Federal Government Tactics in Civil War Operations: Preparations by the Elite with Forced Weapons Disarmaments of American Military Units

""I do not like using confidential sources without a strong degree of outside collaboration. However, the information contained in this report is so dire and so immediate, I do not feel that it is prudent to sit on this information any longer. This article will be brief and to the point. I am confident that once I air what I know on this very grim topic, the floodgates are going to open and I will shortly be running more articles with newly revealed information from sources that have not yet gone public.

Briefly, when I run a story based upon confidential, insider information, I almost alway have some degree of independent confirmation which adds to the veracity of the report. However, in this instance my independent confirmation is limited. As far as I know, John Moore and Paul Martin have much of this information as well.

John Moore and I spoke on the phone yesterday and we agreed on the importance of maintaining source anonymity because not only could careers be lost, but so could lives. Therefore, the following report will be purposely vague as to the location of involved bases, unless permission has been given to reveal such, as well as the identity, rank and position of reporting sources.

Will You Fire On American 

People If Ordered to Do So?

Recently, at Fort Bragg, a military security officer was asked if he would fire on American soldiers if told to do so? This information is a little more specific because the firing will soon be made public, so I can be a little more detailed in the reporting. When this officer answered in the negative, he was promptly fired. The source for this information is John Moore. He knows the position of the person involved and much more detail that we cannot reveal at this point. I agreed to this anonymity before publishing this article. This event is less than a week old.

At Fort Carson, I know that at least two officers have been fired who were training with Russian soldiers on the base for answering the question in the negative. This event is about six weeks old.

In another location, a housekeeper for a base commander was told late last year that she should make plans to be as isolated as possible because “troops would soon be on the street”. We now know that this base commander was referencing the upcoming Jade Helm drills. Last December when I was provided this information, the public and the media had never heard of Jade Helm including myself. I was told that the base commander felt personally threatened because he was soon going to be asked to do things that he was not sure that he could carry out. I know the identity of the housekeeper, the base commander and the base. Fox News might give this source up for the sake of ratings, but I will not because of the possible consequences.

A trusted State Department employee told me a close friend that he has in which the person was training with the military in Texas. He was so horrified by what he saw in the training and what was going to be done to the American people that this person is looking to leave the country. He probably knows that when the Blue List carries out actions against the Red List, the Blue List does not live to talk about it.

On April 28, 2015, I published an anonymous letter from a Texas Ranger who said they were bracing for attacks from ISIS and that the Judicial Watch revelations of an ISIS base camp near El Paso was indeed accurate.

About a week after the Texas Ranger revelation, Pam Geller’s “Draw a Prophet” event was attacked by two members of ISIS in Garland, Texas, just at the Texas Ranger predicted.

On July 4th, the FBI announced that it was investigating 56 possible ISIS led terrorist events inside of the United States. Again, this bears out the veracity of the Texas Ranger communication.

This past week, a well-planned and clearly an ISIS motivated attack was carried out in Chattanooga in which five service men were killed. Again, as predicted, ISIS is running rampant. ISIS has promised to murder as man American servicemen as possible.

These events lead to the next set of insider revelations which are highly significant.

Why Are American Military 

Being Systematically Disarmed

Our American soldiers are being made targets for ISIS. More importantly, we are just beginning to see that domestically based American forces are being systematically disarmed unit by unit because they cannot be trusted to not defend American citizens.

John Moore, Paul Martin, two other unidentified sources, and myself, have information that select domestic American military units are being forced to turn in their ammunition. In light of the Chattanooga attacks and the promise of ISIS to murder American servicemen, this is making select members of the military a sitting duck. However, and more importantly, it is the belief of many that I speak with that these units are being disarmed because of the fact that these units would not only refuse to obey illegal orders to fire on American citizens, they would oppose those forces that would. I expect that the number of disarmed American troops will grow as will the purges of officers who will not go along with the subjugation of the American people.

