The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon

What's Hot…


obama Iraq

Global Research, April 23, 2014


“We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected round the world.” (President Barack Obama, State of the Union address, 24th January 2012.)

As Easter was celebrated in the US and UK with, for believers, the message of hope, Fallujah, the region and much of the country is again under siege, not this time by US mass murderers, but by the US proxy government’s militias armed with US delivered weapons.

In 2003, a month into the invasion, Easter Day fell on the same day as this year, 20th April, as Iraqis of all denominations and none, died were incarcerated, tortured, found with their heads drilled, or no heads, thrown on garbage piles.

Easter Day the following year, 2004 fell on Sunday 11th April and was marked by Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt confirming again his total disregard for human life. In the words of former USCENTOCOM Commander General Tommy Franks who led the Iraq invasion in March 2003, “it is not productive to count Iraqi deaths”.

The carnage of the first siege of Fallujah was underway. At the daily press briefing (1) General Kimmitt assured the media:

“The Marines remain ready, willing and able at any time to provide any level of humanitarian assistance.

“Outside the city of Fallujah, I understand they’ve already set up facilities for any displaced persons that come out of the city that need assistance.

“That is something that the Marine Corps is expert in, the whole notion of assistance, rendering assistance to any town in the world at anytime.” Then as now, it is impossible to know whether to laugh or weep.

General Kimmitt. was then asked:

“From here, from this podium, you talk about a clean war in Fallujah. But the Iraqis have an image through television from what is happening in Fallujah (including) killing children. Is there a way that you could convince Iraqis by your point of view that you have (only) utilized force against terrorists? “

With his hallmark contempt for humanity, or anything to do with “rendering assistance”, he replied:

“With regards to the solution on the images of Americans and coalition soldiers killing innocent civilians, my solution is quite simple: change the channel. Change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station.

“The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies. So you want a solution? Change the channel.”

Jonathan Steel of the Guardian persisted:

“General Kimmitt, you talk about changing channels, but what is your reply to people like (politician) Adnan Pachachi, who have accused the coalition forces of using collective punishment on the city of Fallujah? Have you got a reply a little bit more nuanced and subtle than just to tell Mr. Pachachi to change channels?”

Without shame, the General responded to the situation in the town which has become known as “Iraq’s Guernica” with:

“In this case, we can disagree without being disagreeable, but it is not the practice of the coalition forces, any of the coalition nations, to exercise collective punishment or collective action on a city. That is just not done. It is not practiced. And it violates international law. And we don’t believe at this point that coalition can be shown any proof to suggest that it is in violation of international law or the laws of land warfare.”

The town was in fact, treated as a “free fire zone”, two hospitals were demolished including a recently built emergency centre and at the General Hospital, patients and doctors were initially handcuffed, the “liberators’ regarding it as  “a centre of propaganda”, since the staff talked, then as now, of the numbers of dead and wounded they were treating. The “non-American wounded were, in essence left to die”, as a result.

A comment from one as either deluded or unfamiliar with the truth as General Kimmitt, a Lt-Col Pete Newell, stated that US Forces wanted:

“ Fallujah to understand what democracy is all about.”

Colonel Ralph Peters, ever in pursuit of his vision of eternal war, said of this vision of democracy

“We must not be afraid to make an example of Fallujah. We need to demonstrate that the United States military cannot be deterred or defeated. If that means widespread destruction, we must accept the price . . . Even if Fallujah has to go the way of Carthage, reduced to shards, the price will be worth it.” (2)

Now it is known definitively what a pack of lies were Kimmitt’s assurances, with the General having confirmed his knowledge of violations of international law – even before the second decimation of Fallujah later in the year, perhaps someone should surely visit him and Colonel Peters with a view to including them in an upcoming historic class action law suit which has been filed in the US. (3)

Less than a month after Kimmitt’s channel changing advice, General Taguba released his Report on what “democracy was all about” at the hands of the US military at Abu Ghraib prison, a short distance from Fallujah. It still chills and should shame for all time. Just a few of his findings include:

“…that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

*Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.  *Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees

*Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing

*Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time

*Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear

*Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped

*Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them *Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture

*Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked

*Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture

*A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee

*Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

*Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees

*Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol

*Pouring cold water on naked detainees

*Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair

*Threatening male detainees with rape

*Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was    injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell

* Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick._h.

*Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. (4)

Did the General not know of what was happening at the hands of US troops throughout the region? His knowledge of Iraq, however, was such that in the press conference cited above, he referred to Baghdad, of which journalists, he thought, would be “familiar”, as a “town”, this ancientest city of seven million people.

Baghdad, formerly, as Kurt Nimmo writes, the most advanced city in the Middle East, has now been designated in a recent survey (5) the world’s worst city: “a dangerous ruin, stricken by sectarian and religious violence, corruption, crime, unemployment, pollution and numerous other problems.”

Mark Kimmitt is now retired and “is an advisor to US firms in the Middle East”(6) presumably profiting from US destabilization and industrial scale murder and destruction, ongoing in Iraq, after eleven years, at an average of one thousand souls a month.

It has to be wondered if, on the tenth anniversary of his massive Easter Day mistruths, he reflected on his words, Iraq’s ongoing carnage – and that when a journalist had asked him what he would say to Iraq’s children, traumatized by the noise of America’s war ‘planes and bombs, he replied: “Tell them it’s the sound of freedom.”









Read article here:

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



You may be aware of Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty Amendments” released last year which called for a “Convention of the States”. Article 5 of the Constitution gives the several states the ability to convene a convention in which the Constitution may be amended, changed, or even scrapped.

Recently Michigan’s legislature voted and passed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. They are the 34th state to do so, and this should trigger the Convention of the States.  Pretty major, yet the MSM is ignoring it.
Read on.
From TRN News:

The most important political development in 200 years was triggered  last week, when the state legislature of Michigan became the 34 th state to demand a “Constitutional Convention” in the United States.   Under Article 5 of the US Constitution, if 2/3rds of the states call for such a convention, (meaning 34 states)  it MUST take place.  During such a convention, the ENTIRE Constitution can be  changed; nothing is off-limits.  This would even allow the States to  dismantle the federal government without its consent, and repudiate the  debt which that government has incurred!  When it voted for the convention last week, Michigan became the 34 th state, thus meeting the requirement.

A goal has been reached  behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S.  Constitution, through a little-known provision that  gives states rather  than Congress the power to initiate changes. This  is the most significant political development in the entire world in the last 200 years.

At issue is what’s known as a “constitutional convention,” a scenario  tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V  provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has  been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both  the  House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the  states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an   alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a  meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in   recent years — but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers   endorsed it.

Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter   pressed House Speaker John Boehner on today to determine whether the   states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like   Michigan lawmakers, Hunter’s interest in the matter stems from a desire  to push a balanced-budget amendment — something that could be done at a constitutional convention.

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan is the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the   constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of   achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that  the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment –  determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the   appropriate role of Congress should this be the case.”

If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress’ court to call the convention.

But Article V is rather vague, and it’s ultimately unclear whether 34  states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah  and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their   legislature.

But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.

Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again   applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the   federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.

Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.


It’s unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios.

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that   has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson  told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a  state  may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a  Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33 rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.”

Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34.

Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain  about how such a convention would work — and whether, as Michigan   wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment.

It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move.

In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state’s resolution, saying the convention could permanently  damage the nation’s political system.  What he calls “damage” others  call improvement.


Change from a federal form of national government, back to a  confederacy, which was what existed prior to adoption of the  Constitution in 1789.  No, not the one that existed during the Civil  War, the one that existed between the time we won the Revolutionary War  and the time we adopted the US Constitution.  What’s that you say, you  never knew the United States was a Confederacy before the Constitution?  So much for public school education.  In fact, the U.S. was a  Confederacy and under that form of government, there is NO NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT, just states that agree to do business with each other and to defend each other if attacked.  How’s that for simple?

