Home Blog Page 23

Watch: Video Proof that FBI Murdered Robert “LaVoy” Finicum


FBI Agents Under Investigation for Coverup in Shooting Death of LaVoy Finicum as New Video is Released from Inside Vehicle

A new video that was recorded from the inside of Robert “Lavoy” Finnicum’s car moments before and after being shot was released today. It captures the horrific moments leading up to the murder of Lavoy.

The USDOJ announced it is investigating the “elite” FBI agents who partook in the coverup of the shooting, according to  the Oregonian

It turns out, one FBI agent shot his gun twice, but claimed he never fired his gun.

The United States Department of Justice said those bullets didn’t hit the Arizona rancher, who had been of the activist group occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge throughout January.

So what actually occurred? Lavoy was shot three times in the back by Oregon state police officers, including one that pierced through his heart

The murder was ruled justified due to the officers stating that they were in fear for their lives.

One of the bullets shot by the FBI agent struck his vehicle at a different angle than the other shots, which is what led investigators to determine he had lied.

The Truth About Nancy Reagan’s Horrific Legacy


When someone dies, there’s a wish for people to be nice and point out the great parts about someone. In the case of Nancy Reagan, though, she doesn’t deserve this. She fought for a war against people for using plants, and her part in it led to millions of men being thrown into cages. Here is why no one who loves freedom should shed a tear for Nancy Reagan.

(Satyros Phil Brucato) I will shed zero tears for the passing of Nancy Reagan, one of the more destructive personages in recent U.S. government history. Folks may have noticed that I tend to be rather outspoken when it comes to politics. That is partly Nancy Reagan’s fault, and in her case my venom is VERY personal.


In addition to a vast array of crimes that included the promotion of the prison-labor complex, covering for an increasingly addled president, and adopting a “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude with regards to her mix of astrology and evangelical Christianity, Nancy was the chief promoter, defender and apologist for a cult called Straight Inc. And for that, I will never forgive her.

In the mid-80s, my then-girlfriend was just shy of 18. [I will leave her nameless here, but her remarks, and a link to her story, can be found below at footnote #1.] She had a wide array of problems at home, but drugs were not among them. Her now-late brother didhave drug problems, though, and following a harrowing event in which an intoxicated friend of his did something truly inexcusable, their parents decided to take action.

That wound up being a serious mistake.

Straight Ink

By that time, Straight Inc. – a supposed drug-rehab organization that had zero connection to medical practitioners or supervision – had already racked up a series of lawsuits and criminal charges. Their activities included beating kids, snatching them off of streets and dragging them into cars and vans, forcing kids to go without food or sleep for days on end, and various forms of physical, social, psychological and emotional torture. They SHOULD have been shut down long before my girlfriend’s parents attended a presentation by a Straight Inc. spokesman.

Instead, they were celebrated by Nancy and Ronald Reagan, who even brought their friend Princess Diana of Wales to see how magnificent Straight Inc. was supposed to be. Thanks to the Reagans, lawsuits were hushed, charges were dropped, and media stories about the group were buried or killed. Nancy Reagan trumpeted Straight Inc. as the salvation of American youth, and so when my girlfriend’s parents came back from that meeting, they had a plan.

The brother, being over 18, was told that he could join the program or move out. Given what had just happened, this was reasonable.

My girlfriend was told she would be “enrolled” as well – no choice involved – even though she was not doing drugs. When she called me in a panic, I assured her that her parents were more reasonable than that. And I was wrong.

The next few months become a horrorshow. The details are long and ugly; I’ll suffice to say that she and her brother – along with every other kid in the program – were deeply fucked with. [2] I, who had taken her parents’ side initially, was accused of being a drug addict myself, and was kept as far from her as Straight and her parents could keep me. Almost all of her belongings – her records, her books, her posters and stuffed animals, even most of her clothes – were seized and destroyed by order of the program, on the grounds that she (who had tested negative on the day she was “admitted”) was using them all as drug paraphernalia. Fantasy fans, take note – all forms of fantasy entertainment were considered “druggie behavior,” and were forbidden. Thanks to her younger sister, we were able to save a few things, but not very much. Every gift I had given her was destroyed.

