Federal Judge: BLM Engaged In A Criminal Conspiracy Against Ranchers

Court Opinion Exposes BLM’s True Intent Against Cliven Bundy

by Kit Daniels

For over 20 years, the Bureau of Land Management engaged in a “literal, intentional conspiracy” against Nevada ranchers to force them out of business, according to a federal judge whose court opinion exposes the BLM’s true intent against rancher Cliven Bundy.

BLM agents who impounded Cliven Bundy's cattle.

BLM agents who impounded Cliven Bundy’s cattle.

In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.

“Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights — a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights — the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,” Judge Jones wrote. “After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]”

And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.

“The entire chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993–2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,” he stated.

Judge Jones continued:

In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.

By filing for a public water reserve, the Government in this case sought specifically to transfer to others water rights belonging to the Hages. The Government also explicitly solicited and granted temporary grazing rights to parties who had no preferences under the TGA [Taylor Grazing Act of 1934], such as Mr. Snow, in areas where the Hages had preferences under the TGA.

It is necessary to note that under the TGA, according to Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes (1938), a rancher whose cattle had previously grazed in the area based upon adjacent land, water rights on the land, etc., has a right to a grazing permit over others who apply for a permit to graze the area without having previously grazed there.

So in this instance, Hage would have priority over Snow for a grazing permit, but the BLM willfully ignored this court ruling.

And after the agency filed for a public water reserve, according to Judge Jones, the BLM “sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.”

“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” he wrote. “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.

This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.

So in other words, the BLM willfully attempted to destroy the Hage family’s livelihood because Hage dared to assert his existing rights to the land which his family has held since the late 19th century.

And unfortunately the BLM is attempting to do the exact same thing to Cliven Bundy.

“Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No,” William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American, wrote on the subject. “Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.

“With attitudes such as those expressed above by Sen. Harry Reid, it is almost a certainty that the recently defused Bundy Ranch standoff will be replayed again — and in the not-too-distant future. And the outcome could be much less amicable for all concerned.”

Posted in Current Events, Family, Fatherhood, Firearms, Government Corruption, History, Liberty, Men, News, Personal Freedom, Politics, Third War For American Independence, Tyranny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Mark Levin gives his take on the Dispute between Cliven Bundy and the Federal Government

Mark Levin lays out the most thoughtful and in-depth analysis I’ve heard yet on the dispute between Cliven Bundy and the federal government. In short, Levin calls it an abuse of power and believes the BLM should stop referring to the land as a conservation area and allow Bundy’s cattle to continue grazing on the land just as it has for the last 100 years or so.

Click here to access the recording: http://therightscoop.com/in-depth-mark-levin-gives-his-take-on-the-dispute-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

Posted in Current Events, Government Corruption, Liberty, Martial Law, News, Personal Freedom, Politics, Tyranny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

00

Posted in Christianity, Current Events, Family, Lithuanian | Leave a comment

What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?

by Larry Pratt, Executive Vice-President, Gun Owners Foundation

The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?

Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning — in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.

Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain’s heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

God’s response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.

Did Christ Teach Pacifism?

Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”

The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government — that is, taking vengeance — was also proper for an individual.

Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same “you have heard it said” figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times.

Contrast this to Christ’s use of the phrase “it is written” when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil’s lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: “it is written”).

To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that “an eye for an eye” applies to private revenge, consider that in the same Sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: “Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” (Matthew 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments.

The reference to “an eye for an eye” was taken from Exodus 21:24-25 which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ’s day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.

The Bible distinguishes clearly between the duties of the civil magistrate (the government) and the duties of an individual. Namely, God has delegated to the civil magistrate the administration of justice. Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was referring to this distinction in the Matthew 5 passage. Let us now examine in some detail what the Scriptures say about the roles of government and of individuals.

Both the Old and New Testaments teach individual self defense, even if it means taking the assailant’s life in certain circumstances.

Self-Defense in the Old Testament

Exodus 22:2-3 tells us “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”

One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. After the sun has risen seems to refer to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. At night it is more difficult to discern whether the intruder is a thief or a murderer. Furthermore, the nighttime makes it more difficult to defend oneself and to avoid killing the thief at the same time. During the daytime, it better be clear that one’s life was in danger, otherwise, defense becomes vengeance, and that belongs in the hand of the magistrate.

In Proverbs 25:26 we read that “A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.” Certainly, we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have no right to hand over our life which is a gift from God to the unrighteous. It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on.

Trusting God

Another question asked by Christians is “Doesn’t having a gun imply a lack of trust that God will take care of us?”

Indeed, God will take care of us. He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15)

Those who trust God work for a living, knowing that 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was “trusting God” would actually be to defy God.

King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God “Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle” (Psalm 144:1).

The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God.

Those who trust God should also make adequate provision for their own defense even as we are instructed in the passages cited above. For a man to refuse to provide adequately for his and his family’s defense would be to defy God.

There is an additional concern to taking the position that “I don’t need to arm myself. God will protect me.”

At one point, when Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he challenged Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple. Satan reasoned that God’s angels would protect him. Jesus responded: “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (Matthew 4:7).

It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection, and we all must, but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures that He has laid out for us in the Bible.

Role of Government

The Bible records the first murder in Genesis 4 when Cain killed his brother Abel. God’s response was not to register rocks or impose a background check on those getting a plough, or whatever it was that Cain used to kill his brother. Instead, God dealt with the criminal. Ever since Noah the penalty for murder has been death.