If we make the mistake of keeping a federal government, we could  dramatically curtail its powers.  All elected officials could be  term-limited.  Judges could be term limited.  The jurisdiction of the  federal government could be for commerce only; no longer allowing it  criminal prosecution powers, leaving that to the states alone.

All Treaties currently in force, could be scrapped. We could cancel our participation in NATO no longer having to assure the safety of  Europe by shedding American blood to settle their squabbles.  (World War I,  World War II,  Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo etc.)  Make Europe  defend itself. We could scrap the Treaties with South Korea, Taiwan and  Japan, making them defend themselves rather than pledging American blood to keep them safe.  After all, for the fifty years or more that we have guaranteed the security of these countries, what have they done for  us?  Hint: Nothing.

We could scrap the Treaties with Russia concerning our nuclear  arsenal, allowing us to re-arm to face the new challenges posed by China becoming a super-power, India, Pakistan and Israel becoming nuclear  powers.

We could do away with the federal power to make war; delegating that  power to a simple majority of the fifty state legislatures voting in  concert.

We could do away with the Federal Reserve which creates money out of  thin air, causing inflation to erode our savings and earnings, and start printing our own real money, backed by gold, silver, platinum etc.  No  more central Bankers to parasite off our hard work the way they do now.

We could do away with the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, both of which stifle American ingenuity  through reams of  government regulation.

We could put people ahead of animals and do away with rules that  forbid development of land because some little creature lives on it.

We could do away with the Department of Education, which during its  existence, has seen the education level of American children drop from  #1 in the world to somewhere toward the bottom.  This department is a  complete and total failure and it should be wiped out of existence.

We could do away with the Department of Energy, which was created  during the Carter Administration for the purpose of weening the United  States off imported oil.  Ask yourself this simple question: In the  forty years it has been in existence, has the Department of Energy even  come close to achieving what it was created to do?  No.  It is another  total failure and it should be wiped out of existence.

We could become energy self-sufficient within a year, by allowing our own natural resources to be developed-  then tell the Arabs to take  their oil and shove it.

We could stop the hand-outs to the permanent welfare class, forcing  them to get off their good-for-nothing lazy butts and get a job.

We could do away with the income tax!

We could restore the free market in EVERY industry; getting  government out of the way so that entrepreneurs can create new and  better products and services to improve all our lives.

This would be a new beginning for America; a new chance at vast prosperity, personal liberty and personal responsibility.

The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago – the 26th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200  years to do it.  With the Michigan vote, this time we can right so many  wrongs, and finally get the government out of our lives.

TLB Highly recommends you visit Ploitical Ears for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article here:


The Nation’s attention has for the past few weeks been riveted by a standoff in Nevada between armed Federal agents and the Bundys, a ranching family who believe the Federal government is exceeding its authority by accessing “fees” against ranchers who graze cattle on government lands. Outrage over the government’s use of armed agents to forcibly remove the Bundys’ cattle led many Americans to travel to Nevada to engage in non-violent civil disobedience in support of the family.

The protests seem to have worked, at least for now, as the government appears to have backed off from direct confrontation. Sadly, some elected officials have inflamed the situation by labeling the Bundys and their supporters “domestic terrorists,” thus justifying any future use of force by the government. That means there is always the possibility of another deadly Waco-style raid on the Bundys or a similar group in the future.

In a State like Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is owned by the Federal government, these types of conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of land means that land is in theory owned by everyone, but in practice owned by no one. Thus, those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it for the long term. As a result, land-use rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats. Oftentimes, the so-called “public” land is used in ways that benefit politically-powerful special interests.

Politicians and bureaucrats can, and will, arbitrarily change the rules governing the land. In the 19th century, some Americans moved to Nevada because the government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be able to use the Federally-owned land. The Nevada ranchers believed they had an implied contract with the government allowing them to use the land for grazing. When government bureaucrats decided they needed to restrict grazing to protect the desert tortoise, they used force to drive most ranchers away.

