to set up such an area of so utterly offensive and disrespectful to the spirit of America that I still shake my head in disbelief over the fact that they tried it.

Rule #5) You will only have the cooperation of the People by their choice, not by coercion

The final rule in all this is something most feds will never quite understand. In most cases, federal agents receive cooperation from citizens by choice, not by force. For example, I have voluntarily provided information to the U.S. Department of Justice on criminal scams taking place in the natural products industry. I do this by choice, not by force, because it is the right thing to do and because it serves the public interest.

When federal agents make requests upon American citizens, there is a moment in which those requests are parsed for congruency with a person’s perceived understanding of both the law and moral justice. If a federal agent’s request is in alignment with law and moral justice, it will likely be voluntarily followed. For example, I (lawfully) carry a concealed firearm every time I visit the Austin airport. If a crazy person goes nuts with a machete at the airport, and I find myself side by side with an armed federal agent, have no doubt I will voluntarily cooperate with federal law enforcement officers in a joint armed effort to halt the violence of the armed assailant and thereby protect innocent people. (And being Austin, Texas, the machete-wielder will likely find himself riddled with bullets because hundreds of honorable, armed citizens carry concealed weapons at the Austin airport every single day.)

On the other hand, if a federal agent approaches me and orders me to rob a bank for him, I will tell him no. Why? Surely the agent can claim he is “giving me a lawful order” and I therefore must obey under law, correct? Yet when that “lawful order” stands at odds with what I know to be morally right, I will choose not to obey that order, regardless of what excuse the agent invokes.

This is precisely what happened at Bundy Ranch. BLM showed up with “lawful orders” backed up by two different (federal) courts. But the People did not perceive those order as being morally justified. Therefore, they chose not to recognize those orders as being lawful. As was the case at Bundy Ranch, Americans can and do think for themselves in such scenarios, and at any moment, they may decide that YOUR actions as a federal agent are grossly unlawful, immoral or unconstitutional. If enough people arrive at the same conclusion, you will sooner or later find yourself surrounded and possibly arrested by the People at gunpoint.

This concept does not compute with many federal agents because they were not taught the real roots of power in a free society. They are taught that a law written on a piece of paper is an absolute, irrefutable power which can never be questioned by lowly “civilians.” In reality, a law is nothing more than mutual consent of the governed. That consent, it turns out, can be invoked at any time if those who apply the law do so in a way that is egregious or unreasonable. All government power comes from the People, after all, and can therefore be revoked by the People if government becomes abusive or overreaching in its exercising of that power.

Laws mean nothing, after all, if they are not based on a sense of justice which can be recognized by the Common Man (or woman). The U.S. government, for example, once had laws on the books which said that blacks were not fully recognized as people. Such laws fly in the face of spiritual truth, and had I been an independent media reporter in the 1820′s, I would have been aggressively arguing for equal rights among all people, regardless of their skin color (and I would have been aggressively attacked by the establishment for defending such a “crazy” idea, of course).

Those are the new rules of engagement. Please send this article to your favorite fed. The more of them who read this and understand it, the greater chance we all have for lasting peace and avoidance of bloodshed caused by an arrogant, out-of-control federal government that has lost its way.

Learn more:

TLB highly recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:

By: Barbara Peterson Farm Wars

I love organics. Pure organic food is pesticide-free, genetic engineering (GMO)-free, and healthy. It even tastes better due to the lack of chemical pesticide residue, and quite frankly, I really don’t want to eat anything else. But how can we be sure that what we are getting is really organic in the way that we expect it to be?

My garden grows heirloom veggies, and the only pesticide I will use is diatomaceous earth. There is no artificial seed tampering, no mucking around with genetics in a lab, no fluoridated water and absolutely no artificial fertilizers. I consider it organic. I trust the seeds that I gather and the methods that I use to grow them. But can this be said for the USDA’s Certified Organics program?

Let’s just take a look at two seed production methods allowed in the USDA program – Cell Fusion and Mutagenesis.

Cell Fusion

Cell fusion technology is currently being used extensively in the production of both organic and conventional foods.

Cell fusion is accomplished by combining the material from two different cells through either chemical (enzymes) or electrical stimulation. You are breaking down cell walls and intermingling material to see what comes out.

So, as long as you combine the cells of different types of the same vegetable such as two different types of broccoli through electrical stimulation or by chemicals in order to produce a seed that has a targeted trait, that is acceptable to the USDA National Organics Program (NOP).

“…the NOP further concludes that cell fusion (including protoplast fusion) is not considered an excluded method when the donor cells/protoplasts fall within the same taxonomic plant family, and when donor or recipient organisms are not derived using techniques of recombinant DNA technology.”


Mutagenesis creates a mutation in the plant cell through the application of radiation or toxic chemicals to the seed itself.

Mutation breeding is the process of exposing seeds to chemicals or radiation in order to generate mutants with desirable traits to be bred with other cultivars. Plants created using mutagenesis are sometimes called mutagenic plants or mutagenic seeds. From 1930–2007 more than 2540 mutagenic plant varietals have been released that have been derived either as direct mutants (70%) or from their progeny (30%). Crop plants account for 75% of released mutagenic species with the remaining 25% ornamentals or decorative plants. However, it is unclear how many of these varieties are currently used in agriculture or horticulture around the world, as these seeds are not always identified or labeled as being mutagenic or having a mutagenic provenance.


There are different kinds of mutagenic breeding such as using chemical mutagens like EMS and DMS, radiation and transposons are used to generate mutants. Mutation breeding is commonly used to produce traits in crops such as larger seeds, new colors, or sweeter fruits that either cannot be found in nature or have been lost during evolution.

EMS, a chemical mutagen, is highly toxic:

EMS mutagenesis

WARNING: EMS is a powerful mutagen and a suspected carcinogen. Wear gloves and work in fume hood. Use disposable plastic ware and inactivate mutagen before disposal as outlined below.

A good example of how chemical mutagenesis can be used to create certain traits is Clearfield wheat:

In 2003 BASF, the chemical company, introduced Clearfield wheat, which is tolerant to their proprietary herbicide Beyond, much like Roundup Ready Corn is tolerant of glyphosate. They proudly proclaim that the wheat is not the product of genetic engineering, but of “enhanced traditional plant breeding” methods. What, exactly, are these enhanced methods that allows a plant to resist a persistent herbicide?

The technique is called “chemical mutagenesis” and might be worse than GMO engineering. Using a highly toxic chemical – sodium azide – as well as gamma and x-ray radiation, the exposed wheat embryo mutates. After further experimentation, testing and development, Clearfield wheat emerges and is tolerant of the Beyond herbicide. Clearfield is now supplied in 20 varieties and nearly a million acres are planted with it in the US and Canada.

So, according to the USDA NOP, it is perfectly okay to irradiate or chemically bathe seeds with toxic, carcinogenic substances to produce mutations and still call them organic. Unacceptable.

Mutagenes is (treatment of plants with radiation or chemicals to induce random mutation) is considered part of traditional breeding programs.

My Solution

I have purchased, traded for, and saved organic heirloom seeds. These are seeds that have undergone absolutely no chemical or radiation treatments. The seeds gathered from subsequent plants are viable and you can save them for next year’s planting and get a crop that is basically the same as the parent crop.

When saving seed, always harvest from the best. Choose disease-free plants with qualities you desire. Look for the most flavorful vegetables or beautiful flowers. Consider size, harvest time and other characteristics.

By choosing from the best each season, you encourage the traits that you desire. This is the natural way. It is considerably more time consuming than simply changing the genetics via radiation and chemicals, but in my opinion, it is the way to go. This is true organic cultivation.