What happened to her and her brother in that hellhole is not my story to tell, but I lived with the aftermath of it for many years.

On her 18th birthday, I went to talk to her; Straight was not permitted to keep the kidsliving inside the Straight Inc. complex, and so each night, they’d bring the kids out in physical restraints to take them to “safe houses” run by higher-ups in the program. I tried to talk to her in the parking lot, and was immediately grabbed by several guys, slammed into a brick wall, and held there while a dude waved a baseball bat in my face while threatening to “break your fucking druiggie neck.” Thankfully, I’d brought my friend Randi Kruger with me as backup, and she jumped from my car and rushed to my defense. [3]

By that point, a crowd of “Straightlings” – or, more accurately, the parents and upper-level kids – was converging on me. A Straight supervisor said “Leave now or we’ll call the police.”

Fine,” Randi yelled. “Call the police! Let them see what’s going on here!”

Several people had pulled out tire irons and a billy club, and were advancing on me. One guy apparently had a knife. According to Randi, several folks wavered at the thought that the cops might not look kindly on what was going on.

The supervisor, though, was unmoved. “I have a parking lot full of people here,” she said with chilling calm, “who’ll swear we never touched him.”

And then she added, “You’d better get him out of here before they tear him apart.”

StraightlingsRandi talked me down, and the guys who were holding me hauled me to my car, shoved me in, and told me that I was dead meat if I ever showed up there again. They followed me home, and called my mom’s house several times (having gotten her number from my girlfriend’s parents) to assure me that they had their eyes on me.

My girlfriend signed herself out the next day. Straight Inc. told her parents to disown her, and to refuse any contact with her. A Straight rep took her to the edge of the property and left her by the side of the road. She hiked to a nearby church and begged them to let her use their phone. Then she called my mother’s place, and once Mom had come to get her, they called me to let me know my girlfriend was safe and free.

Again, long story. The short version is, she moved in with me, we remained together for years, and the massive PTSD and physical damage that place had inflicted on her was our constant housemate. Thankfully, Straight had stopped beating kids by that point, but she had been fed poorly, was subjected to months of constant psychological abuse, had been refused her anti-depression medication, and had spent a large part of her time in there under what they called “suicide watch”: a euphemism for forced sleep deprivation. Minus physical beatings (but sometimes including sexual abuse), the treatment doled out by Straightlings to their peers was identical to the abuse inflicted on Bush-era prisoners of war.


(Straight kids “motivating” – a ritual enforced by physical abuse, as described at 5:54 and 6:25 in the 60 Minutes link below. My then-girlfriend describes it thus: Days spent sitting in a blue plastic chair throwing our arms around WILDLY (did you know that if you fling your hands around enough and with enough force your fingers will hit together with a snapping sound? If you weren’t snapping, you weren’t “motivating” hard enough) and if your back touched the back of the chair you got a FIST shoved down your spine. This was done every day at Straight. To kids. By kids.) 

Thirty years later, my then-girlfriend and her fellow inmates still live with the psychological and often physical scars of their abuse. Some of them didn’t survive. Her brother is one of them. After the insurance refused to pay for more “treatment,” he was released from Straight, supposedly drug-free. He died a few years afterward.

THAT was Nancy Reagan’s America.

THAT is what she left behind.

Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of children who were abused by – and often abusers in – a program run by demented fanatical profiteers, under the banner of a treatment program that didn’t even fucking work.

Dozens, maybe hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of “Straigthlings” who have since committed intentional or subconscious suicide to escape the pain inflicted by that cult.