By contrast, if the Nevada land in question was privately owned, the dispute over whether to allow the ranchers to continue to use the land would have likely been resolved without sending in Federal armed agents to remove the Bundys’ cattle from the land. This is one more reason why the Federal government should rid itself of all Federal land holdings. Selling Federal lands would also help reduce the Federal deficit.

It is unlikely that Congress will divest the Federal government’s land holdings, as most in government are more interested in increasing government power then in protecting and restoring private property rights.

A government that continually violates our rights of property and contract can fairly be descried as authoritarian. Of course, the politicians and bureaucrats take offense at this term, but how else do you describe a government that forbids Americans from grazing cattle on land they have used for over a century, from buying health insurance that does not met Obamacare’s standards, from trading with Cuba, or even from drinking raw milk! That so many in D.C. support the NSA spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many in government have for our rights.

History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare state — and that of course would be good. This is why it so important that those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution.


Read article here:

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

internet abroad

While some security experts have recently accused the United States government of undermining the infrastructure and integrity of the web, the State Department is helping fund a project that lets people connect and communicate over alternative networks.

Since last June, revelations about the US National Security  Agency and how it goes about getting intelligence from foreign  suspects have continued to surface, in turn rekindling all too  routinely allegations about how the internet has been practically  obliterated by the NSA.

Leaked intelligence documents disclosed to the media during that  span by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden have indeed impacted  the way the world sees the American government with regards to  protecting a medium of communication that continues to grow. But  while these heightened concerns about online privacy are without  a doubt warranted thanks to Mr. Snowden’s revelations, one former  government official now tells the New York Times that a project largely funded  by the Department of State is actually making it easier for  people in certain parts of the world to communicate and  collaborate over a parallel internet of sorts.

“Exactly at the time that the NSA was developing the  technology that Snowden has disclosed, the State Department was  funding some of the most powerful digital tools to protect  freedom of expression around the world,” Ben Scott told the  New York Times for an article published in Monday’s paper.  According to Scott — a former State Dept. official who helped the  agency get involved in a program that is putting the web back  into the hands of the people — the US government has actually  been playing a pivotal role in letting new parts of the world  become networked.

“It is in my mind one of the great, unreported ironies of the  first Obama administration,” Scott told the Times.

One of those endeavors that’s been spearheaded by the State Dept.  is Commotion: an open-source toolkit that provides users with the  technology to connect wireless devices like laptops and  cellphones to a mesh network where they can communicate and share  local services.

Unlike the internet as it’s largely considered, mesh networks  like the ones setup through Commotion don’t necessarily allow  users to connect and then browse Facebook accounts or check  sports scores. Instead, it provides a way for network-ready  devices to communicate with one another in the event of an  emergency or internet blackout of sorts, and then use common  services that are shared throughout the ad hoc networks.

“The technology behind Commotion is designed with the users  in mind, specifically to enable them to connect with one another,  access information they may not otherwise have access to and take  existing community social networks into the 21st century,”   Thomas Gideon, the director of the Open Technology Institute’s  tech team, wrote in a press release issued late last year when  beta testing of Commotion 1.0 was completed.

“The release of Commotion 1.0 is exciting for us not only  because of the technology itself, but because of the great things  communities will be able to do with it as they are able to  provide access to broadband where it may not otherwise exist,  where it may be cost-prohibitive or where it may be  blocked,” Gideon said. “This opens up tremendous  opportunities. Whether a community loses traditional  infrastructure because of a natural disaster or as the result of  a repressive regime, Commotion provides a locally-owned  alternative for diverse communities in the United States and  around the world.”

In the Times this week, journalists Carlotta Gall and James Glanz  explained that a series of Commotion test runs carried out abroad  have already helped people create and connect mesh networks when  wireless communications might not otherwise be viable. As those  reporters wrote, the US State Dept. has handed over $2.8 million  to the American technologists working on perfecting Commotion,  and networks have already been established around the globe as a  result.

