The Truth Behind Federal Land Grabs

This is all part of Agenda 21, which is intended to force people out of rural areas

Is the federal government so desperate to monopolize land that it’s literally burning down the forests they are supposed to manage?

Infowars interviewed Oregon logger Tad Houpt, with the Grant Co. Forest Commission, who had organized the meeting where Ammon Bundy, LaVoy Finicum and others were going to speak to 400 people and the Grant Co. Sheriff before Finicum was killed by the FBI and the other speakers were arrested.

“This last summer we had the biggest fire we’ve ever had here, 110,000 acres,” Houpt said. “I was one of the people who got burned out; close to 50 homes burnt.”

He believes this happened because the forests managed by the U.S. Forest Service are “a disaster.”

Houpt also mentioned there were “about 2 tons [per acre] of light fuels [dead trees & other organic matter] on the ground are known to be acceptable and the live trees will withstand the fire,” but he added that “some areas of the federally managed lands exceed 500 tons per acre of fuel on the ground,” i.e. 250 times the safe limit.

“I’m telling you this is intentional,” he said. “If a jet liner crashes there’s an immediate investigation into what caused that jet liner’s crash.”

“These fires are happening all over the western U.S. and there’s no investigation, they don’t even want to talk about what’s causing them and it’s their policies [that] are 100% causing these fires.”

And perpetuating the fire dangers and the resulting economic hardships are the BLM’s arbitrary rules, such as the ban on cutting trees greater than 21 inches in diameter — even if a tree is burned and dead.

Instead of providing lumber and livelihood for loggers, dead trees greater than 21 inches in diameter will be allowed to remain, increasing the fuel on the ground and the danger and intensity of future fires.

This is all part of Agenda 21, which is intended to force people out of rural areas and into large cities where they can be easily taxed and controlled.

Signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush and later phased in by President Bill Clinton, the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development program is based on communitarianism, which calls for government to eventually take control of all land use without leaving any decision making in the hands of private property owners.

“It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control,” Agenda 21 expert Rosa Koire wrote, who is a Californian Democrat and the author of Behind The Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21. “Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body.”

And if you already live in an urban area, you may already be familiar with some key aspects of Agenda 21:

– The accelerated implementation of toll roads, especially toll roads that discourage driving by increasing prices for traveling alone or for driving in “congested” areas

– The development of expensive and inefficient public rail systems in cities in order to increase centralized government control while also reducing the use of private transportation

– Utilities monitored by “Smart Meters” which can be controlled remotely by public utility companies

– The purposeful lack of easy freeway access in cities so residents remain close to their neighborhoods

Another good example of how Agenda 21 is currently being implemented is to look at the mass construction of “mixed use” condos which feature retail stores on the ground floor with several residential floors above.

These buildings are designed to restrict people from traveling by placing businesses within walking distance – and, interestingly, medieval serfs were likewise not able to travel long distances.

And, despite being fiction, the megacities in the comic series Judge Dredd feature many planned aspects of Agenda 21, a scary scenario even if real cities never completely match these fictional counterparts.

The overall intent of Agenda 21 is to expand government power at the expense of individual liberties by moving the population out of rural areas and packing them into major cities where they are more dependent on city infrastructure controlled by the government.

While Agenda 21 proponents constantly harp that the program is “voluntary,” it is a moot point when so many cities are already implementing Agenda 21 which clearly benefits the government at the expense of its citizens.

“The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms and take away your voice,” Koire added.


Is Ross Ulbricht a Libertarian Hero?

Ulbricht’s crime? Competing with the CIA
Is Ross Ulbricht a Libertarian Hero?

by Jeff Deist | | June 2, 2015

Last Friday came the unpleasant news that Ross Ulbricht, the 31-year-old former operator of the Silk Road site, has been sentenced by a federal court to life in prison without parole.

This follows his conviction in February for typically dubious (nowhere in the Constitution) federal crimes including conspiracy, money laundering, and the circular “engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise.”

His sentence, which appears unduly sadistic even by today’s standards, was handed down with a lecture from Judge Katherine B. Forrest:

“[What] is clear is that you were captain of the ship as Dread Pirate Roberts and you made your own law. It was your opus, and you wanted it to be your legacy.” “What you did was unprecedented,” she told Ulbricht, “and in breaking that ground as the first person he had to be punished accordingly.”

“You are no better a person than any other drug dealer.”

Too bad he wasn’t sentenced like any other drug dealer.