Straight, having lost its presidential sponsorship when Reagan left office, was shut down in the early 1990s. The attached links can offer more information for those who want it.Nancy Reagan was repeatedly asked to apologize for the crimes committed by Straight. And repeatedly, she refused. [4]

Straight survivors

But that’s one reason why my hatred for the Reagans and their kind burns every bit as ferociously now as it did back then. I have seen the damage they did first-hand. And it did not end when Ronnie left office. It lingers, and continues to hurt.

I hope that, in some way, in some place or afterlife or incarnation, Nancy and Ronald Reagan are getting back at least a little bit of the pain they put into the world.

Good riddance, hag.

The world is better off without you.












Bernie Sanders Is Lying About Race & Here’s The Proof

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 28: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) addresses a rally in support of Social Security in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill March 28, 2011 in Washington, DC. Sanders and four other Democratic senators, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), said the Republicans' entitlement reform plan will "dismantle Social Security, delay distribution of benefits to seniors." (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders’ recent statements about “white people” has caused a backlash among people who understand economics, race relations, and history. To understand, let’s take a look at the statements he made at the recent democratic debate

“When you are white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto, you don’t know what it’s like to be poor, you don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you are walking down a street or dragged out of a car,” Sanders said when asked about his personal racial blind spots. “We must be firm in making it clear that we will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system.”

There’s a lot to untangle there, and there’s good reason to be bothered.

First, “white” can mean everything from French Canadian Catholic to Russian Jew, and everything in between. This form of blanket statement denigrates the plight of different people around the world. Without even having to reach across the border, a simple look at US statistics disprove his claims.

White Population and Poverty

12% of white children live below the poverty line in the United States 



White’s make up a higher percent of Project-Based Section 8 Housing than any other race
poorhouseholdsIn those two charts the “whites don’t understand poverty” line is debunked.

Whites and Police Brutality

Bernie has made it clear time and time again that police brutality is a race issue, but is that true?

Police killed more white people than any other race in 2015. A total 385 white people have been killed by police this year, and 66 of them were unarmed at the time of their death.

To be fair, a look at per capita rates shows that blacks may be more likely to be killed by police. Police killed almost five black people per every million black residents of the U.S., compared with about 2 per million for both white and hispanic victims.

Is that all because of racism? Not necessarily.

Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit over half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites.

Though the amount of blacks being persecuted by cops appears over-represented due to blacks representing 13% of the population, it’s the opposite when you factor in violent crime offenders.

Given that whites and blacks commit a similar amount of violent crime by percentage – though blacks commit much more per capita – you would expect that the amount of police brutality to be the same. This is not the case; in fact, whites are nearly twice as likely to be victims of police brutality based on the numbers.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, between 1999 and 2011, 2,151 whites died as a result of being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks.

This is not a racist statement, nor a racist fact. Facts are not racist, they are simply facts and it’s up to you to interpret them.

Can Government Fix The Problem?

Bernie’s continual pandering to Black Lives Matter racist campaign does absolutely nothing to help blacks or whites. It’s simply removing the locus of control from black individuals, so that they can blame everything on whites.

Are there issues with race relations in this country? Yes.

Can we solve the issue by blaming one group solely for the issue? No.

Can the government fix this problem? Absolutely not.

The government has been the greatest force to prevent blacks from getting out of poverty and doing well: 

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ’s statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.

The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mother generally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute study noted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty.”

How To Actually Fix The Problem

The government destroys wealth and will continue to do so as long as it exists. By creating a perpetual dependent class through the creation of massive government job programs, the redistribution of wealth to fund failing “anti-poverty” programs, and by punishing those who succeed through taxation, the government is ensuring that poverty continues. If you want to fix the issue, tell the government to get the hell out of the way.


10257847_10101407106334675_3394232571286694773_nAbout the author: Carlos Morales is a former Child Protective Services investigator, president and founder of Child Protective Services Victim Support, the host of the Libertarian Atheist Podcast, and a committed legal advocate for family reunification.