A project in the city of Sayada, Tunisia, for example, went live  last December with the help of the State Dept. There, according  to Commotion’s press release at the time, “local media has  hailed the deployment of a beta version of Commotion for powering  the first free community WiFi network in Tunisia, and serving as  a model for the rest of the country for its potential to  strengthen democratic institutions and boost social and economic  opportunities.”

“The mesh network blankets areas of town including the main  street, the weekly market, the town hall and the train station,  and users have access to a local server containing Wikipedia in  French and Arabic, town street maps, 2,500 free books in French  and an app for secure chatting and file sharing,” Gall and  Glanx wrote for the Times this week.

According to their report, it only took a small team of  technologists and around 50 local residents equipped with routers  and wireless devices to get a functional mesh network in place in  Sayada for its 14,000 people. The entire process took around two  weeks.

But as concerns over internet censorship continue to emerge  throughout the world, other locales just like Sayada may start to  set up similar networks. According to the December statement from  Commotion’s team, Somaliland, Dahanu, India, Brooklyn, New York  and Detroit, Michigan have all experimented with the system as  well.

In Manhattan earlier this month, a group of hackers met up and  practiced an imaginary apocalyptic scenario in which the internet  spontaneously goes offline.

“It’s comforting to know that someone is preparing for  Internet Armageddon, given the events of recent  years,”New Yorker journalist Joshua Kopstein  recalled afterward. “In 2011, when Hosni Mubarak, then the  President of Egypt, instituted a country-wide Internet and  cell-phone blackout during that country’s revolution, the concept  was relatively new. These days, stories of state-mandated  Internet shutdowns have become almost commonplace, forcing us to  rethink networks whose resilience we once took for granted.”

And according to the Times, Cuba could be the next locale looking  for a solution to that problem. The United States Agency for  International Development, or USAID, “awarded a three-year  grant to the New America Foundation to make this platform  available for adoption in Cuba,” Matt Herrick, a spokesman  for the agency, told the paper.

Critics are expected to be quick to condemn that effort, however,  given recent news about another USAID program that installed a  social network in Cuba per the directive of the US government.  The so-called “Cuban Twitter” program revealed earlier this month  by the Associated Press has since attracted a fair share of  opposition, especially after it was reported that the endeavor  wasn’t launched solely to let Cubans communicate over a new  medium, but rather to encourage revolt by spreading among users  political stories critical of that country’s government.

Herrick told the Times that the new mesh network program is not  operational yet and that no USAID staffers have even ventured to  Cuba to begin work on it. According to the Times, however, the  agency has already pledged $4.3 million to getting a Commotion  mesh network off the ground there, suggesting that the US  government is indeed interested in ensuring that, even if privacy  on the internet may continue to be eroded by the NSA’s practice,  the government is giving people somewhere a way — albeit not  exactly an entirely secure one — to sign on and share info. In  some situations, however, those mesh networks may be the only way  that residents will be able to communicate with one another and  access information.


Read article here:

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

You Lie


Remember the firestorm that ensued when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled out “You lie” during a speech President Obama was giving to a joint session of congress on ObamaCare in 2009?

He was castigated by members of both parties, the ObamaMedia literally went insane and he was made to apologize, saying,

This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.

Now, people remember that, but what everyone forgets is what prompted the outburst. President Obama had just said, “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

The usual suspects backed him up on that too., for instance said at the time that “Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally.”

Actually, it doesn’t. Not only doesn’t ObamaCare  bar non-citizens from buying their own health insurance coverage through the health insurance exchange, but prior to the president’s speech, Democrats twice rejected amendments to the bill requiring documentation of legal status in the United States in order to receive ObamaCare benefits, something President Obama knew full well.

Flash forward to the present.

The Spanish-language version of the Covered California exchange says: “Fear not if you are undocumented and want to enroll your family in health insurance.” Nowhere on the site does it mention that illegal aliens aren’t eligible for benefits or prohibited by law from enrolling in ObamaCare.