The central issue in the Ulbricht case, as always, is an evil and unbridled federal government. No human being should be locked away for engaging in (or facilitating) peaceful, voluntary commerce among willing participants. Dark sites like Silk Road, and the cyber payment systems they employ, exist because of state prohibitions on voluntary human conduct. They are natural market reactions to government interference. This cannot be overstated.

But is Ulbricht a commendable libertarian martyr by definition, simply by virtue of falling into the crosshairs of an immoral federal government waging an unjust drug war? Does lamenting his indefensible sentence mean celebrating him and his actions?

The libertarian blogosphere certainly seems to think so. Social media buzzed all weekend with praise for Ulbricht as a brave soul who created a safer alternative to buying drugs off the street. For many libertarians, he is worthy of praise for taking agorism to the next level via technology — for challenging the state head on, and paying the price.

Ulbricht himself is no longer so sure. He exhibits deep regret not only for throwing his young life away, but also for dragging his family through hell. And he apparently no longer shares the same view of maximum freedom that his libertarian champions hold:

“Silk Road was supposed to be about giving people the freedom to make their own choices, to pursue their own happiness,” he said. “I learned from Silk Road that when you give people freedom, you don’t know what they’ll do with it.”

Who can blame him for changing his tune in the end, whether to curry favor with the judge or not? After all, it won’t be his Facebook fans spending the next five or six decades in a supermax federal cell.

Furthermore, there are allegations by federal prosecutors that Ulbricht sought to have several people killed for threatening to disrupt the operation of Silk Road. Now of course we must rush to Ulbricht’s defense here: prosecutors are notorious liars, and undoubtedly they floated the solicitation of murder charge both to discredit him publicly and to deny him bail pending trial. Furthermore, even the most specious allegations often scare the daylights out of suspects and thus help secure plea agreements. So we shouldn’t put much faith into this, especially since the solicitation charges were not merely dropped by prosecutors — they were never brought at all (despite the sentencing judge’s contention that Ulbricht’s unambiguous journal entries prove he paid hit men — his mother thinks the entries are bogus).

It’s tempting to dismiss the simplistic power of the state’s narrative about Ulbricht. But hit men aside, do libertarians really want to create a cause célèbre out of a young man who used his intelligence and talents to sell drugs online? Even without thoroughly understanding his background and personality?

Agorism and its implications, however much they resonate with libertarians, have always been a losing proposition with the general public. The public might rally behind a medical doctor who supplies marijuana illegally to help a sick cancer patient, or an individual suffering with MS who uses a foreign online pharmacy to obtain prescription drugs not approved by the FDA.

But trafficking in “illicit” drugs — drugs used recreationally or by addicts rather than medical patients — is something different altogether. And while attitudes toward marijuana have changed considerably, organs like the DEA remain effective at portraying traffickers as ruthless and sinister criminals.

Unfortunately the Silk Road prosecution will only strengthen dark connections in the public hive mind between internet markets, privacy, cryptocurrencies, and real (i.e. not victimless) criminality. That these connections are mostly unfounded misses the point: the conflation of voluntaryist agorism with libertarianism is not likely to push the public in our direction.

Ulbricht is reputed to have read Rothbard. But Rothbard wrote the definitive contra agorism article way back in 1980, when online markets existed only in sci-fi novels. Engaging in a friendly joust with agorist figurehead Samuel Konkin, Rothbard demonstrated a decidedly negative view of agorism’s value to the libertarian movement:

It is no accident … that the entire spectrum of the black market movement, from tax rebels to agoric theoreticians, are almost exclusively self-employed. … Black marketeers might well benefit themselves in the micro sense, but they have no relevance to the “macro” struggle for liberty and against the State. Indeed, in a kind of reverse invisible hand, they might even be counterproductive. It is possible that the Soviet black market, for example, is so productive that it keeps the entire monstrous Soviet regime afloat, and that without it the Soviet system would collapse. This does not mean, of course, that I scorn or oppose black market activities in Russia; it is just to reveal some of the unpleasant features of the real world.

Much as I love the market, I refuse to believe that when I engage in a regular market transaction (e.g., buying a sandwich) or a black-market activity (e.g., driving at 60 miles per hour) I advance one iota nearer the libertarian revolution. The black market is not going to be the path to liberty, and libertarian theoreticians and activists have no function in that market.

In other words, black market entrepreneurs (like all entrepreneurs) will sink or swim without the assistance of libertarian theorists.