Watch: The Criminal Arrogance of Hillary Clinton


While the media is trying to keep the criminal actions of Hillary under wraps this video exposes the truth about Hillary’s horrendous actions

WATCH: Libertarian Spokeswoman Lauren Southern Assaulted By ‘Anti-Fascist’ Protesters


Libertarian commentator Lauren Southern was assaulted and  “covered in piss” by leftist fanatics in Vancouver, in a new low for the regressive left. For what? Stating there are “only two genders.”

Watch: How It Works – The Marble Music Machine


The Swedish Wintergatan Marble Machine video has gone viral online, and for good reason. Thankfully, the creators explain just how the heck it works, and the results are amazing

Watch: How To Get Kicked Off Fox News in 5 Minutes


The Speech That Got Judge Napolitano Fired From Fox News!


The Speech That Got Judge Napolitano Fired From Fox News!

Asking questions as Judge Andrew Napolitano did in a recent broadcast on his now cancelled daily show may very well be the reason behind his recent dismissal from Fox. Though specific details are hard to come by because the Judge has yet to give any interviews on the matter, it’s believed that his refusal to bow to commonly manufactured media narratives is among one of several key reasons he is no longer with the network.

The following 5-Minute Speech that Got Napolitano Fired from Fox News is one that should not only be forwarded and shared with every single man, woman and child in this country, but taught and expounded upon in every social studies, civics and government class from first grade through college.

Bundy Ranch Resistor & Veteran Arrested by Feds

This Wednesday, April 16, 2014 photo shows Jerry DeLemus, of Rochester, N.H., talks, about heading a group of self-described militia members who have been camping on rancher Cliven Bundy’s ranch near Bunkerville, Nev. Armed backers of embattled rancher Cliven Bundy are still living along a state highway in southern Nevada, almost three weeks after an armed standoff halted U.S. Bureau of Land Management plans to round up cattle he grazes on public land. The BLM says Bundy owes $1.1 million in grazing fees and penalties. (AP Photo/Ken Ritter)

FBI agents have arrested Jerry DeLemus, second amendment activist and co-chair of Veterans for Trump , on Thursday due to his connection with 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada.

He’s charged with “conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, attempting to impede or injure a federal law enforcement officer and several firearms charges.”

Susan DeLemus, state representative, wife of Jerry, and fellow Trump supporter, confirmed that he was arrested in the New Hampshire Leader newspaper. Trump announced that he was forming Veterans for Trump in July and named DeLemus among the co-chairs.

(TPM) The standoff in Nevada two years ago came after federal officials said Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy allowed his cattle to graze on federal land for decades without paying grazing fees. Bundy invited hundreds of followers, many of them armed, to his ranch to push back against federal officers who were impounding his cattle.

The event resurfaced in headlines this year when Bundy’s sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, organized a standoff of their own at a federal wildlife refuge in rural Oregon. DeLemus traveled to Oregon to visit their occupation and called their cause “peaceful” and “constitutionally just.”

DeLemus told Reuters at the time that he wanted to tell Trump “the whole story” of the Oregon occupation, adding that he expected the story would “arouse” the real estate mogul and inspire him to head West. The standoff lasted for 41 days and resulted in several arrests and the death of one militant in a confrontation with police. Trump never visited the refuge, but did say that he would have acted to end the standoff because “you cannot let people take over federal property.”

The Bundy situation was much more complicated than the media let on, and Brietbart did a fantastic write up on the topic:

The Bundy Ranch roundup has understandably stirred thin-stretched emotions as the federal government seizes cattle belonging to the Bundy family. The family settled in the late 1800’s and has ranched in the area since. The federal government allowed Nevada ranchers to graze their cattle on federal tracts of land adjacent to their private properties for generations. The federal government later created the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to administer and “protect” the vast swaths of federal land—including the land the Bundy family’s livelihood was—and still is—dependent upon. The BLM began restricting ranchers’ usage of federal lands to protect various species, and the BLM decided to restrict the Bundy family’s usage of the federal land they historically grazed.