So, the bottom line is that it really doesn’t matter to me if it is labeled ‘USDA Certified Organic’ or not. If it has been irradiated, chemically bathed with toxic, carcinogenic chemicals and mutated to within an inch of its life, it is not truly organic. What’s next? GMO Organic Made by Monsanto and stamped with the USDA Certified Organic seal of approval?

This is a Special Presentation for The Common Sense Show and Contributed to TLB by: Dave Hodges.

TLB Highly recommends you visit Dave at The Common Sense Show for more great/pertinent commentary, articles, radio shows and information.

See featured article and read comments here:

High Ranking Military Says Martial Law Likely,

Armed Conflict with Citizens On The Horizon

Posted by

In an earlier article we reviewed just how easy it is to start a revolution, how few people it takes, and how remarkably little it can cost in lives. That was based on such a revolution being initiated by popular revolt of the people. In this article, we examine the possibility that such a revolution could be sponsored by military action, either an outright military coup against which the people rally in protest to restore the Constitution, or in which the government is indeed taken over and becomes a military police state without useful resistance.  I sure hope neither path could be true, but there is a lot to make one wonder…

Image from New Internationalist Magazine (click)


In my book, Fatal Rebirth (, I quote U.S. Army General Tommy Franks on this topic. You remember him?  He’s the guy that commanded the flame throwing tank at WACO that first injected lethal gas into their underground bunkers where the children and women were, and then burned most of the rest of the Davidians alive.

You know BATF were pretty badly threatened by those darned Bible thumpers, because all the videos showed gunfire in only one direction… in. Not one bullet hitting a vehicle or the ground from which the ‘good guys’ that later bulldozed the place and concealed all possible evidence were shooting from. Here’s my footnote from Fatal Rebirth on what Franks had to say on topic.

4 Newsmax, Nov. 21, 3003: US Army General Tommy Franks, who led the coalition invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, is reported to have described in an interview to be printed in the Dec. issue of Cigar Aficionado, that the results of another attack by terrorists with weapons of mass destruction would result in our Constitutional form of government being replaced by a Military government. Don’t cry for us, Argentina! 

An aside about the tank at WACO. That tank came from the local national guard which had a number of units ready to go, and one unit that was in the shop. Why, do you suppose, did Franks, instead of having them get one of the tanks ready to go, to instead send a truck for the tank in the shop… which he then had trucked to a CIA/DOD contractor for ‘special work,’ and then sent directly to the Davidian farm? I hope you have nothing in your hand to throw at the computer screen when you read the answer…

You Have a Dog…                                          I Have a Flame Throwing Tank                    poster from (click)


Because the tank in the shop was the only one on the base that was a flame throwing variant. This was all reported by activist/lawyer Linda Thompson, who even acquired the serial number to prove it. She also reported that the few survivors were not taken into BATF custody, but to the same CIA proprietary where the tank was modified for ‘rigorous debriefing.’ That’s how you get the really good confessions!

Franks is not our only source. The above cited footnote was in a section talking about the military’s use of the “Shoot Americans questionnaire‘ given to various military units which I reproduced in my book, The Professional Paranoid Defensive Field Guide. Of course, the military called it a ‘Combat Arms Survey,’ and claimed it was not official, used only once with a room full of guys from one unit, and intended only to help some Lieutenant write a thesis. Too bad GIs began popping up out of the woodwork at dozens of other units and multiple branches of the military to counter those claims, or we might actually believe the DOD tells the truth once in a while. Operation Northwoods had nothing to do with Sept. 11, right guys? Right.

This ‘one time’ thingie was a ‘rating’ questionnaire, which means that answer choices were ‘Strongly Agree,’ ‘Agree,’ ‘Disagree,’ ‘Disagree Strongly,’ and ‘No Opinion.’ Check out some of the questions, some paraphrased or concatenated for space conservation. The first batch relate to use of military for illegal use against citizens in violation of Posse Comitatus:

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the United States for (several things to be answered individually followed): Drug enforcement; Security at national events (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl); Substitute teachers in public schools; Federal and State prison guards; National emergency police force; Advisors to SWAT units, FBI, BATF, etc.

A number of questions related to United Nations loyalty

U.N. Combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. military training exercises under U.S. command or vice versa? The President of the U.S. has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General? I feel there is no conflict between my Oath to serve and serving as a U.N. soldier? U.S. units should be permanently assigned to the United Nations? I would swear to this oath: “I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain World peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”

This image is decades old: WWII trucks with UN markings on U.S. highway


An aside about United Nations involvement. For more than twenty years there has been an unending stream of concern that U.N. Troops might be called in to suppress U.S. Civilians in a civil unrest situation. We can thank, I suppose, Henry Kissinger for the fear, because it was he who said, “Today America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by the World Government.”

He is frequently quoted as saying that at the 1991 Bilderberger meeting. If you don’t know who they are, stop reading and close your eyes some more. It will all be over before you know it. In part perhaps, because over the twenty years there have also been a steady stream of reports and photographs of fleets of U.N. vehicles on truck convoys, long trains of flatbed rail cars, and stored in massive lots behind guarded fences protected by Men in Black. The Spotlight newspaper in Washington, D.C., now defunct, was awash with them. The thing about these U.N. vehicles is that they were almost always WWII U.S. issue or Soviet surplus, neither of which are used by United Nations troops. So if and when you seen them deployed, know that whomever is driving them is NOT a U.N. Soldier. Hmmm… Such disguises in times of war (revolution is war) calls for a firing squad.

In all, there were 46 questions. The last was the big one:

The U.S. government declares a ban on possession, sale, transportation of firearms. After 30 days to turn in weapons to authorities, a number of citizen groups refuse.  I would fire on U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms? 

The final tally?

The answers to the test (the original bunch of guys — 264 in all) were scary: 1 in four Marines would shoot you. Four out of five will Police you at Super Bowl or hassle you for drugs. And 85 percent of them would happily become a National Police force. Apparently very few had ever heard of the Posse comitatus Act of 1878 forbidding military use against citizens without declaration of Martial Law.

All of the above crap, from Franks to the questionnaire, evolves out of something called the Revolution in Military Affairs, or simply RMA; the notion that the mechanics and nature of warfare have changed so much because of advances in technology and societal change that it was time to examine the military belly button. What they came up with was scary as hell, and it is expressed in a whole new catalog of military terms never before used. I list rather a lot of them in the Defensive Field Guide as part of a list of 500 Political Control Technology terms and technologies. Here are just a few of the RMA terms which reveal military’s thinking about their role and yours in our near future. You won’t like it.

People’s War.This term first appeared in an article on RMA in Parameters, the Army War College publication. It was quoted in The Spotlight, now defunct. From memory I paraphrase with no liberties taken. None are needed. It stated that People’s War was one of the most likely kind of war on the immediate horizon that would be new and unique. It defined it specifically as combat with Constitutionalists, ex military, survivalists, the poor and disenfranchised, and patriots. Excuse the hell out of me? How does that jive with their oath of office? Why should we allow them to retain force of arms with that kind of fuzzy logic running around loose under their helmets?

Here’s another term. 21st Century Politico-Military Force Matrix. That means that there are a range of alternative ‘forces’ which can be applied by politicians against a target group (e.g., civilians) to effect and enforce ‘policy.’ Police, military, intelligence, lethal, non lethal, psyops, disinformation, and on and on, are elements which can be employed: He who uses the best and most appropriate choices wins. Yeah… like Franks won at WACO!

But what does this all have to do with six people, and who are they?