We see the refusal to accept this principle that God has given us from the very beginning. Today we see a growing acceptance of the idea that checking the criminal backgrounds of gun buyers will lessen crime but we should seldom execute those who are guilty of murder.

In Matthew 15 (and in Mark 7) Christ accused the religious leaders of the day of also opposing the execution of those deserving of death — rebellious teenagers. They had replaced the commandments of God with their own traditions. God has never been interested in controlling the means of violence. He has always made it a point to punish, and where possible, restore (as with restitution and excommunication) the wrongdoer. Control of individuals is to be left to self-government. Punishment of individuals by the civil government is to be carried out when self-government breaks down.

Man’s wisdom today has been to declare gun free school zones which are invaded by gun-toting teenage terrorists whom we refuse to execute. We seem to have learned little from Christ’s rebuke of the Pharisees.

Nowhere in the Bible does God make any provision for dealing with the instruments of crime. He always focuses on the consequences for an individual of his actions. Heaven and hell only applies to people, not to things. Responsibility only pertains to people, not to things. If this principle, which was deeply embedded in the common law, still pertained today lawsuits against gun manufacturers would be thrown out unless the product malfunctioned.

Responsibility rightly includes being liable for monetary damages if a firearm is left in a grossly negligent fashion so that an ignorant child gets the gun and misuses it. The solution is not to require that trigger locks be used on a gun to avoid being subject to such a law suit. Some might argue that this is nothing more than an application of the Biblical requirement that a railing be placed around the flat rooftop of a house where people might congregate. But trigger locks are to be used with unloaded guns which would be the same as requiring a railing around a pitched roof where people do not congregate.

Surely in protecting against accidents we cannot end up making ourselves more vulnerable to criminal attack, which is what a trigger lock does if it is in use on the firearm intended for self protection.

The firearm that is kept for self defense should be available in an emergency. Rooftop railings have no correspondence to the need for instant access to a gun. On the other hand, guns that are not intended for immediate use should be kept secured as a reasonable precaution. But to make the owner criminally or monetarily liable for another’s misuse violates a basic commandment of Scripture: “the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20b).

Self Defense Versus Vengeance

Resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance which is the exclusive domain of God (Romans 12:19). This has been delegated to the civil magistrate, who, as we read in Romans 13:4, “is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”

Private vengeance means one would stalk down a criminal after one’s life is no longer in danger as opposed to defending oneself during an attack. It is this very point that has been confused by Christian pacifists who would take the passage in the Sermon on the Mount about turning the other cheek (which prohibits private vengeance) into a command to falter before the wicked.

Let us consider also that the Sixth Commandment tells us “Thou shall not murder.” In the chapters following, God gave to Moses many of the situations which require a death penalty. God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life. Consider also that the civil magistrate is to be a terror to those who practice evil. This passage does not in any way imply that the role of law enforcement is to prevent crimes or to protect individuals from criminals. The magistrate is a minister to serve as “an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4).

This point is reflected in the legal doctrine of the United States. Repeatedly, courts have held that the government has no responsibility to provide individual security. One case (Bowers v. DeVito) put it this way: “there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered.”

Self Defense in the New Testament

The Christian pacifist may try to argue that God has changed His mind from the time that He gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Perhaps they would want us to think that Christ canceled out the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 or the provision for justifiably killing a thief in Exodus 22. But the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that this cannot be, because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God’s words this way: “For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6).

Paul was referring to the unchangeability of God’s Word when he wrote to Timothy that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Clearly, Paul viewed all Scripture, including the Old Testament, as useful for training Christians in every area of life.

We must also consider what Christ told his disciples in his last hours with them: “…But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier — the equivalent then of a military rifle today.

The Christian pacifist will likely object at this point that only a few hours later, Christ rebuked Peter who used a sword to cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest in the company of a detachment of troops. Let us read what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 26:52-54:

Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?

In the companion passage in John 18, Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away and told him that He had to drink the cup that His Father had given Him. It was not the first time that Christ had to explain to the disciples why He had come to earth. To fulfill the Scriptures, the Son of God had to die for the sin of man since man was incapable of paying for his own sin apart from going to hell. Christ could have saved His life, but then believers would have lost their lives forever in hell. These things only became clear to the disciples after Christ had died and been raised from the dead and the Spirit had come into the world at Pentecost (see John 14:26).

While Christ told Peter to “put your sword in its place” He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what he had told the disciples only hours before. Peter’s sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.

Years after Pentecost, Paul wrote in a letter to Timothy “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8). This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one’s family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property. Likewise it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a night-time thief to protect the members of the family (Exodus 22:2-3).

A related, and even broader concept, is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Christ had referred to the Old Testament summary of all the laws of the Bible into two great commandments: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and your neighbor as yourself’” (Luke 10:27). When asked who was a neighbor, Christ related the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). It was the Good Samaritan who took care of the mugging victim who was a neighbor to the victim. The others who walked by and ignored the victim’s plight were not acting as neighbors to him.

In the light of all we have seen the Scriptures teach to this point, can we argue that if we were able to save another’s life from an attacker by shooting the attacker with our gun that we should “turn the other cheek instead?” The Bible speaks of no such right. It only speaks of our responsibilities in the face of an attack — as individual creatures made by God, as householders or as neighbors.