 The federal government told the Bundy family that a tortoise existed on the land and therefore the land’s usage for cattle would have to decrease—thus creating a scenario where the Bundy family could make fewer resources. A 20-year legal battle ensued.

 There exist a number of elements to the story that inject shades of grey into the dominant media narrative. Perhaps hundreds of Bundy supporters have already shown up to the ranch area to “protect” the family and their land—which is federal land—but federal land such usage was promised to the family in the government’s efforts to get people to settle the West after Mexico ceded the land to the U.S. Court documents—discussed later in this article—reveal that the Bundy family decided at some point that the federal government was illegitimate and that they no longer had to give heed to the federal courts.

 The Bundy family patriarch has openly stated his willingness to use force against federal agents if they take his cattle off of the federal lands; the federal agents stand ready to use force against the family or their supporters if they interfere with the cattle removal. Both sides are armed, both sides are frustrated, and the rhetoric and hyperbole surrounding the entire matter has left many onlookers from around the world confused as to what is actually happening.

In the immediate aftermath of the infamous cattle roundup, Cliven Bundy granted a number of high profile media interviews continuing to deny—to the point of absolutely ignoring family history—what the federal courts have twice told him.

“I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada,” Bundy recently told a Dana Loesch. “…I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But, I don’t recognize the United States Government as even existing.”

Loesch: “So essentially you have a deal already with Nevada and the Bureau of Land Management is essentially trying to revoke or renege that deal?”

Cliven Bundy: “Yeah, it gets back to the ownership of this. Who owns this land? Does the sovereign State of Nevada own this land within their borders? Or does the United States own this land with their borders? If United States owns this land then I guess I’m wrong. But what if this is a sovereign State of Nevada and Clark County, Nevada owns this land? The People of Clark County, Nevada owns this land.”

The answers to Mr. Bundy’s questions have been given—twice.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this episode–aside from the headline-grabbing details and viral video content—is that it could have served as a strong case study for 21st Century review of the necessity for mass federal land ownership being utilized for private purposes. Between federal budget constraints, political “land grabs” and increasing enforcement costs, perhaps it is time to discuss how the U.S. can offload land tracts to parties in demand through the free market. However, those discussions are difficult to initiate when one does not recognize the sovereignty of their presumed adversary.

Given the fact that this cattle impound took 20 years, two federal lawsuits with appeals and a number of administrative threats before actually occurring—the federal government’s record of enforcement deserves a closer look as well.

The Bundy family can in fact claim to have enjoyed generations of grazing rights on federal land—with an arrangement originating in the 1870s. Adjacent to their personal property, the family was allowed to utilize what was known as the Bunkerville Allotment.

The Bundy family’s battle with the federal government–now playing out in international news coverage—began in 1993 with the listing of a native tortoise incorporated under the Endangered Species Act. As a result, the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) informed grazing permit holders like Bundy that cattle counts would need to be reduced to 150 head. That same year, the Bundy permit was eligible for renewal but was not executed. The permit was later revoked in 1994 by the BLM for nonpayment on the renewal, according to federal court records.

Claiming that the Bundy family continued to graze livestock on their old Bunkerville Allotment without permit, the BLM sought an injunction in federal court to correct the “trespass” in 1998. The court ordered the Bundy family remove all non-permitted livestock by November 30, 1998 or face fines of $200 per head, per day. The family appealed to the 9th Circuit Court—only to be denied in May 1999.

Throughout the period of 2000 to 2011–spanning both Bush and Obama Administrations–the BLM performed a series of investigations with a variety of reconnaissance tactics to track the alleged trespass of cattle owned by the Bundy family. According to court records, federal agents noted increasing herd sizes on the land formerly allotted and adjacent tracts which were never permitted to private parties. Investigators noted that “more than half” of the cattle did not bear any brand but were confirmed to be the property of Bundy “in correspondence,” according to filings.

Federal bureaucrats took great interest in the increased grazing on a tract known as the “New Trespass Lands” adjacent to the old lease once held. Further, Bundy brands were spotted in the neighboring Lake Mead recreational area.