One report that I have been in possession of for six weeks says that American soldiers training with Russians at Ft. Carson have been disarmed while the Russian soldiers have not. It is well known that these Russians, who speak perfect English are being trained for martial law enforcement inside of the United States.""

Conclusion:

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/07/19/some-american-military-units-are-being-disarmed-in-preparation-for-civil-war/

Federal Government Claims Another One Million Acres: A State Land Grab Repurposing Courtesy of One Obama

""The federal government once more dramatically increased its land holdings at the expense of states in recent days, as noted by a White House announcement that said President Obama has used the century-old Antiquities Act again to designate three new national monuments totaling 1 million acres.

In particular, as reported by the San Jose Mercury News, Obama created the 704,000-acre Basin and Range National Monument north of Las Vegas, the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument, a 100-mile stretch of land reaching across roughly 100 miles of northern California, and Waco Mammoth National Monument in Texas.

In an announcement, the White House bragged:

Together, the new monuments protect over one million acres of public land. These monuments will also provide a boost to local economies by attracting visitors and generating more revenue and jobs for local communities, further supporting an outdoor recreation industry that already generates $646 billion in consumer spending each year. With these new designations, President Obama will have used the Antiquities Act to establish or expand 19 national monuments. Altogether, he has protected more than 260 million acres of public lands and waters – more than any other President.

As the White House gushed, so, too, did a number of environmental groups who, like this president, have no regard for private and state-owned property and the chance for economic development that such designations take away from ordinary citizens.

"Political weapon"

This was not lost on U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who derided Obama for showing "complete disdain for Congress and the people of Nevada, California and Texas."

In a statement of his own, Bishop said:

Following the example of Jimmy Carter, the Obama Administration is using and abusing the Antiquities Act as a political weapon. The worst part is that the act doesn't guarantee public input. In fact, the vast majority of monuments that have been created through the Antiquities Act were created with no public input whatsoever. The people in the counties deserve the right to continue their work on locally-driven land initiatives without threats like these hanging over their heads.

U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, another Utah Republican, said he believed Obama and future presidents should be barred from using the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments on land where local county officials have instituted a land management program.

"The Congressional process guarantees public involvement and ensures that all local interests are considered," he said. "To avoid the debacle that is now Lincoln County, any county participating in a local planning process should demand such an exemption be included in the final bill, I know that I will."

Obama is certainly not the only U.S. president to essentially steal state and private land in ways that deprive states and their residents of economic benefits. In 1996, President Bill Clinton designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument after his administration had made public assurances that he would not do so. The designation had – and continues to have – massive negative economic effects on Utah and the country.

Clinton's designation "locked out a lot of ranchers, they locked out a whole bunch of clean coal," Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said in 2010. "Clean coal" has far less sulfur and ash than other coal and is far less common; locking it up on a national monument meant that it could not be developed.

Western states are particularly sensitive to federal land ownership; the vast majority of federal land is located in the region.

Remember Cliven Bundy?

Federal land ownership also brings federal rules and regulations, and increasingly citizens of states where the Feds own much of the land are growing frustrated with having to deal with out-of-control authoritarian agencies that "manage" federal land, like the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.

This frustration came to a head in the spring of 2014, when the BLM sent a small army of heavily armed agents to Nevada to enforce a court order against longtime rancher Cliven Bundy (see that story here).""

http://www.naturalnews.com/050413_Obama_Administration_national_monument_federal_government.html

The Rigged Foreign Elections and Underworld Curtain of Illusions

""Looking behind the illusions of foreign elections is much like lifting up a rock and exposing an underworld of creeping, crawling insects.

You know that when you lift the rock you’re going to see some ugly things that you’d rather not look at but exposing the dark side of the rock to sunshine gives the rock a chance to cleanse itself as the bugs slither and scatter to find another place to hide.

Do you really think Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron won the UK elections? Actually, according to Politico, “Jim Messina Trounces David Axelrod in British Elections.”

I didn’t even know that Obama’s team was running for election in Britain, did you?