National Blessings and Cursings

The Old Testament also tells us a great deal about the positive relationship between righteousness, which exalts a nation, and self defense. It makes clear that in times of national rebellion against the Lord God, the rulers of the nation will reflect the spiritual degradation of the people and the result is a denial of God’s commandments, an arrogance of officialdom, disarmament and oppression.

For example, the people of Israel were oppressed during the time of the rule of the Judges. This occurred every time the people apostatized. Judges 5:8 tells us that, “They chose new gods; then there was war in the gates; not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel.”

Consider Israel under Saul: The first book of Samuel tells of the turning away of Israel from God. The people did not want to be governed by God; they wanted to be ruled by a king like the pagan, God-hating nations around them. Samuel warned the people what they were getting into — the curses that would be upon them — if they persisted in raising up a king over themselves and their families. Included in those curses was the raising up of a standing, professional army which would take their sons and their daughters for aggressive wars (I Samuel 8:11).

This curse is not unknown in the United States. Saul carried out all the judgments that Samuel had warned the people about. His build up of a standing army has been repeated in the U.S., and not just in terms of the military, but also the 650,000 full-time police officers from all levels of government.

Saul was the king the Israelites wanted and got. He was beautiful in the eyes of the world but a disaster in the eyes of the Lord. Saul did not trust God. He rebelled against His form of sacrifice unto the Lord. Saul put himself above God. He was impatient. He refused to wait for Samuel because God’s way was taking too long. Saul went ahead and performed the sacrifice himself, thus violating God’s commandment (and, incidentally, also violating the God-ordained separation of duties of church and state!)

Thus was the kingdom lost to Saul. And, it was under him that the Philistines were able to defeat the Jews and put them into bondage. So great was the bondage exerted by the Philistines that “Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, ‘Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears.’ But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen each man’s plowshare, his mattock, his ax, and his sickle;…So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan…” (1 Samuel 13:19-20; 22-23).

Today, the same goals of the Philistines would be carried out by an oppressor who would ban gunsmiths from the land. The sword of today is the handgun, rifle or shotgun. The sword control of the Philistines is today’s gun control of those governments that do not trust their people with guns.

It is important to understand that what happened to the Jews at the time of Saul was not unexpected according to the sanctions spelled out by God in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. In the first verses of those chapters, blessings are promised to a nation that keeps God’s laws. In the latter parts of those chapters, the curses are spelled out for a nation that comes under judgment for its rebellion against God. Deuteronomy 28:47-48 helps us understand the reason for Israel’s oppression by the Philistines during Saul’s reign:

Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of all things; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you.

The Bible provides examples of God’s blessing upon Israel for its faithfulness. These blessings included a strong national defense coupled with peace. A clear example occurred during the reign of Jehoshaphat. 2 Chronicles 17 tells of how Jehoshaphat led Israel back to faithfulness to God which included a strong national defense. The result: “And the fear of the Lord fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat” (2 Chronicles 17:10).

The Israelite army was a militia army (Numbers 1:3, ff.) which came to battle with each man bearing his own weapons — from the time of Moses, through the Judges, and beyond. When threatened by the Midianites, for example, “Moses spoke to the people , saying, ‘Arm some of yourselves for the war, and let them go against the Midianites to take vengeance for the Lord on Midian’” (Numbers 31:3). Again, to demonstrate the Biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David’s time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, “David said to his men, ‘Every man gird on his sword.’ So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword” (1 Samuel 25:13).

Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders, each man — each servant — armed with his own weapon:

Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built (Nehemiah 4:17-18).

Conclusion

The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is consistent with the lessons of the Bible. Instruments of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of the central government. In a godly country, righteousness governs each man through the Holy Spirit working within. The government has no cause to want a monopoly of force; the government that desires such a monopoly is a threat to the lives, liberty and property of its citizens.

The assumption that only danger can result from people carrying guns is used to justify the government’s having a monopoly of force. The notion that the people cannot be trusted to keep and bear their own arms informs us that ours, like the time of Solomon, may be one of great riches but is also a time of peril to free people. If Christ is not our King, we shall have a dictator to rule over us, just as Samuel warned.

For those who think that God treated Israel differently from the way He will treat us today, please consider what God told the prophet Malachi: “For I am the Lord, I do not change…” (Malachi 3:6).

Posted in Christianity, Family, Fatherhood, Firearms, History, Homeschooling, Liberty, Personal Freedom, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” Is About Obama’s Terror-Suspect Kill List, Say the Film’s Directors

There are currently no plans to screen Captain America: The Winter Soldier at the White House, as far as the film’s directors have heard. But if it makes it to the White House family theater, President Obama would be watching one big-budget, action-packed, and Scarlett Johansson-starring critique of his controversial terror-suspect “kill list.”

This isn’t me reading things into a mainstream comic-book movie. It’s what the directors themselves will tell you.

“[Marvel] said they wanted to make a political thriller,” Joe Russo, who directed the film with his brother Anthony, tells Mother Jones. “So we said if you want to make a political thriller, all the great political thrillers have very current issues in them that reflect the anxiety of the audience…That gives it an immediacy, it makes it relevant. So [Anthony] and I just looked at the issues that were causing anxiety for us, because we read a lot and are politically inclined. And a lot of that stuff had to do with civil liberties issues, drone strikes, the president’s kill list, preemptive technology”—all themes they worked into the film, working closely with screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely.