Simple. The five Joint Chiefs of Staff, and one other person are the six, and they are all that is needed to launch a takeover via martial law in this country. The sixth could be any one of several people. The President of the United States is the most logical sixth, but the Vice President and the Speaker of the House, and a finite list of others could also be the sixth depending on who is incapacitated in that list, be it intentionally arranged for convenience’s sake, or by happenstance. But that is not all.

There are numerous laws passed by Congress and Presidential Executive Orders which have been passed to create and activate FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Currently, the United States still stands in a State of Emergency declared by President Bush for 9-11 which has never been rescinded. Technically, the head of FEMA could arbitrarily pick up the phone and arrange for martial law, but again, this would not likely take place without first eliminating the President. In fact, a terrorist event which eliminated the President might be just the things… allowing both Tommy Franks and FEMA to go marching along the same goose-step toward a Fascist police state. Of course, it could be FEMA which gets the phone call from someone in the Pentagon… “We are going ahead according to plan tomorrow morning at 0800 Zulu.”

Welcome to the NewStates of America. Oh, didn’t you know? The Constitution of the NewStates of America has already been written. Remember Bill Cooper, former Naval Intelligence Officer turned whistleblower. He uncovered it. You can find it in his book, Behold a Pale Horse, or in my book, Fatal Rebirth, where it is fully analyzed to reveal the Fascist tool it is. Bill said they spent $25M writing the document at an intelligence community (NWO) sponsored think tank. You don’t suppose they would go to all that trouble if they didn’t think they had a way to use it, do you?

Now take a look at the final post in this series: The Citizen’s Viewpoint.

Related articles

Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:

Share this:


By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges.

I recently received an email from Sheriff Richard Mack updating me on the recent happenings with regard to the Bundy case and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) have traveled to Nevada to stand with the Bundy family. Additionally, the Oathkeepers have done the same. An estimated 5,000 militia types from Western states have also made their way to the Bundy property as well.

Sheriff Mack and CSPOA are responding to the storm brewing between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM. They have responded by stating that the all-too-frequent bullying of individual citizens by various militarized Federal agencies have usurped the Constitution and they have vowed that the forces of tyranny can be stopped. In fact, as CSPOA claims, it’s an epidemic that “must be stopped”.

I have learned that Sheriff Mack is leaving early Saturday morning for an emergency trip to Bunkerville, Nevada, along with other members of the CSPOA posse to stand with the Bundy’s and find a peaceful resolution to this conflict (i.e., the feds going home). The name is “Bunkerville”, is both ironic and appropriately named, don’t you think?

Stunning Development


The case involving Cliven Bundy is yet another case of David vs. Goliath in what has become an all-to-familiar scene in which some agency of the Federal government swoops in, flashes their badges and guns and seize control of the private property of an American taxpayer without so much as offering the pretense of the due process of law.

As this case was unfolding, I mentioned that this was a classic Agenda 21 case (e.g. land confiscation, fracking, etc.). However, this case has now taken on a life of its own and has become more important than a beleaguered rancher facing off against the forces of tyranny.

This is now a case of America vs. the tyranny of the federal government and who is going to blink first?

I do not think any of us could have predicted that this case would generate the attention among awakened Americans that it has. Yet, interestingly, the MSM is strangely quiet on this issue involving the Bundy family vs. the BLM.

The Arizona Legislature Stands With Bundy

In a case of “I would never have believed this in a million years”, the Arizona State Senate President Andy Biggs and the Arizona House of Representatives Speaker Dave Livingston are both in agreement that Arizona should be involved in supporting CSPOA and Oath Keepers in going to Bunkerville, Nevada. These two leaders of the Arizona Legislature have vowed to support the Cliven Bundy family. This stunning development cannot be overstated, and yet, there is more. Additionally, State Senators Al Melvin, Chester Crandall, and Kelly Ward along with State Representatives Brenda Barton, Bob Thorpe, Kelly Townsend and Warren Peterson are all planning to be at the Bundy ranch by Sunday morning. All of these local government officials are planning to attend the Press Conference Monday afternoon with the CSPOA and Oath Keepers along with the Bundy’s and other sheriffs and public officials from across the country.

The Oathkeepers Declare Their Position

It is my distinct privilege to announce that the Oathkeepers have pledged their full support for Cliven Bundy and are helping to lead the charge in challenging the tyrannical actions of the federal government. The following press release is from the Oathkeepers.

A Delegation of state legislators, lead by Washington State Representative Matt Shea, along with a delegation of current serving Sheriffs, lead by Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and military and police members of Oath Keepers, are converging on the site of a stand-off between federal law enforcement and Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy, to prevent bloodshed and to stand in defense of hardworking rural Americans who are under assault by a runaway federal government.”

LAS VEGAS, NV, April 10, 2014

The expressed support state legislators is monumental and could prove historically significant because what happens over the next 72 hours at this ranch could potentially change the course of American History.

Possible Outcomes

There are several possible outcomes regarding the brewing confrontation which could come to a head this weekend. Here are just a few possible scenarios which could play out in the next few days.

The BLM Backs down and Withdraws Its Occupation Forces


This would be the prudent move. The BLM, in order to prevent too many in the public from finding out about their escalating level of tyranny, shy away from the confrontation and quietly withdraw the scene while vowing to return. I do not see this happening.

It Is Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge All Over Again?

The readers may recall that Mrs. Weaver, at Ruby Ridge, was brutally murdered by the FBI for pointing a loaded baby at the FBI for which she was promptly shot in the head while standing in her kitchen. Nobody from the FBI was ever brought to justice for this heinous act. The point being here, is that if some trigger-happy BLM agent opens fire on a Bundy family member. If this happens, what will the local militia do? If they fire back, then all hell could break lose.

In this scenario, there is no doubt that DHS would get to roll out some of their newly acquired 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition to go with their 2700 armored personnel carriers. If further bloodshed were to occur, the fallen civilian victims would become martyrs. We would very likely see riots breaking out all over the country in which buildings would be burned and authorities would be defied. Personally, I do not believe that this incident can go so far as to prompt a revolution on its own. However, this issue carries the distinct possibility of defining the sides for a possible civil war in this country in the future. Again, the fact that prominent state legislators are so clearly opposed to the federal government on this issue will ultimately serve as a dividing point between the two sides if blood is spilled.

What Direction Will This Take?


The Bundy fate is spelled out in this map.

In this case, the Obama administration holds all the cards. Many of us in the media feel that Obama would like nothing better than to draw a group of dissidents out in the open and crush them as a sign of absolute subjugation of the American people. Some feel that the globalist forces will avoid confrontation and continue on their steady path of conquering America one Agenda 21 policy at a time.

If I were Obama, I would choose the latter path, because it is the path of least resistance. However, we have learned that Obama is impulsive and therefore, all bets are off.

There is one thing that we can all be sure of, we are indeed watching history in the making as this has become a case of Constitutional supporting Americans vs. the Brown Shirts of the Obama administration.

TLB Highly recommends you visit Dave at The Common Sense Show for more great/pertinent commentary, articles, radio shows and information.

Read more and see comments here:

…as Oath Keepers Puts Out a Call for All Able Bodied Oath Keepers to Assist in Maintaining the Peace

By: Jay Syrmopoulos April 10th, 2014

Clark County, Nev., April 10, 2014- Yesterday Nevada Governor Sandoval released a statement condemning some of the actions of the Bureau of Land Management in the Bundy Ranch standoff, but this is of little consolation to constitutional Sheriff Mack.