Clearly Mr. Ulbricht is the victim of shocking injustice. But his story serves as a cautionary tale about the priorities of those who seek a freer society. We should celebrate men and women of good character who wake up every day and provide us with value — whether economic, familial, social, civil, or religious. These are true libertarian heroes, individuals who go around, under, over, or through the state and its clutches in their everyday lives. It is not always the swashbuckling anti-hero, but often the quiet, sober, staid, bourgeois businessman who deserves praise for sustaining us.

Black, Democrat Sheriff: Obama Fueling Racial Division for Federal Takeover of Police

“Obama started this war on police intentionally, right in line with his community agitating,” he tweeted

by Kit Daniels | | May 11, 2015

President Obama is fueling racial tensions between African-Americans and the police to justify a federal takeover of local law enforcement, warned Milwaukee’s Democratic Sheriff David A. Clarke.

Sheriff Clarke, an African-American who’s been in office since 2002, sent out a series of tweets warning that the Obama administration was exploiting recent police shootings, including the deaths of two Hattiesburg, Miss., police officers on Saturday, to incite racial division so the Justice Dept. could expand federal control over local police.

“Obama’s reaction will be to sic [the DOJ] on Hattiesburg P.D. to look for patterns of racism,” he said about the Hattiesburg shootings.

The sheriff characterized Obama’s desire to “transform” policing as a federal power grab.

“Obama started this war on police intentionally, right in line with his community agitating,” he tweeted.

And a week ago, Sheriff Clarke warned that the new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, would “pick up where Holder left off: Capture more local police departments and place [them] under federal control.”

He’s right: back in March the Obama administration published the Task Force on 21st Century Policing, a plan which advocates the federalization of police agencies across the country by forcing them to adhere to stricter requirements when they receive federal funding.

“The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services [COPS] and Office of Justice Programs, should provide technical assistance and incentive funding to jurisdictions with small police agencies that take steps towards shared services, regional training, and consolidation,” one of the plan’s numerous recommendations stated.

President Obama said the plan’s recommendations “are directed at the 18,000 law enforcement jurisdictions that are out there.”

“I’m going to be asking Eric Holder and the Justice Department and his successor [current A.G. Lynch] to go through all these recommendations so that we can start implementing them,” he said. “I know that one area that’s going to be of great interest is whether we can expand the COPS program that in the past has been very effective, continues to be effective, but is largely underfunded – to see if we can get more incentives for local communities to apply some of the best practices and lessons that are embodied in this report.”

“But a lot of our work is going to involve local police chiefs, local elected officials, states recognizing that the moment is now for us to make these changes.”

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who gave rioters “space to destroy” property during the Baltimore riots and even told police to stand down, was one of only three mayors who provided broad input for the Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

“The federal government can be a strong partner in our efforts in build better relationships between the police and community,” she said in written testimony before the task force.

By allowing the Baltimore riots to spiral out of control, the mayor and the Justice Dept. were able to use the unrest to justify the federal expansion into local law enforcement.

Sheriff Clarke is definitely spot on with his warnings, then.

Follow on Twitter:
@RealAlexJones | @KitDaniels1776

Election Commission Dems Want Power to Regulate Conservative Media

Former Republican chairman charged his Democratic replacement with playing politics and trying to belittle foes to get her way
Election Commission Dems Want Power to Regulate Conservative Media

by Paul Bedard | Washington Examiner | May 11, 2015

Bristling at claims that GOP opposition has made the Federal Election Commission “worse than dysfunctional” in the eyes of the Democratic chairwoman, Republicans counter-charge that the left is frustrated because it hasn’t succeeded in regulating conservative Internet sites, media and right-leaning super PACs.

In an escalating fight on the politically-divided FEC, the former Republican chairman on Monday charged his Democratic replacement with playing politics and trying to belittle foes to get her way.

“In Washington, people have a way of vilifying anything they disagree with in the most unflattering labels,” wrote Republican Commissioner Lee E. Goodman in a column for Politico. It was in response to claims by Democratic Chair Ann Ravel that the GOP is thwarting her bid to clean up politics.

“Commissioner Ravel believes that there are too many instances where the commissioners have evenly divided their votes, and that the bipartisan safeguards that prevent one party from politicizing or misusing the agency to punish political enemies stand in the way of meaningful enforcement,” wrote Goodman.

Read more

America’s Main Problem: Corruption

The Cop Is On the Take
America’s Main Problem: Corruption

by Washington’s Blog | May 7, 2015

Preface: Sadly, in the month since we last posted on this topic, many new examples of corruption have arisen.