In The Winter Soldier, Captain America and the rest of the heroes (played by Chris Evans, Anthony Mackie, Samuel L. JacksonCobie Smulders, and so on) confront the government program Project Insight, which involves three Helicarriers (gigantic autonomous killer drones, basically) that are fed large amounts of data and intel. The Helicarriers process the data to identify and preemptively eliminate potential threats to national and global security. And though the film’s topical parts were all crafted prior to the NSA revelations, the directors say it’s no accident that data mining is a key element of the plot: “It was all leading up to Snowden,” Joe says. “It was all in the ether [already], it was all part of the zeitgeist. The Snowden stuff actually happened while we were shooting.”

“If there are 100 people we can kill to make us safer, do we do it? What if we find out there’s 1,000?…What if it’s a million?”

The politics of The Winter Soldier fit comfortably into the Russo brothers’ oeuvre, which has included plenty of political satire and commentary. Prior to The Winter Soldier, the duo was best known for directing episodes of Arrested Development, which produced some of the finest satire of the Bush era and Iraq War, and Community, which is also peppered with solid political humor and jabs. (As for their go-to sources for news and politics, Anthony’s top two are the the New York Times and NPR, while Joe’s are Digg and Reddit.) The day I interviewed them, they happened to be in Washington, DC, to meet with the Congressional Creative Rights Caucus.

According to Joe, the brothers pushed to make their Captain America political thriller even more political and topical than it initially was. “There were already things in the script that just needed to be pulled out to make it more [relevant],” he recalls. One of the film’s stars, Robert Redford, was approached for the role in large part because he starred in the 1975 political thriller Three Days of the Condor.

“[That film] was a big influence on this movie,” Joe says. “You could really call this movie ‘Three Days of Captain America,’ if you wanted to. The structure is so similar…We felt like we had a decent shot at getting [Redford] because the script had a political component to it and we thought that might motivate him.”

But don’t take any of this to mean the film is a stern lecture on American foreign policy. It’s thrilling as hell, and also the best to emerge in the recent string of Marvel movies. “We’re action fetishists,” Joe says. “And we love ’70s thrillers.” The brothers drew on the influence of some of their favorite action-flick moments: The famous bank heist and shootout in Michael Mann’s Heat. William Friedkin’s The French Connection. John Schlesinger’s Marathon Man. John McTiernan’s Predator. Gareth Evans’ The Raid: Redemption. (And for the Washington, DC-set car chase in The Winter Soldier, the brothers consulted YouTube, searching for videos of actual car chases. One video—wherein two escaped convicts in Brazil get stuck in traffic and plow through cars as police pursue them on foot—was especially helpful.) “Choreographing action, it’s like choreographing a Broadway show,” Anthony says.

But at the heart of the explosion and melee -filled film are the political themes, including targeted killing. “The question is where do you stop?” Joe says. “If there are 100 people we can kill to make us safer, do we do it? What if we find out there’s 1,000? What if we find out there’s 10,000? What if it’s a million? At what point do you stop?”

Here’s a clip from the new Captain America: YouTube Preview Image

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2014/04/captain-america-winter-soldier-obama-kill-list-politics-drones-nsa

Posted in Children, Current Events, Family, Fatherhood, Government Corruption, Liberty, Movies, News, Personal Freedom, Tyranny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Captain America’ Denounces The DHS, NSA And The Overall National Security State As The Nazification Of The USA And Says THEY’VE GOT TO GO!

Spoiler alert: I’m in no way guarding my words in discussing this film, but I mean to get you to watch it and encourage others to do so– especially kids– even if you know every word of the script

Last night my son, T.J., took me to see ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’. I came home absolutely excited and delighted. This new film– certain to be a blockbuster anyway just for its towering success with all the normal metrics of action, drama, effects and pace– goes high on my list of important political films of the last decade.

This is a “Marvel Hero” vehicle, of course. It is thus rich with all the elements of fantasy native to that genre (all of which I appreciate).

But this new movie is also an unapologetic and completely ingenuous rebuke to the National Security State.

Full advantage is taken of the fact that the hero, Steve Rogers (aka, “Captain America”), was born in 1918 and spent the last 70 years in a state of suspended animation. When Rogers awakened from that interlude to today’s ‘total awareness’, ‘rendition and detention’, ‘drone assassination’ regime of ubiquitous government and its defensive corruptions of the law, he did so with the perspective of an American from a time when this country was a lot more free and the United States (the federal government) was a lot more law-abiding.

Rogers’ unique perspective is not played in comic-book fashion, though. There is no time or attention wasted with the character marveling at all the technological change of the past 70 years. Instead, Rogers’ circumstances are used simply to provide a convenient, highly-accessible contrast between the moral clarity more typical to an earlier time and today’s relativistic immorality in order to better communicate the filmmaker’s very serious message.

That message begins with Rogers’ righteous and confident denunciation of signature strikes, profiling, pre-emptive war, mass surveillance, and the corrupt arguments used to defend them. He is met with the usual, “Well, the world is a different place, now…” babytalk from Nick Fury, another Marvel hero-character, and the head of the Marvel Universe’s U.S. DHS/NSA/CIA-equivalent law-enforcement apparatus, S.H.I.E.L.D. (the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division).