That language is present on every ObamaCare site across the country I checked…in Spanish and 11 other languages.

And that’s no accident. President Obama even admitted it on March 6, 2014 in a town hall meeting with Spanish language Telemundo and Univision. He openly admitted that Obamacare will make no effort to determine whether anyone who applies is actually a citizen or legal resident and sign up data will not be used for enforcing immigration laws. “None of the information that is provided in order for you to obtain health insurance is in any way transferred to immigration services. So that’s something we’ve been very clear about.”

Interestingly, he blamed congress for any deportations that have occurred, saying he has already stretched his “administrative capacity very far” by taking immigration actions using “prosecutorial discretion,” a fancy way of saying that the Administration isn’t prosecuting illegal aliens in deportation hearings or making much of an effort to find and deport the over 500,000 illegal aliens who already have outstanding deportation orders filed against them.

What this amounts to is that illegal aliens are definitely applying for ObamaCare, especially since most of them qualify for the subsidies, at least as far as any income they’re reporting. Certainly it would be interesting to see exactly how many of the enrollees the president is thumping his chest about are in the country illegally. So Rep. Joe Wilson had it exactly right. The President was lying through his teeth, and he knew it even as Rep. Wilson called him out on it.  The meme has already shifted from ‘no non-citizens will be eligible for ObamaCare’ to ‘why shouldn’t undocumented workers be covered?’

Illegal aliens will receive taxpayer funded ObamaCare benefits the same way they already receive Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, and tax refunds for earned income credit and for children who may or may not exist. They simply apply, and the system processes them with a deliberate ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.

No one’s checking, not really. And if course, if you object to being robbed blind to pay for it and to being lied to to facilitate the theft and the con, you’re simply ra-aaa-a-cist.

TLB Recommends you visit Joshuah Pundit for more pertinent articles and information:

See featured article here:


By: C.O.W.S.

This is a detailed analysis from one of our information gatherers within the Coalition of Western States. It addresses in detail why the actions of the BLM were lawless and unconstitutional. This may not be a sensational read, but it’s important the facts get out and this covers it well.



Many have attempted to share that the BLM acted in a capricious and unconstitutional manner, and the administrative agency was well outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. See below for additional insights offered by U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX). I highlighted the U.S. Federal Statute that is salient.

After the federal Bureau of Land Management agents backed down from their intimidating stance at the Bundy Ranch last weekend, ample evidence has surfaced indicating the standoff between the government and the Nevada ranching family is far from over. Throughout the week long stalemate, members of the Bundy family were physically assaulted by armed officers, numerous cows were shot dead, and protesters faced threats of gunfire for merely expressing their outrage.

Immediately after what many considered a victory against a tyrannical federal agency, a number of leftist voices – most notably, Sen. Harry Reid – indicated the action against this family will continue.

In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sent a letter to Barack Obama, Department of the Interior Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze, laying out his position that any such action by the agency would violate the U.S. Constitution.

“Because of this standoff,” he wrote, “I have looked into BLM’s authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada.”

He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”

The letter included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that point.

“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

In the case of the Bundy Ranch, he continued, “the relevant local law enforcement officials appear to be the Sheriff of Clark County, Nevada, Douglas C. Gillespie.”

Gillespie, however, conspicuously took a back seat to BLM forces during the standoff.

“Indeed,” Stockman wrote, “the exact type of crisis that the federal government has provoked at the Bundy ranch is the very type of incident that Congress knew could be avoided by relying on local law enforcement officials.”

The stated purpose of the correspondence is for the Obama administration “to bring the BLM into compliance with 43 U.S.C. section 1733.”

Absent a full investigation into the agency’s actions, he concluded, “the federal government must not only stand down, but remove all federal personnel from anywhere near the Bundy ranch.”

Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM. Stockman’s letter adds even more weight to the growing sentiment against the federal overreach.


TLB Recommends you visit the Coalition of Western States for more information.

See featured article here:



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:

  • Your support in the Liberty Beacon will be appreciated