Government corruption has become rampant:

  • Senior SEC employees spent up to 8 hours a day surfing porn sites instead of cracking down on financial crimes
  • NSA spies pass around homemade sexual videos and pictures they’ve collected from spying on the American people
  • Investigators from the Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General found that some of the regulator’s employees surfed erotic websites, hired prostitutes and accepted gifts from bank executives … instead of actually working to help the economy
  • The Minerals Management Service – the regulator charged with overseeing BP and other oil companies to ensure that oil spills don’t occur – was riddled with “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity”, which included “sex with industry contacts
  • Agents for the Drug Enforcement Agency had dozens of sex parties with prostitutes hired by the drug cartels they were supposed to stop (they also received money, gifts and weapons from drug cartel members)
  • The former chief accountant for the SEC says that Bernanke and Paulson broke the law and should be prosecuted
  • The government knew about mortgage fraud a long time ago. For example, the FBI warned of an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud in 2004. However, the FBI, DOJ and other government agencies then stood down and did nothing. See this and this. For example, the Federal Reserve turned its cheek and allowed massive fraud, and the SEC has repeatedly ignored accounting fraud. Indeed, Alan Greenspan took the position that fraud could never happen
  • Paulson and Bernanke falsely stated that the big banks receiving Tarp money were healthy, when they were not. The Treasury Secretary also falsely told Congress that the bailouts would be used to dispose of toxic assets … but then used the money for something else entirely
  • Warmongerers in the U.S. government knowingly and intentionally lied us into a war of aggression in Iraq. The former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – the highest ranking military officer in the United States – said that the Iraq war was “based on a series of lies”. The same is true in Libya and other wars
  • In an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of wrongdoing – theDepartment of Justice told Bank of America to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks (and see this)
  • The Bush White House worked hard to smear CIA officers, bloggers and anyone else who criticized the Iraq war

The biggest companies own the D.C. politicians. Indeed, the head of the economics department at George Mason University has pointed out that it is unfair to call politicians “prostitutes”. They are in factpimps … selling out the American people for a price.

Government regulators have become so corrupted and “captured” by those they regulate that Americansknow that the cop is on the take. Institutional corruption is killing people’s trust in our government and our institutions.

Indeed, America is no longer a democracy or republic … it’s officially an oligarchy.

The allowance of unlimited campaign spending allows the oligarchs to purchase politicians more directly than ever. Moreover, there are two systems of justice in Americaone for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else.

Big Corporations Are Also Thoroughly Corrupt

But the private sector is no better … for example, the big banks have literally turned into criminal syndicates.

Wall Street and giant corporations are literally manipulating every single market.

And the big corporations are cutting corners to make an extra penny … wrecking havoc with their carelessness. For example:

We’ve Forgotten the Lessons of History

The real problem is that we need to learn a little history:

  • We’ve known for thousands of years that – when criminals are not punished – crime spreads
  • We’ve known for centuries that powerful people – unless held to account – will get together and steal from everyone else

Beyond Partisan Politics

Liberals and conservatives tend to blame our country’s problems on different factors … but they are all connected.

The real problem is the malignant, symbiotic relationship between big corporations and big government.

Federal Government Ordered to Explain Why it Needs a Cell Phone Kill Switch

Implementation of the policy was a reaction to the 2005 London subway bombing
Federal Government Ordered to Explain Why it Needs a Cell Phone Kill Switch

Image Credits: Creative Commons.

by Carey Wedler | The AntiMedia | April 29, 2015

Monday is the court-ordered deadline for the government to explain a secretive policy that allows it to use a “kill switch” on cell phone service among the population. The policy, adopted by the Department of Homeland Security in 2005, is called Standard Operating Procedure 303 and allows

“…for the orderly shut-down and restoration of wireless services during critical emergencies such as the threat of radio-activated improvised explosive devices.”

It allows the government to cut service “within a localized area, such as a tunnel or bridge, and within an entire metropolitan area.” The policy comes with a murky, questionable history.

The implementation of the policy was a reaction to the 2005 London subway bombing and was deemed necessary for national security. In 2005, all cell service in New York’s Hudson Tunnel was cut off for two weeks—a move that by the DHS’s own admission created

“disorder for both Government and the private sector at a time when use of the communications infrastructure was most needed.”

Due to the secrecy surrounding the policy, there is no concrete documentation to suggest that SOP 303 has been used to cut cell service. In 2011, however, all cell phone communication was cut on San Francisco’s BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit). This was done to disrupt a protest against a violent police officer who killed a homeless man. That same year, the White House claimed that the government had the right to

“control private communications systems in the United States during times of war or other national emergencies.”