Politico continued, “At 9:21 a.m., Eastern Time on Friday in America, former top Obama aide David Axelrod conceded the U.K. election. ‘Congratulations to my friend @Messina2012 on his role in the resounding Conservative victory in Britain,’ Axelrod wrote on Twitter.”

In case you didn’t know, Messina was Obama’s 2012 campaign manager. Now in 2015, he helped a Conservative win in Britain? And Messina has also been “tapped to run a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC,” according to CNN.

Progressive Obama, Conservative Cameron, Progressive Clinton — obviously Messina isn’t loyal to a particular political side.

Reggie Love, who was once Obama’s body man, was also involved in helping the Conservatives win. Was Love doing Obama’s bidding or just getting a paycheck?

Meanwhile, Obama’s former senior political guru, David Axelrod, along with Larry Grisolano and Mike Donilon from Axelrod’s old firm, AKPD, tried to steer Ed Milliband and the Labour Party to a win.

Hmmm… Looks like Obama’s Hope and Change slogan did not hypnotize the British voters the way it did Americans who swooned mindlessly at those magic words.

No television advertising is allowed during the six weeks before British elections. Despite the lack of negative television ads that those of us in America get brainwashed with, Obama’s teams brought their usual modus operandi of personal attack tactics into the election arena.

“What I’m seeing in this election is the influence of these big American advisers and it’s becoming the most negative, personal and nasty campaign I’ve ever seen,” leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party Nigel Farage told a radio station prior to the election.

Why did Obama’s team work both sides of the UK elections? Why were they even involved in another country’s elections at all?

Behind the Curtain: The U.S. Meddles in Foreign Elections

It’s not the first time that the United States is intruded on UK elections. Prime Minister Tony Blair won elections with the help of Bill Clinton’s advisers. And the UK is not the only country where our president has been involved in the election process, either.

Obama’s people were also involved in Israel’s elections, which take about three months. A group led by Jeremy Bird, previous national field director for Barack Obama, failed at unseating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Apparently Israelis were not duped by Obama’s election campaign tactics. Are Americans the only fools to be taken in by Chicago-style politics?

Due to Obama’s strong feelings regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, is there any possibility that he has people working away on his behalf in the upcoming Canadian elections to be held in October? Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau is already borrowing Obama’s methods, according to a recent Bloomberg Business article, “Trudeau Borrows Obama’s Playbook for Election Run at Harper“.

Trudeau’s method from the playbook? An Ipsos Reid pollster in Toronto, Darrell Bricker, said, “They’ve decided to find another way in, borrowed from the U.S. It’s the whole income inequality discussion.”

And Trudeau’s economic agenda definitely sounds quite familiar. His plans call for expanded federal government and increasing taxes for those who earn more money.

Speaking of money, Obama spent more than $200 million on Egypt’s election in 2011. According to the magazine Campaigns & Elections, the money went through “the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute.""

http://truthstreammedia.com/behind-the-illusions-of-foreign-elections/

Monsanto Corporatocracy Protected by FBI Under Guise of National Security

""Monsanto corporate executives probably thought they had a decent amount of influence with the federal government, but they may never have thought that their genetically modified food products would become protectorates of the FBI, all under the guise of "national security."

As reported by the Des Moines Register in recent days, "protecting America's lucrative [GMO] seed corn industry" now rises to the level of fighting terrorists and government spies, according to the FBI, which has invoked broader powers authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, in a case against two Chinese siblings who allegedly plotted to steal patented GMO seeds from cornfields in Iowa.

The paper further reported:

Stealing hybrid seeds enhanced with traits such as drought resistance doesn't pose the same immediate threat as a suicide bomber, but the FBI treats economic espionage and similar trade secret theft as dangerous threats to national security.

Monsanto gets the power of the intelligence community to do its bidding

"It's people's lives," Christopher Burgess, CEO of security consulting firm Prevendra and a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, told the paper. "It's our livelihood. It's why we feed so much of the world is because we invest in research and development."