In June 2011, BLM sent a fresh cease and desist order with a renewed threat to impound stray cattle in July 2011. Later in November, the National Park Service (NPS) sent a separate letter regarding alleged trespass on the two new tracts with a 45 day impound threat. In January 2012, the Bundy family told NPS they would work to round up stray cattle ahead of the deadline.

According to court records, the BLM claimed to have surveyed 600 head of cattle on the New Trespass Lands (typically described as a nature preserve by the DOJ) in February 2012. A month later, the figure was officially revised upward to 790, accounting for “recently born” calves.

In April 2012, court records indicate that a final administrative effort was made on the part of the BLM to resolve the alleged trespass on the tracts—including the federal lands traditionally used by the Bundy family and additional federal lands the Bundy family began using without permission on or around 2000. According to testimony, federal agents attempted to broker a deal involving the Clark County Sherriff that would allow cattle to be wrangled and transported to a sales market of the Bundy family’s choosing and allow the family to keep all proceeds. Court filings referenced Cliven Bundy’s assertion that any such action to round up cattle could lead to a “range war.”

Claiming to have exhausted all options, the U.S. Government filed a new civil lawsuit against the family for specific alleged trespass on the New Trespass Lands and the Lake Mead recreational area in May 2012. Court records reference Bundy’s confirmation in deposition that the cattle–branded or not–were indeed his on the tracts. Further, the DOJ detailed the family’s ranching improvements to the off-limits New Trespass Lands to include corrals, water troughs, hay and grazing supplements—such improvements were explicitly prohibited for any party, according to court records. The government repeatedly reminded the court that no grazing permits in the disputed area were ever offered. When asked in deposition what reaction the Bundy family would have should an impoundment occur, Cliven said he’d do “whatever it takes” to include physical force to stop such action.

The U.S. Government claimed that cattle on or near the two off-limits tracts posed “a significant risk to public safety.” Federal agencies claimed to have been in receipt of reports “of vehicle collisions and near collisions” due to the cattle. Bundy directly denied the allegation.

Throughout litigation, the Bundy family defended its actions using similar defense theories from prior litigation—despite the federal court’s rejection of them. The family argued that the United States did not in fact maintain jurisdiction or ownership of the federal lands in question, citing a specific Nevada code NRS 321.596 Legislative Findings. Bundy also challenged the inclusion of the tortoise as an endangered species.

In July 2013, the federal court granted the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Government. The court reiterated its position that “the public lands of Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”

The Nevada federal district court offered a rather blunt summary of its ruling, “In sum, this most recent effort to oppose the United States’ legal process, Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of the public lands of Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New Trespass Lands.”

In February 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again rejected Bundy’s claims.

No Easy Solutions

Hundreds of the Bundy family neighbors have been pushed out of ranching, a profession and culture the families shared with generations of their ancestors, by the federal government slowly restricting more and more of the usage of federal lands. The Bundy family has held on—but holding on meant ignoring the rule of law, as much as they would argue that the federal government has ignored the rule of law. After years of federal overreach and corruption—especially from federal agencies restricting public lands or effectively taking the value out of privately-held lands to protect tortoises, spotted owls, and ponds a bird might someday land in—many Americans are boiling and looking for an instance to stand against. The Bundy ranch has filled that role for many. Stated concerns over this being a new Waco or Ruby Ridge have come from the family. The federal government clearly views the armed Bundy supporters with concern—as evidenced by reports of government snipers being nearby and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing a no-fly zone for three miles surrounding the Bundy ranch.”

Emails Prove Hillary Knew Libyan Rebels Were Committing Genocide & Supported Them Anyway


Emails Prove Hillary Knew Libyan Rebels Were Conducting Ethnic Cleansing, Supported Them Anyway

(Shadowproof) On New Year’s Eve, the State Department released 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails from her tenure as secretary of state. While much of the corporate media dove into investigating pointless gossip, Brad Hoff at the Levant Report decided to look for more clues into understanding the epic failure that was the 2011 war on Libya by the US and NATO.