Rogers buys none of Fury’s arguments, and refuses to help implement S.H.I.E.L.D.’s ‘final solution’ to the “problem” of terrorists, extremists and troublemaking in general– a dramatic advancement of all of these law-enforcement evils into an expanded, consolidated infrastructure. Instead, he walks.

Soon we discover that, unlike the moronic REAL cartoon-grade characters that populate two-dimensional nonsense like “24″ and “Zero Dark Thirty”, Rogers has it pegged. As anyone who ever bothered to give it a moment’s thought understands, when people allow the tools of totalitarianism to be put in place, totalitarians will eventually take hold of them. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that S.H.I.E.L.D. is a project of the only types that would see anything but horror and doom in its assaults on the principles of liberty and proper law– leftover World War II Nazis and their modern ideological descendants.

In the end, the epiphany and the “coming around” due to the way events play out in this very grown-up comic-book movie happen for Fury, not Rogers. In the end, all the good guys– eventually even Fury– agree that a structure like S.H.I.E.L.D., for all of what might have been the good intentions behind it, is too dangerous to tolerate. Hear, hear.

The importance of this film is in its popular accessibility (and its unabashed use of that accessibility to deliver its important message). It IS a comic book offering– simple, serene in its lack of pretense, more than a little intellectually black-and-white. In those things, though, this movie importantly invokes the purity of a moral principle that blows past statist sophistries and legal hair-splitting.

‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ offers two simple truths. The first is that we may not always be able to see just HOW respecting everyone’s rights will deliver a better outcome in the end than disrespecting them. But that doesn’t matter. We just have to respect those rights, because its the right thing to do. The fact that we WILL have a “better” outcome on every other front from doing so is actually irrelevant (but it’s nice that it DOES, in fact, work out that way…)

The second simple truth offered by this film is that DIS-respecting people’s rights IS ITSELF too bad an outcome to be borne, no matter how much good we may be persuaded to imagine it will otherwise do.

This dialogue toward the end of the film between Robert Redford’s character, Alexander Pierce– the politician in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D., and an oversight-council member from India he is trying to persuade to support his program (even while holding him and the rest of the council at gunpoint), sums up the message of the movie well:

Alexander: “What if Pakistan marched into Mumbai tomorrow and you knew they were going to drag your daughter into a soccer stadium for execution? And you could just stop it with the flick of a switch. Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you all?”

The councilman responds with a grim and disgusted look: “Not if it was your switch.”

Can I hear a Hallelujah? Decent people don’t want that kind of switch to even exist. Nor do sensible people.

‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ is not a cerebral movie, nor even a witty movie. It’s just a Hero’s Tale, with its hero speaking honest, sensible and uncomplicated wisdom in a way that will reach every viewer’s heart and soul, and stick there. This is just the sort of thing we desperately need in our popular culture, and I hope 330 million Americans go see it.

-Pete Hendrickson

P. S. After you see the film, read about America’s REAL ‘Shield’ here. Then get up and become an American hero yourself. There really IS no “Captain America”– there’s just you, and we’re all counting on you.

Posted in Children, Current Events, Family, Fatherhood, Government Corruption, Liberty, Movies, News, Personal Freedom | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Harry Reid Calls Cliven Bundy Supporters “Domestic Terrorists” – Recall Reid Now!

Paul Joseph Watson

Senator Harry Reid has escalated the war of words over the Cliven Bundy dispute, sensationally labeling the Nevada cattle rancher’s supporters “domestic terrorists” during an event in Las Vegas today.

During a ‘Hashtags & Headlines’ event at the Paris Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Reid referred to Bundy supporters as “Nothing more than domestic terrorists,” adding, “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

Reid was referring to the stand off on Saturday in Bunkerville where Bundy supporters, some of whom were armed, forced Bureau of Land Management agents to back down and release around 380 head of cattle belonging to Bundy that had been seized over the course of the previous week.

Reid claimed that Bundy viewed the United States as a “foreign government,” while accusing his supporters of goading violence.

“There were hundreds, hundreds of people from around the country that came there,” Reid said. “They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?”

Despite Reid’s characterization of Bundy supporters as “domestic terrorists,” the only violence metered out during the dispute was when BLM agents tasered and assaulted Bundy supporters during an incident on April 9.

No matter where you stand on the Bundy issue, Reid’s characterization of American protesters as “domestic terrorists” is chilling and a massive backlash is almost certain to follow.

It also fits the narrative that the federal government has been pushing for years through literature such as the MIAC report, which framed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag, as potential terrorists. In 2012, a Homeland Security study was leaked which characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

Reid attracted controversy earlier this week when he promised that the BLM’s fight with Bundy was “not over”. The Nevada Senator was hit with accusations of cronyism after his former staffer Neil Kornze was confirmed as the new BLM director earlier this month.

Reid is obviously angry after his complicity in the siege against the Bundy family was exposed and became a viral story. Although many news outlets claimed this issue was “debunked,” Reid’s involvement in a solar farm just 35 miles from Bundy’s ranch is documentedArchived files which were deleted from the BLM’s own website confirm that confiscating Bundy’s cattle was necessary in order to clear the way for lucrative solar deals with transnational corporations.

Meanwhile, the BLM has admitted slaughtering two prize bulls belonging to Cliven Bundy during their round up of his cattle. The BLM claims the bulls “posed a safety hazard” but refused to elaborate. Bundy supporters have pointed to photographs which appear to show one of the bulls having suffered a gunshot wound.