The "feeding the whole world" argument is controversial in and of itself, based on scientific findings that, among other things, GMO corn lacks nutrients but is full of chemicals, according a 2012 paper entitled, "2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn." An earlier study found that rats fed a steady diet of GMO corn developed major tumors, with 70 percent of female rats dying early.

Nevertheless, GMO maize is now a protected state secret, even though defense attorneys for the two Chinese siblings have argued the government's protection under national security auspices is unprecedented and represent a dangerous overreach.

Defendants Mo Hailong and Mo Yun have been charged with planning to steal patented GMO seeds from agri-business giants DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto, the paper said. The idea, according to court records, was to steal the seeds and bring them back to China where they would allegedly be copied, then counterfeited by a large Chinese agri-corporation, Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group. If convicted, the suspects could face a maximum of 10 years in prison.

The Des Moines Register reported further:

In 2013, Nicholas Klinefeldt, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, indicted the siblings and five other Chinese citizens on charges of theft of trade secrets.

In a move that defense attorneys call "breathtaking," prosecutors plan to introduce evidence at trial gathered under FISA, which allows the FBI to bypass a traditional search warrant. Agents seeking evidence instead need only get approval from a secret Washington, D.C.-based court designed to hear complex national security cases.

Gathering and presenting secret evidence before a secret court

That court is called the FISA court, and it is staffed by regular federal judges who serve non-renewable seven-year terms. It should be noted that the court's proceedings are carried out in secret, and that because these federal judges are not fluent in intelligence community/national security jurisprudence, the court rarely turns down a warrant request.""

http://www.naturalnews.com/049544_Monsanto_FBI_GMO_seeds.html

Congress to Overturn? Thousands Call to Reverse FCC Net Neutrality Rules

""The landslide 2014 elections made crystal clear that the American people reject larger, more intrusive government,” the Web form leading to the letters says in part. “But President [Barack] Obama reacted by moving even further left, ignoring the fact the Federal Communications Commission is supposed to be an independent agency, and openly demanding the FCC take the most radical action imaginable: reducing the Internet to a ‘public utility,’ imposing sweeping new taxes and destroying private investment, competition, and innovation while putting bureaucrats firmly in control.”

The American Commitment Web page appears to overstate some information related to the net neutrality debate of the past year. The actual letters sent, in some cases, use more moderate language, but one letter calls the FCC action “reckless,” and another letter calls net neutrality supporters “extremists.”

In November, Obama called on the FCC to pass net neutrality rules that reclassified broadband as a regulated common carrier. He also noted then that the FCC is an independent agency. “Ultimately, this decision is theirs alone,” Obama said then.

And while some opponents of the FCC’s rules fear the regulations will allow new taxes on broadband and limit some private investment in broadband networks, it’s uncertain whether those predictions will come true. Some studies predicting billions of dollars in new broadband taxes tie the FCC’s net neutrality action to a separate proceeding at the agency examining whether broadband providers should pay into its Universal Service Fund. The USF is pool of money that helps subsidize telephone service and now broadband in rural areas.

Net neutrality advocates argue that the rules, prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or throttling Web traffic, will actual spur investment in Web-based services.

Still, American Commitment said it was encouraged by the response of its members. The 3-year-old organization has “never seen such an intense citizen response in opposition to a federal regulatory action,” Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, said in a statement. 

Earlier this year, Republican leaders in Congress proposed legislation that would overturn the FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a regulated common carrier while retaining some basic net neutrality protections. With widespread opposition from Democrats, that legislation hasn’t advanced, but American Commitment said it was encouraged this week when Representative G.K. Butterfield, a North Carolina Democrat, called on Congress to craft net neutrality rules.

The petitions are just one effort to overturn the rules. This month, trade group USTelecom and ISP Alamo Broadband filed lawsuits challenging the FCC’s new rules.

While American Commitment rallied opponents of the new regulations, net neutrality supporters haven’t been silent.""

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2904632/thousands-call-on-congress-to-overturn-net-neutrality-rules.html