What Hoff discovered in the emails was Secretary Clinton being briefed by a trusted advisor, Sidney Blumenthal, on a events in Libya where Clinton’s public statements appear to contradict her private understanding. The issues range from the early presence of special forces and al Qaida-linked militants on the ground to the material motivations of France (gold, oil). And, of course, more evidence that Clinton knew the claims about Qaddafi issuing Viagra to troops for rapes were bogus.

On New Year’s Eve, the State Department released 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails from her tenure as secretary of state. While much of the corporate media dove into investigating pointless gossip, Brad Hoff at the Levant Report decided to look for more clues into understanding the epic failure that was the 2011 war on Libya by the US and NATO.

What Hoff discovered in the emails was Secretary Clinton being briefed by a trusted advisor, Sidney Blumenthal, on a events in Libya where Clinton’s public statements appear to contradict her private understanding. The issues range from the early presence of special forces and al Qaida-linked militants on the ground to the material motivations of France (gold, oil). And, of course, more evidence that Clinton knew the claims about Qaddafi issuing Viagra to troops for rapes were bogus.

The ethnic cleansing campaign by the rebels continued throughout 2011 and into 2012, when The Telegraph reported black migrant workers, along with black Libyans, were imprisoned, abused, and labeled foreign mercenaries.

In a video published by The Telegraph, a black African is ordered by a rebel to eat the former Libyan flag while in a cage.

The tragic irony of all this is that Hillary Clinton led the charge for a war in Libya based on a claim of a potentialmassacre in Benghazi. The massacre in Benghazi never occurred (and was likely overblown), but real ethnic cleansing and massacres did occur when the US and NATO empowered the Libyan rebels to overthrow Gaddafi and use their weapons beyond the war zone.

Today, Libya is a failed state infested with the Islamic State and other Islamic terrorist groups thanks to Clinton and friends. Quite a liberation.

The Uncovering Of Pedophile Priests In Pennsylvania


A report on hundreds of “staggering and sobering” incidents in Altoona-Johnstown shows a pattern of abusive priests being taken out of circulation only to be placed back in.

As reported by the Atlantic:

On Tuesday, two days after a film about a massive Catholic sex-abuse scandal in Boston won the Academy Award for Best Picture, Pennsylvania’s attorney general released a grand jury report chronicling “staggering and sobering” accounts of sexual abuse in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown.

The report alleges that, dating back to the 1970s, “hundreds of children have fallen victim to child predators” in abuse cases that involved over 50 priests and religious leaders in the area:

As wolves disguised as the shepherds themselves—these men stole the innocence of children by sexually preying upon the most innocent and the most vulnerable of our society and of the Catholic faith.

But there at the heart of the report isn’t just the criminal behavior, but criminal callousness in the desire of high-level officials to “avoid public scandal” by keeping abuse quiet and even allowing known predators to remain in commission as members of the clergy.

The information uncovered by the report had previously been kept in files to which only top diocese leaders had access. The documents show that several priests were reprimanded, reassigned, or otherwise briefly sent off to treatment programs or vacations, only to return to serving their original communities or new ones. Others retired and a few were eventually kept from the ministry.

As the Catholic News Service notes, the report, which includes testimony from victims, initially came about after the state’s attorney general was approached by “local law enforcement officials and district attorneys of several counties” with information about the abuse.

Last month, a commission created by Pope Francis to combat such abuse declared it “a moral and ethical responsibility” to report suspected incidents to authorities outside the church, eschewing a longtime dynamic by which denials by clergy have been taken at face value and matters have been kept internal.

But given the prevalence of these scandals and the cover-up culture, it’s difficult to imagine that Altoona-Johnstown will be the last community to have this kind of reckoning. On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane reiterated that the grand jury report into the diocese was just a first step and that investigations are ongoing.