Sheriff Mack says that actions speak louder than words and that Sandoval , while speaking about support, is doing virtually nothing within his power to assist the Bundy family. He goes on to admonish the local county Sheriff for not using his power to stand up to the feds in support of the Bundys. Sheriff Mack will be flying into Nevada to stand in solidarity with the Bundy family, as will Oath Keepers founder Steward Rhodes. Oath Keepers has also put out a call to all able-bodied members to come to the Bundy ranch in Clark County, Nevada to assist in supporting the family and keep the peace.

Here is a statement released by Oath Keepers founder Steward Rhodes this morning:

Oath Keepers, 

We need a presence there immediately to help prevent the feds sparking another Ruby Ridge or Waco incident in the Bundy stand-off. 

Nevada State Rep. Michele Fiore (a strong patriot who has attended many of our meetings) is on site right now at the protest site outside the Bundy ranch, and she is helping us assemble a coalition of Nevada state legislators. We are also working with WA State Rep Matt Shea to put together a delegation of other Western State Representatives to go there to support Rep. Fiore and her coalition, and we are working with Sheriff Mack to bring a delegation of current serving CSPOA Sheriffs to stand vigil there. We need Oath Keepers to also show up and stand vigil and support this family and the patriot legislators and sheriffs who are taking the lead in defending them. This is critical. The goal is to stand vigil to prevent another Waco or Ruby Ridge, and to put pressure on the Nevada Governor to honor the oath he took by standing up for this family and for the state of Nevada. 

I fly to Vegas tomorrow. Sheriff Mack is coming too, along with the current serving Sheriffs he is rallying to the cause. 

All who can make it, need to be there. We need numbers – boots on the ground. The more the better. 

For those who are coming, please rally at the public protest site near the ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada. To get there, take I-15 North, toward Mesquite, and get off at exit 112. Go right two miles (you can only go right). You will see tall flag poles and signs. Can’t miss it. 

Per Ammon Bundy, here are some rules: 

First, NO MILITARY CAMMO. This is a protest by rural Americans. Dress accordingly. (from me: Oath Keepers can wear Oath Keepers polos if you have them, or OK T shirts, but please no cammo. Let’s respect the Bundy family request). 

No open carry of rifles. Any rifles people may have with them need to stay in the vehicles. 

When you arrive at the protest rally point, ask for Ammon Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s son, to check in. If he is not there, he will have designated another family rep for you to check in with. DO NOT go past that first rally point/protest site with the flags that the family has set up on private land. Beyond that is the road to their ranch, and no one is to drive to the ranch without express permission and escort by Cliven Bundy or his sons. Please respect their need for security and privacy. 

No volunteer is to give any media interviews. Refer all media first and foremost to the Bundy family members present, in particular Cliven Bundy, Ammon, or one of the other sons. And/or refer them to one of the current serving Nevada State legislators who will be there, such as Michele Fiore (she is gathering a coalition of Nevada representatives), or one of the current serving Sheriff’s who will be coming. We are there to support them, and let them handle the media. 

If any media ask to interview Oath Keepers, please refer them to me, but I will likely just refer them to the family until we do a press conference once Sheriff Mack arrives – and even then, the focus will be on the coalition of current serving Western State Legislators and Sheriffs that we are helping to gather. They and the family will be the main effort, and we are there as support. 

BRING CAMERAS. Film everything. The more cameras, the better. 

Bring relevant signs about honoring the oath, respecting property rights and free speech rights. We are there to stand up for rural Americans who are under attack and to pressure the Governor and the Clark County Sheriff to do their duty. 

Ammon said volunteers can camp on private property that is on the side of the road at the main protest site the family has set up (the first gathering place you will come to with signs and flags once you get off I-15 at exit 112 and go about two miles). Again, please ask the family members present where to park and where to camp if you want to camp.

Thank you,

Stewart Rhodes 
Read more: Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:



Jay Syrmopoulos

Jay Syrmopoulos is a journalist and political analyst living in Winona, Minnesota. He received his Bachelors in Political Science from Winona State University and is currently pursuing a Masters in Global Affairs from the University of Denver. Jay is a liberty activist dedicated to exposing the facade of reality by shattering the left right paradigm.

Read more: Follow us: @BenSwann_ on TwitterO:



[Cartoon by Eldon Dedini, for The New Yorker]

By: TLB Contributor: David Ziniga.

As an engineer by profession, my stock in trade can be boiled down to the application of basic principles to solve problems. However, it is quite common for my clients to be confused about what their problems really are, so the first task is to get a clear picture of what I see as the problems before I can get any idea of the solutions.

This is definitely not the case with the problems that ail our country today.

The following excerpts from the January 2014 edition of Imprimis* are from a speech delivered by Dr. Charles Kesler, a distinguished professor of government who, among other things, is editor of the Signet Classic edition of The Federalist Papers.

Speaking on the subject “The Tea Party, Conservatism, and the Constitution”, Dr. Kesler’s remarks will illustrate what radio talk show hosts, commentators, conservative think tank writers, Tea Party bloggers, and most educated and literate people seem to know is the problem. What is lacking is a grasp of the solution.

[on the Tea Party's lack of a strategy to achieve its ends:] “Clearly the Tea Party’s form of conservatism points back to the Constitution as the basis for restoring American government. But how practically to move in that direction?”

[on the Supreme Court's decision on the so-called 'Affordable Care Act':] “When the Court punted on the main question and allowed Obamacare to become law, it suggested to Tea Party leaders in and out of government that the old constitutional mechanisms of judicial review and separation of powers did not seem capable of defending the Constitution against this fundamental challenge, and that the only recourse would be a direct appeal to the American people- to the ultimate source of authority for any constitution.”

[on the Tea Party conservatives and establishment Republicans:] “…these two groups need each other- not only in the sense that they need each other to get to a majority in the House of Representatives, but also, at least for the time being, in the sense that each supplies the other’s defects.”

[on the lack of teeth for the Tea Party:] “The Tea Party could do itself and the country a great service by working out what a return to constitutional government might really mean, and thus the strategy and tactics appropriate to that.”

[on his summary of the problem:] “After a century of Progressive mining and sapping of the Constitution, the great document we count on to defend us now needs our defense, and the form of government issuing from the Constitution is itself in need of restoration and renewal.”

Dr. Kesler’s speech then devolves into suggestions of ways in which the problem can be addressed by political means: “What is needed is less populism and more political thinking on its part, or on the part of its trusted advisors. Political thinking and constitutional thinking are not opposed, of course, any more than putting together a political majority and defending the Constitution are opposed.” 

He then concludes as the others all do…without a solution: “If conservative officeholders don’t start to correct these structural deformations in our government, and if the Tea Party doesn’t turn its formidable patriotism and energy to enlightening the American people about how we are losing control of our own destiny, then no matter how many good policies we enact, or how low we set tax rates, the body politic will continue to sicken, and self-government will slip through our fingers.”

Imprimis goes out to over 2.8 million readers monthly, so at least that many are well aware of the problem. What they don’t get from Dr. Kesler, or from the Tea Party, or from the majority of the body politic, is a solution.

The solution is enforcing the sound, sturdy Constitution. The only ones with the lawful power to do that is We The People.

It’s all still there, and still the law of the land. Every one of our elected servants swears to uphold and defend it, but then promptly walk away from it after the swearing-in ceremony.

“So help me God” is what they say, invoking Divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their duty in this regard. Holding them individually and personally accountable to their oaths before God and men is the way we will return to being AmericaAgain! — one nation under God.

*Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College

Copyright 2014


Oscar J. Zuniga, Jr., PE is the Founding Trustee of AmericaAgain!, a perpetual charitable trust and membership organization to: 1) enforce our Constitution using the AmericaAgain! Indictment Engine™ to criminally indict members of Congress; 2) using that means, force through reform laws to recover our lost liberty; and 3) restore the Citizen Militia as stipulated in the Constitution. AmericaAgain! seeks a capital partner so that we can recruit the prosecutorial R&D team to deliver on the vision. By God’s grace, we know that our capital partner is somewhere in America today. If you are that person, read the AmericaAgain! Declaration and our frequently asked questions here, then e-mail the founder at

TLB Highly recommends you visit David at AmericaAgain! for more great/pertinent commentary, articles and information.

See featured article and read more here:

Written by 

tax law

It broke Ruth Freeborn’s heart to give up her U.S. citizenship that fateful day last year. Unfortunately for the Oklahoma native, though, it was either that, or her family. Ruth’s Canadian husband of 33 years, who earns all of the middle-class family’s income, “simply could not go along with this situation,” she explained. “To find myself suddenly not able to live, bank, save or to keep peace in my marriage while being American at the same time was shocking at first and deeply disturbing to me.”

Ruth wrote “what must have been” hundreds of letters to U.S. senators and officials, clinging to the hope that something — anything — could be done to stop what felt like a nightmare. Even as she protested, federal bureaucrats claimed that what was happening to her, and millions of other innocent Americans overseas, was somehow a “myth.” She knew it wasn’t a myth — after all, she was living it.

More than three decades ago, Ruth moved to Canada with her husband to help care for his parents, who were elderly and ill. Then the young couple had a son who was born with multiple disabilities and illnesses, making a move back to the United States all but impossible. All those years, though, Ruth went out of her way at every opportunity to show her community what it meant to be an American — doing volunteer work, helping out neighbors, making sure school children could learn in the best possible environment.

“At every turn I made sure to mention to others that the reason I did so much volunteer work was that I was raised to be this sort of person in the United States by my American family,” Ruth told The New American.

Then, in 2010, Congress passed and Obama signed a new tax law buried deep inside an unrelated “jobs” bill. That changed everything. Of course, even before that, it was already hard enough to be American overseas — filing endless amounts of paperwork with the IRS, paying taxes on worldwide income, disclosing foreign bank accounts and assets, and risking life-destroying penalties even for innocent mistakes. When the 2010 scheme became law, though, it was simply too much to bear.

Suddenly, Ruth, like millions of other everyday Americans overseas — missionaries, spouses, teachers, small-business owners, so-called accidental Americans who’ve never even stepped foot on U.S. soil, and countless others — were stuck in a Catch-22. Foreign banks were shutting down Americans’ accounts. Many businesses no longer wanted anything to do with “U.S. persons,” preferring to steer clear of the infamous IRS. Americans abroad were suddenly pariahs.

Ruth’s husband, who makes around $50,000 a year as a technician, drew the line at giving the Obama administration unfettered access to all of the family’s private financial information — and potentially even their meager savings if, for instance, the IRS claimed to uncover some minor mistake or oversight in the mountains of complex paperwork Americans abroad are forced to file every year. Moving to the United States was not an option either.

She cried a lot about it. “I’ll never be truly over the fact that I had to lose my citizenship but, it has happened,” Ruth said, adding that she is “horribly hurt” by all of it. “I still feel as if it must be some bad dream since it cannot be possible that the U.S., the country I loved with all my heart, has caused me to have to choose between my family here in Canada or my country of birth. And yet, it is real.”

To the political class in Washington, Ruth doesn’t exist. Like the millions of other Americans suffering hardship, she’s just a “myth” to the politicians and administration bureaucrats searching, like a flailing drug-addicted giant on the verge of collapse, for just a few extra dollars to stay afloat just a little while longer. Washington is determined to collect that extra billion or so per year in taxes.

So, in 2010, without any hearings or analysis, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) — hidden in the misnamed “HIRE Act” and passed largely by Democrats — was officially born. In essence, it is an attempt to turn every foreign government and financial institution on the planet into extensions of the U.S. tax regime, and is supposed to work by imposing huge penalties — a 30-percent “withholding tax” on all U.S. transactions, including sales of securities — on firms that do not hand over all information they have on “U.S. persons” to the IRS.

Among the institutions snared in the scheme are banks, stockbrokerages, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, trusts, and more. For foreign institutions that do not wish to participate, the alternative is total exclusion from U.S. markets. The scheme also forces all “specified” Americans to file more byzantine paperwork disclosing even more assets abroad with their annual tax return, Form 8938, under threat of more devastating penalties that in many cases could exceed the value of the actual assets.

How It Came About

Amid the 2008 news that Swiss bank UBS helped some Americans avoid taxes, the shrieking from Capitol Hill was deafening. “These tax evaders cost our country tens of billions of dollars every year in unpaid taxes, and honest, law-abiding taxpayers pay the price,” claimed former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), one of the chief proponents of the scheme. “Not only is this practice fundamentally unfair, this is money that could be used in any number of other important areas.”

More recently, wild figures based mostly on fantastical claims rather than actual data have jumped to $100 billion, $150 billion, or even $370 billion that Washington claims to believe is being “lost” to tax evasion. Democrats in Congress were determined to track down every last penny they believed they were owed, even if it meant turning the world upside down.

FATCA was based on “proposals included in President Obama’s 2010 Budget,” its architects in Congress admit. According to its congressional cheerleaders, it was supposed to bring in an extra $8.5 billion of tax revenue to the Treasury over the next decade. (For perspective, the federal government spends over $10 billion in a single day.) The added torment being endured by millions of innocent Americans living abroad — one of the new tax regime’s myriad effects — is supposedly just collateral damage, or a “collateral benefit,” as prominent anti-FATCA activist James Jatras with put it.

“The real purpose, in my opinion, is eventually to achieve the power to receive all asset information domestically as well (once it’s established no probable cause is needed, or even a ‘suspicious activity report,’ what’s the difference), subordination of the global financial system to the IRS (and NSA) in a seamless surveillance web, and executive usurpation of the Senate’s treaty authority,” Jatras told The New American.

Fallout from the scheme may make the terror faced by U.S. expats look mild by comparison.

Millions More

Of course, Ruth Freeborn’s predicament was hardly unique. There are an estimated 7.5 million Americans living overseas. Facing collections by an insatiable federal government drowning its citizens in debts, record numbers of those Americans are being forced to surrender their citizenship.

No publicly available comprehensive record exists of all citizens who either renounced or relinquished their citizenship; however, in 2012, State Department data suggest around 2,000 renounced, up from 1,781 in 2011. For perspective, just 742 renounced their citizenship in 2009. Last year, FBI numbers show more than 3,100 renounced — not including those who relinquished.

“The reality is that the U.S. tax system gives dual citizens a good reason to walk away from their U.S. citizenship or permanent-resident status,” former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Neiman said about the growing trend. “It’s a painful process but easier than staying in compliance with the law.”

It is hardly an easy choice, but in many cases, it is now the only one for many U.S. expats — banks all over the world are starting to refuse American clients and shut down U.S. accounts. For a small-business owner or other middle-class American busy trying to sell U.S.-made products overseas, already at a massive disadvantage owing to being forced to pay taxes to two governments, such an obstacle can make it impossible to stay abroad as an American. The choices are either return to the homeland, or sever all ties with Uncle Sam.

“The biggest issue that we’re seeing from Americans overseas is that they are being locked out of financial products and services,” explained Marylouise Serrato, executive director of the group American Citizens Abroad, ACA Inc., citing FATCA and IRS compliance as the cause. “Some of the foreign banks have decided to remove Americans from their client list as a reaction to FATCA. A lot of the people affected are the small investors, people who just need checking accounts, savings accounts, to get by. They are the ones suffering.”