Historic! Feds Forced to Surrender to American Citizens. Watch the historic stand off between Bundy supporters and BLM feds below. YouTube Preview Image

Posted in Current Events, Elected Officials Positions, Family, Fatherhood, Firearms, Government Corruption, Liberty, Martial Law, News, Personal Freedom, Politics, Third War For American Independence, Tyranny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Communist Chinese Takeover of All US Energy

By Dave Hodges The Common Sense Show April 14, 2014

communist chinese

China, allied with Russia, is in the process of taking over the United States, or should I say that our public officials are giving away the country to them. In the following paragraphs, the analysis is limited to Chinese based interests, but the same could be said for the Russians as well.

In my previous article, it was clearly demonstrated that the Chinese are preparing, among other things, to assume control of supplying America’s energy needs at a cost that they deem appropriate. It is a simple business proposition. They own our debt, we have defaulted and they are here to be compensated.

The Giveaway of American Energy to the Chinese

The Bundy affair affirmed the fact that Chinese are being handed control of solar energy inside the United States and that this is being facilitated by Senator Harry Reid. The takeover of American energy is being manifested on many fronts, but in particular, it is being concentrated on the takeover of the solar industry in the new Agenda 21 designation with the so-called “Solar Energy Zones”.

These Solar Energy Zones are appearing in multiple locations in such places as Southwestern Arizona, Barstow, CA. and Victorville, CA., and now I am receiving on the ground reports from Colorado and Utah as well. These designated Solar Energy Zones have very similar variables in common. The following chart indicates that the debt compensation will consist of complete control of the solar industry and will be expanded to other energy sources (e.g. hydroelectric and nuclear power). Again, here is a chart which demonstrates the commonalities shared by these Solar Energy Zones.

Coincidence or Conspiracy?

Chinese Solar on Bundy’s Ranch                                       Arizona Solar Farm

Chinese money backing project Chinese money involved in project
Creation of Agenda 21 “Solar Energy Zone” Creation of Agenda 21 “Solar Energy Zone”
Located near a Canamex Highway (I-15) Located near a Canamex Highway (1-10)
Located near a major energy source (Hoover Dam) Located near a major energy source (Palo Verde Nuclear Plant)
Located near a major military base (Nellis AFB) Located near a major military base ancillary facilities (Luke AFB)

Further, the above chart indicates that the Chinese will control a good portion of American transportation. The proximity of Solar Energy Zones to the Canamex Highway Corridor system speaks to this intent. There is also a military aspect of this that should jump out at the reader and this will be discussed in detail in the next part in this series.

Long Beach

If one thinks that the location of these Solar Energy Zones next to a Canamex, or planned Canamex Highway Corridor system is a coincidence, they should take a close look at what is happening at Long Beach, CA.

The control of the American transportation system is no more pronounced than it is in Long Beach, CA. The deep water port at Long Beach is the only of its type on the West Coast. And this country’s government has GIVEN AWAY the Long Beach deep water port to the Chinese. The giveaway of both the military installation and the deep water port goes live next year in 2015. YouTube Preview Image

Grid Ex II

grid ex ii

The Chinese were recently on American soil and were invited to participate in the recently completed Grid EX II drill. This is the height of either stupidity or treason. In the last several months, the Chinese have threatened to nuke us over our intentions to invade Syria and Iran, and then we subsequently let them see the vulnerabilities of our power grid by allowing them to participate in the Grid Ex II drill in November of 2013 in which DHS practiced for a simulated takedown of the American power grid by an EMP weapon? Does anyone else think this is insane in that we would give the knowledge of the inner workings of our power grid to the Chinese, our enemy? However, the Chinese presence on American soil for Grid EX II is just a foothold in relation to what is coming.

The Chinese are being shown how to control entire energy grid of the United States. You don’t believe it? Then explain why they had access to highly secure areas, during the Grid Ex II drill, and now know how to bring down the grid with a computer key stroke. Will this become the false flag event that will bring on martial law which will be enforced by foreign assets? At one time, this would have been dismissed as idle speculation, but in today’s political climate it is a real possibility.

I swallowed hard as I write these words, because I know this spells the end of America as we know it because we are about to living under new management. If you doubt this, then please reread the preceding paragraphs . The Solar Energy Zones are located in proximity to major energy sources for a reason and now it appears clear as to why this is true. However, it is not just the Solar Energy Zones that we have to worry about.

Harry Reid Is Not the Only Traitor

This plot is bigger than the Solar Energy Zones. According to World Net Daily and Joseph Farah, there are a total of 10 named United States Senators now known to be involved with the special trip Harry Reid made to China in 2011 supposedly to invite Chinese investment in the United States. According to Farah, this is a clever scheme to sell off below market value valuable land, mineral, and water rights to communist China so they can set up “large investment zones” within America owned and controlled by communist China corporations which are only accountable to China’s government.

Farah identified the other nine senators as Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

The Farah article also made mention of a series of Chinese incursions into the American energy domain as reported by the Wall Street Journal on March 6, 2012. The state-by-state list of the $17 billion in oil and natural gas equity interests CNOOC and Sinopec have acquired in the United States since 2010.

  • “Colorado: CNOOC gained a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southwest Wyoming in a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy Corporation.

  • Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.

  • Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.

  • Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal.

  • Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.

  • Texas: CNOOC acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal.