In an effort to learn more about the justification for the BART shut down, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a FOIA request with DHS in July of 2012. DHS claimed it could not find any relevant documentation, leading EPIC to file a FOIA lawsuit. A lower federal court found the agency insufficiently complied with the request. By February of 2015, however, a higher court sided with a DHS appeal and ruled that

“the [DHS] permissibly withheld much, if not all of SOP 303, because its release…could reasonably be expected to endanger individuals’ lives or physical safety . . . .”

In spite of the federal government’s aggressive attempts to keep this information secret, EPIC filed a request last month for the court to revisit its decision, arguing that “if left in place, [it] would create an untethered ‘national security’ exemption.” This time, the court gave the government until this Monday, April 27, to explain the details of its policy, including under what conditions it may be implemented.

Alan Butler, a lawyer for EPIC, explained plainly that,

“We’re not asking for detailed information about how [SOP 303] works … but about the rationale and the policy guidelines.”

The push toward a “kill switch” has been building for years (and predates cell phones and the Internet). In July of 2012, Obama signed an Executive Order that “granted the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications.” In 2010, a Senate Subcommittee on “Homeland Security” approved a kill-switch for the Internet and in 2014, the House of Representatives introduced a cell phone kill switch bill in the name of preventing smartphone theft. In August of that same year, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill requiring all smart phones made after July 2015 to have a built in kill switch. The bill has been criticized for granting dangerous power to both law enforcement and hackers.

The use of a kill switch has also been lambasted for what some view as an inability to prevent terrorist attacks. In fact, previous terror attacks have relied not on cellular communication, but merely on an alarm clock built into a phone—which would be unaffected by the use of a kill switch.

The dangers of granting such broad authority to government seem not only abundant, but obvious. As seen in the 2011 BART instance, the state is more than willing to dismantle communication for reasons beyond national security. The power to disrupt the citizens’ right to organize protests against state action is an unconscionable effort to control the population and silence dissent. That the government is so resistant to explain this power is reason enough to distrust it.

As Howard Feld, Senior Vice President of Public Knowledge, a public advocacy group, pointed out,

“Understanding a policy should not compromise national security.”

The DHS stubbornly disagreed. Asked to explain the decision to withhold basic procedural information from the public on the program, it responded only with,

“We have no comment on this.”

Although the court-mandated deadline has come and gone — as of midnight yesterday — without a response from the government, this story will be updated when and if they ever decide to offer an explanation for the shrouded policy.

Baltimore Riots: Mayor Key Player In Takeover, Vietnam Vet Stands Up To Rioters, Police Ordered To Stand Down

Breaking: Baltimore Mayor Key Player in Obama’s Federal Takeover of Local Police

Mayor’s link to Justice Dept. explains why she gave rioters “space to destroy”
Breaking: Baltimore Mayor Key Player in Obama's Federal Takeover of Local Police

by Kit Daniels | | April 28, 2015

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who gave rioters “space to destroy” property and reportedly told police to stand down, was a key player in the Justice Dept.’s plan to expand federal control over local law enforcement.

Rawlings-Blake was one of three mayors who provided broad input into President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, which advocates the federalization of police departments across the country by forcing them to adhere to stricter federal requirements when they receive funding.


“The federal government can be a strong partner in our efforts in build better relationships between the police and community,” she said in written testimony before the task force.

That would explain her inaction to stop the rioting when it began: by allowing it to spiral out of control, the mayor and her friends at the Justice Dept. could use the unrest to justify the expansion of federal power into local law enforcement, which would also allow her to receive more funding.


President Obama said the Task Force on 21st Century Policing is “directed at the 18,000 law enforcement jurisdictions that are out there.”

“I’m going to be asking Eric Holder and the Justice Department and his successor to go through all these recommendations so that we can start implementing them,” he said. “I know that one area that’s going to be of great interest is whether we can expand the COPS program that in the past has been very effective, continues to be effective, but is largely underfunded – to see if we can get more incentives for local communities to apply some of the best practices and lessons that are embodied in this report.”

And Rawlings-Blake was more than willing to apply these “best practices” in exchange for federal funding.

“Our police commanders are constantly seeking additional dollars, both to develop best practices and to then teach those practices to our officers and our developing leaders,” she also said. “If there is any place where the federal government and U.S. Department of Justice could produce a tangible impact on our officers and our efforts, it would be to provide more resources in this area.”

Follow on Twitter:
@RealAlexJones | @KitDaniels1776


Video: Brave Vietnam Vet Stands Up To Rioting ‘Children’ In Baltimore

“I love my country. I love my Charm City. I’m not black, white, red, yellow or nothing”
Video: Brave Vietnam Vet Stands Up To Rioting 'Children' In Baltimore

by Steve Watson | InfoWars | April 28, 2015

Amidst the chaos in Baltimore, one proud American decided enough was enough and stepped in front of police lines to confront and shame hoodlum rioters into going home.

CNN cameras captured the man, a Vietnam veteran named Robert Valentine, taking a stand against the violent thugs the media ludicrously continues to refer to as ‘protesters’.

“I’ve seen violence… They need to have their butts at home. They need to be in their home units with their families studying and doing something with their life.” Valentine told the reporter.

The rioters, described as ‘children’, by CNN reporter Joe Johns, taunted Valentine, and hurled rocks and bricks at him and the police.

Valentine stood his ground, however, gesticulating back and yelling at the rioters to go home.

Valentine said he was “Just a soldier” standing up for his city and his country against those who wish to tear it down.

“I did 30 years, okay, came out a Master Sergeant.” Valentine said. “‘I’ve seen more than all this. I’ve been through the riots already.” he added.

“I love my country. I love my Charm City. I’m not black, white, red, yellow or nothing,” the brave veteran added.

Valentine added the rioters and looters are “do not respect this young man’s death,” referring to 25-year-old Freddie Gray, who died following a brutal an altercation with police last week.

Valentine’s actions were lauded on social media, and he was widely praised:

Of course, the US government and the DHS would have Americans believe that veterans like Valentine constitute one of the biggest threats to their safety and to society in general.

Others who understand that mindless rioting will only give police more incentive to crack skulls, have also been taking a stand and attempting to stop the chaos.

video has surfaced of another man brave man stepping in between police and rioters in an attempt to prevent violence.

‘Don’t! Do not give them reason,’ the man can be heard telling the crowd. “You can’t give them reason! Listen to me, do not give them a reason.”

It is clear that the majority of the so called ‘protesters’ are very young disaffected people who simply want to cause trouble and damage property. These people are causing the very serious issue of police brutality to become an afterthought.

One child was seen being reprimanded by his mother for taking part in the mob violence.

He was then shamed as he followed her home down the street, presumably with his pocket money for this week being suspended.


Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’, and He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

Report: Mayor Ordered Police to Stand Down During Baltimore Riots

Cops told not to stop looting

by Paul Joseph Watson | April 28, 2015

Police officers in Baltimore reportedly told journalists that they were ordered by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake not to stop looters during yesterday’s riots.

Rawlings-Blake, who waited 5 hours before even making a statement on the unrest, was already under intense critcism for saying that violent mobs were provided with “space” to “destroy” during riots which took place on Saturday.

Facebook @
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of and Prison

Montana Nullifies Federalization of State Law Enforcement

Prevents law enforcement from being bribed by the offer of military grade weapons from the federal government, as well
Montana Nullifies Federalization of State Law Enforcement

by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. | The New American | April 27, 2015

On April 23, Montana Governor Steve Bullock signed a law protecting his state’s law enforcement from being converted into an arm of a federal police force.

Not only does House Bill 330 protect the independence of Montana’s law enforcement, but it prevents it from being bribed by the offer of military grade weapons from the federal government, as well.

Section 1 of the new law declares:

A law enforcement agency may not receive the following property from a military equipment surplus program operated by the federal government:

(a) drones that are armored, weaponized, or both;

(b) aircraft that are combat configured or combat coded;

(c) grenades or similar explosives and grenade launchers;

(d) silencers; or

(e) militarized armored vehicles.

Section 2 sets additional barriers along the road toward federalization:

If a law enforcement agency purchases property from a military equipment surplus program operated by the federal government, the law enforcement agency may only use state or local funds for the purchase. Funds obtained from the federal government may not be used to purchase property from a military equipment surplus program.

 This provision refers to the “1033 program” established by the Department of Defense that sells surplus military weapons, vehicles, and technology to local law enforcement at a discount price. The idea, of course, being that once a police department or sheriff’s office becomes a recipient of this martial materiel, it is a de facto dependent of the federal government.

The Pentagon isn’t the exclusive provider of formerly federal arms and equipment, however. The Department of Homeland Defense (DHS) is another rich source of federal largesse.

Read more