Even IRS officials have acknowledged some of the damage. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen, who leads the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) at the IRS, explained in a devastating report that “some foreign financial institutions (FFIs), such as DeutscheBank, HSBC, and ING have reportedly been closing out foreign accounts of U.S. citizens in response to FATCA’s ‘onerous U.S. Regulations.’” The official document concluded that the scheme “carries with it the potential for substantial resource burdens and significant due process concerns that will arise to the extent that the regime is not correctly and effectively implemented in practice as well as properly conceived in theory.”

Outside critics have offered even sharper criticism. “FATCA supporters cite tax evasion — for which they provide extravagant figures — as justification enough for the law,” Andrew Quinlan, president of the free market-oriented Center for Freedom and Prosperity, told The New American. “This is a red herring, which is why the government’s own estimates found it would raise but a pittance of what they claim is lost to tax evasion. FATCA does nothing to identify or target those guilty of evasion, but instead treats all Americans who live, work, or invest overseas as guilty until proven innocent. It’s like stopping a burglary with a nuclear bomb.”

Other major concerns surrounding FATCA include the potential for massive damage to the U.S. economy, destabilization of American banks, an end to financial privacy worldwide and centuries-old constitutional protections, the emergence of a truly global taxation regime under international institutions such as the OECD (See the related article “A New World Tax Regime”), potentially hundreds of billions in compliance costs, and much more.

Citizenship-based Taxation

There are only two governments in the world that demand taxes from citizens regardless of where in the world they live. One is the gangster regime ruling Eritrea, where the all-powerful “president” and his party, the only legal one, have been in power since 1993. “Torture, arbitrary detention, and severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and religious freedom remain routine in Eritrea,” Human Rights Watch says.

In 2011, the United Nations Security Council lambasted the Eritrean regime for its bizarre efforts to collect taxes from Eritreans all over the world. The Obama administration voted in favor of the sanctions resolution, which “condemns the use of the ‘Diaspora tax’ on Eritrean diaspora by the Eritrean Government … and decides that Eritrea shall cease these practices.”

The Eritrean income tax on Eritreans abroad is two percent.

The other government that taxes all over the planet is the one in Washington. The U.S. government demands that citizens pay massive amounts of U.S. taxes and file mind-numbing amounts of complex paperwork no matter where they reside and work. According to experts, analysts, and victims of the schemes, the consequences have been devastating for Americans and the U.S. economy.

In a series of interviews with The New American, Roger Conklin, a former business executive who worked successfully in Latin America until the taxation of Americans abroad forced him to return home, explained some of the disastrous effects. Citing other experts, Conklin said the tax laws affecting Americans abroad are “so unbelievably complicated” that even with the best professional assistance, nobody can ever be sure that their IRS filings are correct. “The very wealthy can employ the best professional tax advisors money can buy, but cost-wise they are totally beyond the reach of the average middle-class American living and working abroad,” he added.

Just how complex and burdensome is the IRS taxation regime for the millions of Americans abroad? In a 2012 report to Congress, National Taxpayer Advocate Olsen explained that there are 7,332 pages of instructions, 16 IRS publications, and 667 pages of tax forms that are applicable to overseas U.S. citizens. For foreign banks and firms seeking to be in compliance with IRS mandates, it is even worse.

When the “Tax Reform Act” was enacted in 1976, drastically increasing taxes on Americans living and working abroad, Conklin was in Brazil selling U.S.-made exports. “I simply could not survive this tax increase,” he explained, adding that he was forced to return to the United States. Almost immediately after Conklin left, a French company with similar products manufactured in France came in and hired most of the same employees.

Within eight years, Conklin said, the French company was responsible for $1 billion in exports from France to Brazil, while U.S. exports of the products into that market had dropped to almost zero. It is no mystery why U.S. manufacturing and exports are dying, he said, pointing out that other high-wage countries such as Switzerland and Germany, which do not tax their citizens abroad, continue running massive surpluses.

The same phenomenon Conklin witnessed and experienced occurred worldwide. “There was a mass return of Americans, not only from Brazil but from around the world, as a direct consequence of that legislation,” Conklin continued, echoing his testimony to U.S. lawmakers. “Not coincidentally, the U.S. trade surplus that went down in history as the largest ever was in 1975.” Numerous others who spoke with The New American for this story echoed those concerns.

“But as a direct result of American companies and citizens cutting back and in many cases totally abandoning some foreign markets because of that 1976 legislation, not only was 1976 a trade deficit year, but the U.S. has never since recorded a single trade surplus,” Conklin explained. “Our cumulative trade deficit to date, which began in 1976, now exceeds $9.1 trillion and is currently increasing at the rate of $1.95 billion per day.”

Incredibly, however, instead of trying to fix the problems caused through its pursuit of more and more taxes from Americans abroad, Congress and the Obama administration adopted FATCA.

Recently, American Citizens Abroad submitted a proposal to the Senate Finance Committee asking Congress to replace citizenship-based taxation with residence-based taxation. “The United States is the only industrialized nation that maintains citizenship-based taxation, and it puts us at a disadvantage,” explained ACA executive director Serrato. “Residence-based taxation would simplify all of this, put Americans overseas on equal footing with other foreign nationals, and would reduce the need for legislation such as FATCA.” For now, though, the prospect of genuine, broad reform appears remote.

Economic Damage of FATCA

One of the underreported but major risks to the U.S. economy stemming from FATCA is the potential for wide-scale disinvestment from the United States by foreign institutions seeking to avoid the IRS, penalties, and huge compliance costs. In fact, countless analysts and financial giants have said the 30-percent FATCA “withholding tax” represents a powerful incentive to get out of U.S. markets entirely. The implications for the stock market, bonds, the dollar, and more could be monumental.

Estimates suggest there is currently more than $21 trillion of foreign capital invested in American assets and markets, with about $10 trillion of that in the stock market. However, that could change as FATCA enforcement begins later this year — possibly quickly. The Japanese Bankers Association, the European Banking Federation, the Institute of International Bankers, and others, for example, have all openly warned in recent years that some of their members could decide to ditch U.S. assets and markets in response to FATCA.

Luxembourg Bankers’ Association CEO Jean-Jacques Rommes, speaking to Democrats Abroad, warned that the best way for banks to lower compliance risks was simply to reduce the amount of American assets they hold. “In other words, divest from the US market, in general,” he explained, as summarized by the Luxembourg Bankers’ Association.

Multiple reports have suggested that small and medium-sized firms, unable to bear the compliance costs or the crippling withholding taxes, would be especially likely to ditch American markets. “On the institutional side, the cost of becoming FATCA compliant may be prohibitive for some foreign institutions, and therefore they will divest from their American holdings,” explained Douglas Goldstein, author of The Expatriate’s Guide to Handling Money and Taxes and director of Profile Investment Services Ltd. Indeed, compliance costs borne by the private sector are expected to dwarf the amount of additional U.S. tax revenue — perhaps by hundreds of times.

Goldstein explained: “Faced with the choice between paying to implement the new rules or divesting from U.S.-based assets, smaller foreign banks that can’t afford to shoulder these costs may choose the latter,” Goldstein added. “After all, there are plenty of promising new markets in which to invest.”

Plenty of evidence suggests the warnings ought to be considered carefully. Surveys of fund managers, for example, have revealed that a significant number would be willing to divest from U.S. markets as FATCA goes into effect. American Citizens Abroad reported on a 2011 KPMG survey of leading fund promoters across a dozen countries, most of whom had assets under management of more than $12 billion. They were asked whether FATCA could lead their funds to directly or indirectly disinvest from U.S. markets.