  • Wyoming: CNOOC has a one-third stake in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming after a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy. Sinopec gained a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 320,000 acres as part of a larger $2.5-billion deal”.

The Wall Street Journal article concluded this is partial payment to the Chinese for our debt. And please believe me when I say that this payment to the Chinese is only the very small tip of the iceberg for what is coming.

Conclusion

Mr. Farah is to be congratulated for making this major connection to the Bundy Affair. This information also explains “the why” which underlies these Solar Energy Zones.

This information also matches what researcher Vicky Davis has been saying, but Davis goes one step further than Mr. Farah. Vicky states that at designated Inland Ports, there are massive amounts of Chinese troops operating within these ports. Vicky Davis and Cassandra Anderson will be my guests on the talk show on April 27th to discuss these and other related points. Perhaps the fact that these Solar Energy Zones are located next to a large military installation will not begin to get the country’s attention.

The military threat posed by this treason will be explored in the next part in this series.

And if you think this ordeal is over for the Bundy family, please read this communication sent to me last night by Steve Quayle.

Begin forwarded message:

Posted on Bundy Ranch
ALERT From Multiple Truckers: Fleet of 50 blacked out vehicle’s 40 miles south of the Bundy ranch heading that way. ‘Like’ and Share for everyone to
know! #StandwithBundy

This is just getting started!

Posted in Current Events, Government Corruption, Martial Law, News, Tyranny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. Senator Reid, Son Combine for China Firm’s Desert Plant

image

By Marcus Stern

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senator Harry Reid recognized nine years ago that connections between his official duties and the lobbying activities of his relatives could lead to ethical questions.

In 2003, the Nevada Democrat publicly banned relatives from lobbying him or his staff after newspaper reports showed that Nevada industries and institutions routinely turned to Reid’s sons or son-in-law for representation.

Now, questions surrounding family ties are flaring again in Nevada around the Senate majority leader. He and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert.

Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the non-partisan advocacy group Public Citizen, said the senator is dealing with “an iffy ethical landscape” because of the family connections and should recuse himself from the project. “Is this just happening because … it benefits the Reid family, or did Harry Reid actually believe in this?” Holman said.

The senator has supported numerous clean energy projects in Nevada. Rory Reid cites energy as one of his specialty areas at the law firm.

The two Reids deny discussing the ENN project.

“I have never discussed the project with my father or his staff,” said Rory Reid. Kristen Orthman, a spokeswoman for the senator, said he had not discussed the project with his son.

The Langfang, China-based ENN Energy Group hopes to build what would be the largest solar energy complex in America. The site chosen with Rory Reid’s guidance is in tiny Laughlin, Nevada, a gambling town of 7,300 along the Colorado River, 90 miles south of Las Vegas.

County officials have said that they were so thrilled to recruit a company to the area, with the prospect of thousands of new local jobs, that they were eager to negotiate.

ENN is headed by Chinese energy tycoon Wang Yusuo, who made a fortune estimated by Forbes at $2.2 billion distributing natural gas in China. Wang escorted Reid and a delegation of nine other U.S. senators on a tour of the company’s clean energy operations in Langfang, and Reid featured Wang as a speaker at his 4th annual National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas last year.

NEVADA’S LARGEST LAW FIRM

To advance the Nevada project, ENN retained the state’s largest and most prestigious law firm – Lionel Sawyer & Collins, where Rory Reid works. It is headed by Richard Bryan, a former Nevada attorney general, governor and member of the U.S. Senate.

Rory Reid faced a one-year cooling off period from lobbying the Clark County commission after leaving his post in January 2011, and Bryan took the lead on ENN’s negotiations with the county.

Since the one-year ban expired, Rory Reid has been ENN’s primary representative before the county, according to Steve Sisolak, the board’s vice chairman.

Rory Reid acknowledged representing ENN at both the county and state levels since January. He declined to discuss the project otherwise.

Two months after Harry Reid’s China trip, Lionel Sawyer registered ENN Mohave Energy LLC as an American subsidiary of the Chinese company. The firm negotiated with the county to buy the land rather than lease it, as the county’s staff had recommended.

In December, Clark County commissioners voted unanimously to sell up to 9,000 acres of public land to the subsidiary at pennies on the dollar.

The deal spurred local controversy. Separate appraisals valued the land at $29.6 million and $38.6 million. The commission agreed to sell it to ENN for $4.5 million.

The county did build in certain conditions before the project could begin, including milestones for jobs creation and investment. ENN also must assure the county that it has a power company willing to commit to buying energy from the solar farm. But in the eight months since the commissioners approved the deal, no utility has signed a power purchase agreement.

However, Harry Reid stepped up again.

The Democrat recently used an online discussion related to his annual energy summit for an as-yet unsuccessful effort to pressure Nevada’s largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as ENN’s first customer.

In the July 30 discussion, Reid said the project “would start tomorrow if NV Energy would purchase the power.” The utility controls “95 percent of all of the electricity that is produced in Nevada and they should go along with this.” Reid’s online comments were first reported by the Las Vegas Review Journal.

The power company responded by saying it had exceeded its minimum renewable energy requirements both last year and this year, though it would consider buying power from ENN in the future. A spokesman for NV Energy declined to discuss the matter further.

Bryan, the head of the law firm, did not return repeated phone calls and emails.

An official with ENN in Langfang did not respond to emails.