“For both the U.S. fixed income market and the U.S. equity market, 6 percent answered yes,” ACA reported. “Another 10 percent for the fixed income market and 7 percent for the equity market stated that it was thinkable to divest from the U.S. A whopping 29 percent for the fixed income market and 26 percent for the equity market replied that divestment depended on the detailed implementation rules for FATCA. In other words, for funds managers worldwide, divestment from U.S. securities markets is a real option.”

Needless to say, if foreign institutions started fleeing U.S. markets, the economic damage would be massive — potentially apocalyptic, especially considering U.S. trade deficits and America’s outsized reliance on foreign investment and outside credit just to function.

Lawlessness and Economic Havoc

Making capital flight from the United States worse — as well as the consequences of the act — are IRS mandates that would force American financial institutions to report foreign account holders to the U.S. government, and administration pseudo-treaties with foreign governments to share that information. Unlike FATCA, though, which was approved by Congress, the domestic component of the scheme is almost entirely the product of unauthorized executive-branch machinations.

The domestic information-reporting decrees, sometimes called “DATCA,” or the “Domestic Account Tax Compliance Act,” could result in potentially tens or even hundreds of billions worth of foreign deposits fleeing from U.S. institutions, according to multiple independent experts.

The capital flight could become so severe, documents show, and experts and policymakers told The New American, that it might even trigger runs on certain banks, U.S. taxpayer-funded bailouts, another economic crisis, a major devaluation of the already-struggling U.S. dollar, and a destabilization of the American financial system. The cost to embattled American taxpayers, businesses, and consumers would be enormous.

But the Obama administration has no plans to give up on DATCA’s implementation because receiving financial information on Americans abroad won’t happen unless America gives bank information on other countries’ residents to them, as U.S. officials admit.

“We see no principled basis on which to require that financial institutions based in other countries collect and provide us with information on U.S. taxpayers, if we take the position that our own institutions should be exempt from similar requirements,” explained Treasury Acting Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Emily McMahon in a 2012 speech. “To the contrary, we believe that it will be critical to the success of our efforts to implement FATCA that we are able to reciprocate.”

To that end, the Obama administration has been busy negotiating pseudo-treaties with foreign governments mandating the automatic exchange of financial information between jurisdictions — the U.S. Senate gets no opportunity to offer its consent on the deals, despite what the Constitution requires. Among the governments that the U.S. Treasury said were treated as having an “intergovernmental agreement” on FATCA in effect by March of 2014 were Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Finland, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, Hungary, Mauritius, Japan, Chile, and more. Multiple Islamic dictatorships and “former” communist regimes were also lining up to sign tax deals with Obama.

If foreigners with U.S. accounts don’t want that information shared — and there are plenty of good reasons for that — it is likely at least a significant number will close their U.S. accounts and send those funds elsewhere.

For about a century, U.S. policy has specifically worked to encourage foreigners to invest and deposit funds in the United States. FATCA-related schemes represent something of a dangerous turning point, analysts say.

Quantifying the DATCA Damage

In fact, according to analysts, hundreds of millions of dollars in foreigners’ bank deposits had already fled just from Florida by mid-2012 in response to the scheming. That was before the controversial new reporting requirements were even in effect. The first reports on foreigners’ accounts under the new reporting scheme were due to the IRS in mid-March. By early 2014, the Texas Bankers Association said some $500 million had flowed out of the state’s banking system as a result of the IRS rules.

Thus far, there has been very little in the way of officially estimating the economic damage. “To this day, the Treasury has refused to do a cost-benefit analysis,” explained George Cecala, a spokesperson for Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.), who has been a leader in Congress on trying to rein in the scheme. He also cited experts and analysis suggesting that the potential impact could be massive for the Sunshine State and the nation as a whole.

In all, it is estimated that U.S. banks have almost $4 trillion in liabilities to private foreign residents. Meanwhile, non-resident aliens — foreigners who do not live in the United States — have close to half a trillion dollars actually deposited in U.S. financial institutions, according to estimates cited in court documents that all sides appear to accept. Due to the controversial way the banking system is structured (“fractional reserve lending”), every dollar in deposits generates roughly $9 in lending.

If just 10 percent of those foreign deposits were to flee American banks and institutions due to the Obama administration’s machinations — the conservative end of the estimates — the impact on the U.S. economy would be devastating. Based on surveys, some analysts and industry groups have suggested that as much as 20 percent of those deposits could be at risk of leaving the U.S. economy — perhaps even more.

“This is about trying to prevent a potential future financial crisis,” Cecala from Rep. Posey’s office continued in a phone interview with The New American. “This is not about protecting tax evaders; it’s about preventing a future financial crisis. These regulations put at risk tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in deposits…. This is a very serious problem.”

One of the most significant concerns is the potential for destabilization of the financial sector, Cecala said. “As many as two or three dozen institutions in Florida could be exposed to liquidity issues,” he explained, adding that other states could see similar problems. “So that means the possibility of more bailouts…. What is the impact on the economy?”

The capital flight would also have a direct impact on American businesses, families, and more as banks deal with the carnage. “We’re risking a run on deposits, and losing that money to other countries,” Cecala continued. “That money is used to make loans to American families and small businesses.”

Indeed, in more than 75 percent of the state-chartered financial institutions in the South Florida region, over 90 percent of deposits were from foreigners. Florida admittedly has a lot of foreign deposits due to its strong ties with Latin America and the Caribbean, but it is hardly unique.

Why Withdraw Deposits?

The IRS and the Obama administration, along with a lower-court federal judge who sided with them in an ongoing case about the mandate, contend that only criminals and those seeking to avoid taxes would be likely to withdraw their deposits from U.S. banks under the current and proposed information-exchange regime. However, anybody even remotely familiar with Latin America and other troubled regions of the world knows that is far from the case — the claim is preposterous, in fact.

Consider, for example, the wild currency printing and wealth confiscation so typical of Third World regimes. And governments and economies in Latin America are often unstable, leading people from the region to deposit significant sums into Florida banks, J. Thomas Cardwell, former commissioner of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, said in testimony before Congress in late 2011 about the scheme, acknowledging that “citizens in some countries rightly distrust their governments.”

While the administration has offered assurances that it would be careful with the sensitive data and not share it with problematic regimes, few believe the claims. The socialist regime in Venezuela, for example, is among the governments that have a tax treaty with the U.S. government and would presumably receive information on Venezuelans, including dual U.S. citizens, with accounts in American banks. Mexico does, too, along with some 80 other national ­governments.

“Dictators, demagogues, political partisans, corrupt state and local officials often act outside the law,” continued Cardwell. “Extortion, abduction, robbery and embezzlement are facts of life. Providing such governments with a list of assets is felt by their citizens to jeopardize not only their property but also their lives and those of their families and associates.” Such concerns were expressed recently after it emerged that the Obama administration was quietly negotiating a FATCA inter-governmental agreement (IGA) with Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia, as well.

Bypassing Congress

In addition to the potential economic havoc that could be unleashed on America by FATCA and its domestic component, DATCA, there are a wide range of troubling legal issues clouding the scheme as well. In fact, in its quest to implement the plot, the Obama administration is brazenly bypassing Congress. There is no mention of “inter-governmental agreements” or allowing so-called “reciprocity” in the actual statute that contains FATCA. There is also no authority to order domestic banks to collect and share information on all foreign account holders on behalf of foreign governments. And, already, enforcement of the vast and unimaginably complex taxation scheme has been lawlessly and unilaterally delayed several times by the executive branch — similar to the endless executive-branch rewrites and delays of the ObamaCare statute passed by Congress. Despite major concerns raised by lawmakers and others over their authority to do so, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury are moving full-speed ahead.

The U.S. Treasury does not have the statutory or constitutional authority to either gather or share wholesale financial information, according to lawmakers and legal experts.

The New American offered the Treasury Department multiple opportunities to explain what purported authority — statutory, constitutional, or regulatory — it believes it has to compel U.S. financial institutions to collect and share the information. TNA also asked about the supposed authority for IGAs.

No real answer was ever provided, and no statute was cited, presumably because none exists. Essentially, though, the Treasury pointed to existing tax treaties ratified by the Senate that the U.S. government has signed with other governments as its justification. However, those treaties generally deal with specific, individual requests made by authorities in other jurisdictions — not the wholesale NSA-style vacuuming up and transfer of all private financial data without so much as probable cause, a warrant, or even suspicion of wrongdoing, as envisioned in the IGAs and other FATCA-related schemes. Besides that fact, treaties can’t legally override the Constitution anyway.

Questioning Authority

Lawmakers have been trying unsuccessfully to get answers as well. In a 2013 letter to Treasury boss Jack Lew, Rep. Posey requested info about what statute authorized IGAs: “If such authority exists, please provide a citation to the specific relevant statute,” Posey said, adding that FATCA should be either repealed or drastically amended while calling for a moratorium on the scheme and the negotiation of IGAs.

According to Posey spokesman George Cecala, the Treasury has not replied to the letter nor offered any hint about where its purported authority to proceed might come from.

As to the wisdom of the dragnet-style approach to gathering and sharing sensitive information on everyone, Cecala explained that the U.S. government already has tools to locate criminals. “If the Treasury Department suspects criminal activity, they can send an enforcement order,” he said. “What they are asking for is blanket authority to collect all data, centralize it, and then share it with other governments.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who introduced legislation aimed at reining in the scheme, has also spoken out about the administration’s abuses, saying the administration was acting “without the consent and authority of Congress.” Blasting “hundreds of billions” in compliance costs to the U.S. economy alone, Paul added: “It is a violation of Americans’ constitutional protections, oversteps the limits of Executive power, disregards the mutual respect of sovereignty among nations and drains money from the federal treasury under the guise of replenishing it, and discourages overseas investment in the United States.”

In early January the Republican National Committee (RNC) responded to outraged constituents, voting overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution calling for FATCA’s repeal.

In its resolution, the RNC said that the scheme “has inadvertently ensnared every United States Citizen living overseas due to its overzealous invasion of privacy and punitive taxation and enforcement.” However, despite noting that the U.S. government is one of only two in the world that taxes citizens no matter where they reside, the GOP measure did not call for an end to citizenship-based taxation. It did, however, call on U.S. lawmakers to allow Americans who were forced to renounce their citizenship due to the draconian 2010 law to regain their citizenship.

The 168-member RNC voted overwhelmingly to pass the anti-FATCA measure on January 24 as part of a package containing other resolutions, despite deeply deceptive media coverage ahead of the vote. Reuters, for example, which sells “FATCA compliance services” but does not disclose that to readers, tried desperately to frame opposition to FATCA as support for “tax dodgers.”

To that end, it quoted taxpayer-funded government advocates expressing outrage: “It is mind-boggling that a major political party would even consider endorsing a resolution to facilitate tax evasion,” claimed Heather Lowe, director of government affairs at a UN- and government-funded outfit known as Global Financial Integrity. “Repealing the law would cripple the U.S. and global efforts to fight offshore tax evasion.”

Thankfully, the whole plot is built on a foundation of sand that could crumble at any moment. DATCA represents the “Achilles heel” of the whole ploy, Jatras said, because if U.S. information sharing is stopped, other countries will likely not offer financial info either. “FATCA and the OECD scheme could end up like the League of Nations: a dead letter because the United States, which got the ball rolling, opted out,” he added.

Even “compliance mongers” are now warning that FATCA is set to become a “train wreck.” However, while critics say repealing the law is an important first step in restoring fundamental rights and helping to avoid potential economic calamity, there is an even broader issue that remains unaddressed thus far: citizenship-based taxation. Whether lawmakers are willing to aid Americans and our ailing economy remains to be seen. Come July 1, though, they may have little choice but to take action.


This article is an example of the exclusive content that’s only available by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!

Related article:

A New World Tax Regime


Read article here:

TLB highly recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:



The IMF (International Monetary Fund) goes into countries, coaxes them into debt, then maintains a stranglehold on their economies like a parasite.

Debt = control

Now, it says that Americans should be taxed, up to 71%, to help the poorer countries of the world to help redistribute the wealth.

Of course, the IMF is run by the same bankers that have ruined the world’s economy.

 The International Monetary Fund, a United Nations money movement organization designed for the purpose of wealth redistribution has made an important announcement.

They recently came up with a plan they called a “one-off capital levy.” If you don’t know what that is, that’s okay, you’re not supposed to. It’s a nice name for sticking their hand into your pocket “one time” and seeing what they come up with. Whatever they pulled out would supposedly be given to poor countries that need it. Of course that is after the poor bankers take their cut and the poor UN employees get theirs. Then the poor employees of the government that receives the money would get their cut, a portion of which will likely find its way back to the very same people who set the scam up in the first place. If there is any left at the end of the recycling, it might even find its way to the man or family on the dirt street.

They now have a different plan, with an equally confusing label. It’s called “revenue-maximizing top income tax rates.” You might think from that name that it doesn’t have anything to do with the typical American, as you aren’t in the top tax bracket. You would be mistaken.

It’s easy to qualify for the program. By being an American taxpayer, are automatically presumed to be wealthy and in need of sharing through your government. There’s no need to apply, no extra forms to fill out, and you can be as generous as 71%.

You might wonder why Americans should be responsible for propping up the economies of other nations around the world by simply donating to their cause. In a secular nation, that is increasingly driving religion, particularly Christianity, and associated religious symbols to the shadows, one could easily question why our nation is supporting the rest of the world. That question is particularly perplexing when we are borrowing money to do so.

The ratio of public debt to GDP across advanced economies will peak at an historic high of 110% next year. It was 75% just six years ago.

Most of what are perceived to be the wealthiest nations, those in the West, are now borrowing money just to pay the interest on our debt. That is a guaranteed loser. Barring some unforeseen circumstances, just as with the monetary system of the United States, increasing debt to pay off debt is a house of cards which will continue to be stressed until it topples.

This is the reason that we can look forward to more of these types of “solutions” to monetary emergencies. A government or NGO’s view of a solution looks a lot like oppression when seen from the victimized citizen’s perspective. The fact that the thief carries an ID card as a United States employee, acting on behalf of the IMF and criminal banks does not make it any less painful or any more legitimate.

Naturally, if the government requires a larger piece of our individual pies, they will be further restricting our financial freedom in the process. More regulation requires more obedience and more enforcement in order to assure our compliance. The reduced affluence caused by the effective net income reduction will further restrict our mobility and leisure time activities until we are at one with the third world.

That is the unfortunate situation America finds itself in. Our corrupt leadership is unlikely to change or challenge the future that is planned for us by our global masters in shadows of the United Nations building. Unless there is a dramatic shift in the policies of the United States in regard to our subservience to that global mafia and the associated foreign policies, America’s future is bleak indeed.

The solution for individuals may well be to vote with their feet, and it may unfortunately soon be a reality that a choice will be forced upon many Americans to flee to greener pastures, submit to big government control and fleecing, or rebel against our oppressors as our founders said would one day be necessary.


Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:



  • Your support in the Liberty Beacon will be appreciated