In 2007, after a controversy over the number of lawmaker relatives engaged in lobbying, Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, sharply restricting the lobbying activities of close relatives of members of Congress.

The law only applies to registered lobbyists and Rory Reid is not registered as a federal lobbyist in Washington or a state lobbyist in Nevada, according to records in both jurisdictions.

(Reporting By Marcus Stern; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson, Martin Howell)

Posted in Current Events, Elected Officials Positions, Government Corruption, Tyranny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BLM Selling Out America-Fabian Calvo

Fabian Calvo

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com 

Real estate expert Fabian Calvo thinks the recent standoff between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy is about much more than grazing rights.  Even though this standoff is over, we find out It’s really about sweetheart deals for federal land.  Calvo says, “The hair on the back of my neck stood up when I was doing research for this and speaking to some of my contacts on Wall Street.  The BLM is part of the Department of the Interior, and look at what they have been doing?  Through the BLM, the Department of the Interior has been confiscating land and going after land, for example, in the high desert in California and all over the place.  What I am hearing is they are categorizing this land for future collateralization or to sell off.  In the Weimar (Germany) hyperinflation, after the hyperinflation, what did they back their currency with?  They backed it with mortgages and they backed it with land.  This is a total possibility here in America, but here’s the part that is more sinister and crazy.  The Department of the Interior and BLM have been providing sweetheart deals for Chinese investors.  I have a laundry list of deals that have been approved just in the last year.  Whether it’s Smithfield, a giant hog producer in America, and all of the farm land, overnight, the Chinese became the number one employer in a ton of cities across the U.S., but it doesn’t stop there.  Chinese investors are getting approval for solar fields.  There are battery companies they have taken over, and the list goes on and on.  The USDA gave the Chinese approval to import their chickens.  Why is this happening?  It is an end of the road situation.  It is just like where America was with England when we were exercising leverage over them around WWII because we were the largest creditor nation.  Now, we are the largest debtor nation, and we owe all this money to the Chinese.  In order to not have them dump our debt, we’re basically allowing them, through the Department of the Interior who is stealing rancher land and killing their cattle, they are selling out America.” 

As far as the crisis between the federal government and the Bundy ranch in Nevada that is now over, Calvo says, “I think this Bundy ranch situation could be the Lexington and Concord of the Second American Revolution.  I know that sounds like hyperbole, but look, people are waking up to this insanity.  When this information comes out . . . we need a peaceful show of we are not going to take it.  We really need a Rambo in the financial sector to take these people on to expose their crimes and what’s going on.”  Calvo goes on to say, “People need to understand this is not some sort of theory about what is happening–it’s a fact.  All you need to do is Google ‘U.S. Department of Interior and China approved,’ or something like that, and you will see all these stories come up and the deals that have been approved. . . . In order to keep the world reserve currency and keep that Ponzi scheme up, the U.S. basically has, as long as possible, they need to be able to collateralize stuff and do all these sweetheart deals so that the country that has us over a barrel, namely China, doesn’t dump our debt.  Just last month, we had this BBC documentary where Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson says, in the 2008 crash, he was pleading with China, those are his words not mine, pleading with them to not dump U.S. mortgage-backed securities.  In all of this QE, make no mistake, a lot of those mortgage-backed securities that the Fed was buying were a lot of the garbage they sold to China. They are now buying it back, and they are literally worthless garbage pieces of paper.”

As far as the continuing $55 billion a month the Fed is spending buying bonds, Calvo says, “Bottom line is I don’t believe anything they say.  It’s much more than that because the economy is not getting any better.”

On the rash of banker deaths in the last few months, Calvo reports, “The people on Wall Street that I speak with think it is totally plausible that these people are being murdered to prevent an economic Edward Snowden from exposing the economic crime and fraud that is taking place.  The system is scared to death.  That’s why I am saying we need a financial Rambo to come out and expose what they are doing. . . . Hey look, if you have an economic Edward Snowden come out and expose the fraud of the derivatives, credit default swaps, manipulation of interest rates, it’s game over.  You need trust in the financial market for it to operate, and when the trust blows up, it is game over. . . . You can see the cracks already taking place with the market plunge . . . . In my opinion, people are really getting shaky as far as trust in this financial market.”

As far as the big players in the real estate market, Calvo, whose company buys and sells $100 million in real estate annually, says, “They are not going to buy; they are going to start selling off.  This is what I have been talking about since we have been doing interviews.  It’s the pump and dump of the U.S. housing market.  All the lenders are saying we want to start doing subprime loans.  After 2014, you are going to see subprime loans roar back with style. . . . You are going to see real estate go absolutely buck wild, unless there is some sort of black swan event.  Real investors are scared to death of the imploding U.S. dollar. . . . Not everybody is a gold investor, and real estate is a tangible hard asset that can be rented out.  I think home prices could go up until we have another full blown collapse.  I think the collapse of the housing market will be coupled with the stock market collapse, the bond market collapse and the dollar collapse.  Everything will blow at once.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Fabian Calvo from TheNoteHouse.us.  YouTube Preview Image

After the interview:

Calvo told me he’s working on a new book about the coming global economic reset.  He says it will be out at the end of April.  You can keep track of Fabian Calvo on his personal website called Fabian4Liberty.com. 

Posted in Current Events, Family, Fatherhood, Firearms, Government Corruption, Liberty, Martial Law, Men, News, Personal Freedom, Third War For American Independence, Tyranny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment